Cannabis Ruderalis

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have been reverted, as seen here [6][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].
Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Considering the diffs presented here, it's clear to me they are here to right great wrongs instead of helping build an encyclopedia. As such, I've blocked them indef. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive editing issue from User:Comp.arch, Ignoring Talk Page Consensus[edit]

Hi, there's been a significant issue around User:Comp.arch ignoring the talk page consensus established on and then making highly disruptive edits that require combing through the article. (and can't be simply reverted due to conflicts)

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[26]]

A consensus was already established by a 50+ comment length talk page (and another talk section). With consensus both before and after Penny was charged. With the overwhelming consensus to include the name. They had no basis to make these changes.

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[27]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

They also broke WP:3RR today. Effectively they've been edit warring while others have been trying improve the article.

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[32]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

Overall it's an issue of disruptive editing and WP:NPOV.

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm involved as I voted in the RfC on whether to include the name, but I'm not seeing a particularly clear consensus (certainly not "overwhelming consensus") to include the name there. The more recent discussion has more clear support for including the name, but that didn't start until after Comp.arch's edit removing the name.
As for "removing a key detail" that Neely was choked from behind, the article still included that after Comp.arch's edit. Comp.arch removed it from the lead. Whether or not it should be in the lead seems to me a legitimate content question which should be discussed on the talkpage, not a matter for ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the key detail they did in fact remove it from the article bulk with a second edit right after the main one which I had to reintroduce.LoomCreek (talk)
Thanks for reintroducing it, it was a mistake on my part. I was fixing a "bad sentence" I left behind in my other edit, I honestly felt like I was quickly fixing grammar, so I used minor edit checkbox. The part, "from behind" is for sure true, will most likely be brought up at trial. Stating it with his name, what I was getting rid of, per WP:BLPCRIME, makes him look very bad. Without his name in the article I fully support having that phrase in (so my mistake). With his name in the article, then yes it's the truth, but then I'm not sure what to say, we are naming a person doing such apparently bad behaviour. I don't know if it's taught to the Marines to restrain people. It may be the best way. comp.arch (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And re. 3RR, the edit history of that page is pretty fast-moving at the moment, so it's even more important than usual that you provide diffs! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our policy is very clear: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime
This comment is independent of any opinion on Comp.arch's behaviour; he/she may need sanctioning.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to confuse things, there are now 2 separate sections on the talk page where editors are !voting

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's my fault. In a bit of a rush to defuse what I sensed might become a heated situation, I acted too quickly. If any smarter folks have a good plan for combining or otherwise helping out, I would certainly be all for it. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I have recused myself from this for a while, since I have been arguing directly with comp.arch and didn't feel as though my opinions would be appropriate, it appears that in this edit, the user struck out another's comment because of, by their own admission, a dispute over policy interpretation. This, IN COMBINATION WITH their persistent inclusion of long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citations, a meaningful amount of which do not apply to the situation (though admittedly some could easily be misinterpreted) or have repeatedly been addressed and accepted, indicate a potential WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation.
Because of my closeness to the argument, I want to be clear that I am not accusing the editor of intentionally "not getting it" or text-walling to make replying to their posts difficult. I DO believe that they are being bold and adamant about their position, but possibly to the point of disruption. PriusGod (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[33], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe you quoted any essays, but there were edit summaries and Talk comments in which you cited essays and guidelines. Regardless, policies and guidelines are not a strict hierarchy, and essays can be a useful way to demonstrate one's interpretation of a specific policy - treating them as though they are irrelevant, or that a policy is always stronger than a guideline and citations of essays have no place in policy disputes is a very effective way to build a lot of ill will towards yourself, and is the core reason why I characterize your behavior in this situation as wikilawyering. Once again, I believe that you have no intent to that end, but that is how your actions are coming across. PriusGod (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take that good pointer you have into account. I try to be very careful when I revert, I've then never done it citing an essay only; I've cited policy and pointed out, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF additionally in that revert, as not an argument that my revert was wrong. I recall I ran out of space in that edit summary. It sometimes happens when I want to be extra careful. comp.arch (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[34] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.
In NY Times "spent 15 months in jail, the police said" was in the article as some alternative to incarceration, and it's one of the things I changed, quoting the source, and got reverted back to that supposed alternative. I believe I've been improving the article at every turn, I often back down and keep stuff left out or such (seeming) misinfo to persist, to not revert too much. I don't believe I'm the most trigger-happy with the reverts. I assume WP:good_faith of all involved, but that is not assumed by me, or was put into doubt in an edit summary. I'm not sure it belongs there, but I immediately took note of it. On 3RR I see WP:NOT3RR: "7. Removing contentious material that is libelous [..]". In my timezone, I'm not sure I did many reverts per day. I often use revert to actually notify the other person if I believe mistaken or violating policy to give them heads up, as a courtesy. Everyone makes mistakes, if I did I apologize. E.g. omitting "from behind" wasn't actually my intention. I didn't recall that one, [EDIT: I see I actually didn't DID do that, as misreported above about me. Thanks for pointing it out.] I spent a LOT of time on that edit (summary; that I felt very important), and others, looking stuff up. comp.arch (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea what's going on with this editor but this... I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page. It's not comp.arch's role as an editor to strike other editor's comments because they disagree. This is bizarre behavior and I asked comp.arch to leave my edits alone. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to note that you're citing #7 under 3RRNO, specifically the exception about "libelous" material - in terms of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, saying the man's name and noting that he has been charged is not libelous because it is truthful. That being said, I don't feel as though you were warring over that, anyway, just that the specific way you scrubbed his name resulted in very clunky grammar (and at times as-of-then unsourced additions). PriusGod (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, yes, the claimed 3RR came before me reporting to oversight, but it was taken seriously (and the "murder" redirect dropped). I don't feel like the number of reverts in which 24 period is the most important matter (I realize it's a bright line), I'm not going to start counting, people will just need to be specific and I can look into it. BLP policy allows you to be bold when there is a violation, and I just believe I've been moving quickly. In some cases possibly too quickly, and BLP or NOT3RR may not always have applied, as any excuse. comp.arch (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comp.arch struck another editor's comments from the RfC yesterday (Sangdeboeuf's). I have restored and documented it here. This was three days after striking Nemov's comment and being warned about it.

I also believe that comp.arch's comments in this section and the associated edits to the main article are pertinent to this discussion. Combefere Talk 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I believe there's enough here to warrant some kind of sanction. The editor has been counting votes in that RfC, striking other editor's comments, and removing other editor's comments. It's clear there's a behavioral problem and I had hoped that this discussion would help deter future bad behavior, but apparently it's not happening. Nemov (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tend to agree. The scale, scope, and contradictory nature of the disruptive edits — removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP, while at the same time persistently inventing POV-pushing derogatory language that violates BLP, without trying to build consensus, breaking 3RR, forcing other editors to create an RfC to respond to the disruptive edits, then flooding the RfC with wall-of-text and I-can't-hear-you type comments, and removing multiple comments of editors who disagree with them, after being warned to stop, all on a politically charged article about an ongoing event — stretch the limit of one's ability to AGF. But regardless of comp.arch's intentions, the disruption simply needs to stop. Combefere Talk 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "removing multiple comments of editors who disagree" is I feel the most serious untrue allegation here. I deleted ONE by accident, and struck out, i.e. overstricking, basically highlighted his comment, a disruptive comment because IT was disrupting the RfC process, while notifying that user. So how is two, multiple? "removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP", was that his name? Please be very specific in all allegations. comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "So how is two, multiple?" I believe this is my cue to disengage. Combefere Talk 07:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I was doing my best to be polite and genuinely did believe at the time that the editor's behavior was simply overbearing and not malicious and warranted only a warning - but a second talk page comment removal, ESPECIALLY an opposing vote on an RfC is frankly beyond the pale. Not to mention that they said on their talk page they were refraining from participating in the conversation, then continued on. I agree with Combefere, AGF is strained here and the conversation needs to be allowed to continue without being interfered with like this. Edit 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC): I've addressed in my comment in the "Discussion" section below that I'm aware the removal was not intentional. If anyone is going to use my statements as part of their rationale for a !vote or an action, please read that comment first, as it affects what I've said about AGF in this situation. PriusGod (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have not "been counting votes in that RfC", I explicitly stated it's not a vote, but I did count, yes, the opposition, 7, to show that there was no consensus; and to not show a possibly meaningless number (or some might have argued), in case a tiny minority, I also counted support, and calculated 37% opposing, at that point. comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is some mighty fine hair-splitting. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders [.. and screamed] he would hurt anyone on the train. [..] Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well."[35] so my very first edit was on that. That is going to be the killer's best defence and many other (now also dropped) potentially very interesting details, that I would be adding if I were disrupting/not trying to build consensus. What was, and is, kept in the lead is that a white named man killed a black man, because that's well true (and obvious, but arguably not any reason for anything), while a very WP:NPOV way to summarize in the lead, that way, with none of the reasons that could explain why he (the man with criminal felony history, documented in the main text, assaulting the elderly) got killed. That is why I at least (and others) want his name out of the lead (and in fact from the whole article; also other reasons). The killer is presumed innocent, so I would think no negative info or opinion, should be attached to his name, but at least until the article becomes neutral, his name should be out. In that article "Some are now calling for justice for Neely, who was homeless and struggled with mental illness, and for the person who was initially hailed as a Good Samaritan to be arrested." People revert me on mental issues for the lead, when it's literally there in that news sentence with homeless, which is NOT a synonym, but is a WP:WEASEL word for many for mentally ill; and it's better to just state that. Have I backed off? Yes, me and LoomCreek have a healthy editing disagreement I would think, and LoomCreek's ANI was an overreaction (also that non-good-faith claim). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch[edit]

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.
2. Striking, modifying, and deleting other editor's comments.

Asking this editor to modify their behavior isn't working. I was leaning TBAN, but I'm not sure how it would be applied at this time. Given the number of edits that Comp.arch has made on that RfC a temp block would be wise for the editor to get the point. - Nemov (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging users from the above discussions. Nemov (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LoomCreek @Caeciliusinhorto-public @A._B. @ Dumuzid @PriusGod @Combefere

Survey (Comp.arch)[edit]

  • Support Editor doesn't seem to be learning a lesson and continues to ignore direction. Based on the comment below I'm not sure this is heading in a positive direction. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with @Combefere[36], something is seriously amiss with the editor and I would also support WP:SBAN. Nemov (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I really don't want to spend time defending myself here more, just feel it might be part of the process. I want[ed] to edit; (e.g.) page on, presumed innocent, person, so he has a fair Wikipedia page (it still isn't). And I did, well still do, think the best way for a non-public/non-notable person to have a fair page, is to not have one in his name (well his name in it; before it named him basically in Wikivoice as a murderer), until found guilty (of his non-murder charge), where people are e.g. naming him a person doing lynching, from WP:UNDUE Twitter source. The news shouldn't have named him, but at least they do not include such an opinion, on their pages. For all I know they got his name from Wikipeda not the other way around. I'm thinking of the precedent. How low is the bar on WP: How minor does the charge have to be do add a person's name to WP? comp.arch (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per my comments above and below. Combefere Talk 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In light of comp.arch doubling down on the bigotry above, I suggest an indefinite SBAN. There is no reason that editors should be expected to put up with this. See WP:HID. At the absolute least, there should be indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness. Combefere Talk 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course it's not bigotry when, to explain where I'm coming from in this ANI trial of mine, I point to a police report/WP:RS news source. I thought you said and meant to "disengage" from the ANI, when you admitted your untruth about me. You may have joined in 2021, but SBAN, even temporary, is not called for, when I'm a top-3000 editor; edit more than 99.975% of users, for over 10 years, rarely reverted, and you are the first person to ever accuse me of bigotry/hate in or out of Wikipedia. It feels very uncivil. comp.arch (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I would agree with Prius I think a WP:TBAN would be appropriate. I was hoping it was something which could be resolved, which is why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate. Alongside bludgeoning there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see: [37] [38][39]. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see:" I request all look at those three completely good-faith edits (and in fact all my edits of the article, to get non-biased view of my edit history of that page). I am completely in the dark about why you cite [ WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch ] editorial. I added no such words. E.g. what I added (in the parenthesis) "She further labeled the killing (before charges were filed) as a "lynching" (which he later denied with "I’m not a white supremacist" in an interview after becoming a defendant, and stated the case had noting to to with race)". I can see why you moved his response elsewhere in the article, under his name, and I didn't complain at all. To call this "disruptive editing" puts what you state about me very much into doubt, and I'm starting to feel you <CENSORED> me, without knowing me at all. I assumed him defending his name should be close to the libel in the response section, ok, your view is he's not part of the community, but maybe he is? He lives in NY... comp.arch (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You added uncited information in parenthesis. Which were not in the original sources of the rest of the sentence. Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids that type of synthesis in the vast majority of cases, which WP:Editorial covers even if it's not the main focus. It also violated WP:OR through the combination and lack of sourcing. I did not censor I simply made the appropriate correction. Disruptive edits don't have to be in bad faith, they only have to be disruptive, which they were.
    I'm sure your a fine editor for other pages, but here you simply don't listen to consensus and continually have bludgeoned. Wasting people's time and energy in the talk page when it could be spent doing something more useful. Listing your points over and over in slightly different wording. And attacking others personally when they disagree with you (such as did just now in the comment above).
    At this point it's very clear this is not something you can let go and simply don't care its steamrolling over other editors in process. LoomCreek (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've not ever attacked people ("personally"). I'll clarify.
    "why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate." It feels very inappropriate to me as the next move, "we" didn't have "plenty of talk page discussions", I hadn't; started in talk on 22 May 2023 and you started the ANI at on the 17th. I see 5 bullet points at the top of the page here: WP:AN/I (under) "Before posting a complaint about a user on this page" and seemingly you ignored them all, at least some of the points for sure, e.g. 3 points: "Want to skip the drama?", you never talked to me on my Talk page, about any issue, nor tried WP:Dispute resolution (policy): "Disagreements on Wikipedia are normal; editors will frequently disagree with each other, particularly on content decisions."
    I felt with that last comment you made, all three examples you gave were especially bad, so that I felt you were going into in-civil territory. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL: "First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." I did. "Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offence was unintended." Here I must clarify, I'm not claiming you censored me (I'm ok with you dropping minor points, I don't actually want to discuss e.g. the funeral. All my points were WP:V and that one also in WP:RS that I yes seemingly left out citing). What I was censoring out was, "I'm starting to feel you [I censored out words that come to mind, that I think you might feel about me] me," I'm trying to restrain my feelings as much as possible, and not state them, but I see now it's actually considered better to state them. What I feel, especially with SBAN named, is allowed, and stating feelings is not a [WP:]personal attack. This ANI makes me sad. I feel you (people) are taking away my main purpose in life (when I die the only things that live on are my unpaid edits/writing), and people will not even know it's me) and only hobby. I'm not sure I even want to be part of a club that doesn't want me as a member.
    If you're so "sure [I'm] a fine editor for other pages" then you wouldn't support SBAN. See also the other comment, if it influenced you, and my response. comp.arch (talk)
    I'm also not entirely opposed to a WP:SBAN though sockpuppetry and other ban evasions will have to be carefully watched in that case (which to be fair is also pretty true for TBANS). I would support a WP:SBAN, I'm stating it more explicitly to make my position clear. At this point I think the bare minimum is indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness as @Combefere said. LoomCreek (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear this not a simple "disagreement" of opinion between me and comp.arch. Their pushing of derogatory language in the article, and doubling down on those bigotries is harmful & disturbing.
    Per WP:HID I think a WP:SBAN is the most appropriate move. Their ability to neutrally edit at this point is highly doubtful and makes the space unwelcome to other editors. LoomCreek (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Comp.arch)[edit]

  • I have not answered for all the untruths in the original unexpected ANI. I'm not even sure if I'm expected to answer here. And now for this Proposal from Nemov:
Nobody asked me to change behavior [EDIT: before the ANI, I though would be clear if full sentence read. See rest here:] (one allegation of not acting in good faith, then bam ANI; I assume good faith of all in 10+ years, and others of me until now)?! Is that implicit in ANI? Not sure what TBAN is.
2. No modifying of editor's comments; except that one time when you claimed BLP was a guideline, and I edited it to policy (I stopped even editing other's others typos, such as yours above [EDIT: My point was I would have, help others that way, no longer dare to even touch those]. That was the same edit I struck out your comment to make it obvious to you, and others, by notifying you so that you could simply fix it. I deleted one comment by honest mistake. If we're going to do an RfC (or ANI), bringing up policy then it needs to fair, not lies about it (I didn't claim you were doing that intentionally, but seems disingenuous what you're doing now). I've never participated in an ANI before, in my over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing, let alone mine, so do I need to read those policies too, or get a lawyer to defend, or just abandon Wikipedia?
Your incredible Support comment in an RfC with untruth that I struck out is here. I.e. "WP:BLP guidelines", no, they are polices. You point to an RfC with "No consensus to include for now." and you do not support doing the same, rather ignore that precedent, if you will, which was for a double murder of kids, rather than follow it for the non-murder (i.e. second-degree manslaughter; negligence), then following WP policies is too dogmatic! There's no consensus on including the name, there's actually non-consensus (3% against including by my last count), and also bias in the articlee.g. see here, I would claim I'm not the one with WP:NPOV, others are, and people, not just me, claim that.
1. I've participated in RfC, that was started after ANI (and almost stopped editing the article itself after ANI), there was no RfC or consensus before, none to ignore, I read all edit summaries and in case I'm reverted. Should I read talk pages before anyone reverts me? comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really interested in further discussing your simple content dispute grievances. You're still justifying your behavioral problems which only strengthens the case for sanctions. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointed remarks such as I stopped even editing other's [sic] typos, such as yours above (emphasis mine) are very transparently bitter and serve no purpose other than to antagonize or insult other editors. This falls especially flat when that comment, pointing out the typos of others, has a typo in it. Someone proud of their over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing should be aware how big of a no-no it is to modify another's talk page posts without permission. Without wanting to pick apart everything in this comment, I'd caution you that between your attitude and trying to get out of this squeaky-clean by only admitting the bare minimum fault, you're unlikely to get you the result you want. It's my belief that if you want to continue to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in the ways and places you want to, you would benefit greatly from a softened attitude and some humility. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will admit all of my faults here, if that's the point of the trial here. I want the trial to be fair, people not misrepresenting what I've actually done. WP:NOT3RR also has other exceptions, e.g. for "bias". I believed I was doing a good job editing the article until LoomCreek stated he no longer believed in my good faith (in an edit summary). Have I done a single edit on the actual page since then, he (or others) disagree with? He followed up straight away with ANI. I believed he did that in good faith (and I thanked him for it), and I still believe he did that that. But I didn't see him bring up a point that is valid (at that time), me breaking a policy; or if he thinks so, which wasn't allowed by exception, so he was simply mistaken. I believe I've always backed down on editing the page. For the Talk page, have I bean obsessive, YES! This ANI didn't help with that. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Nobody asked me to change behavior" – I did, on 5/17. Nemov did, on 5/18. LoomCreek did on 5/18. PriusGod did on 5/18. A.B. did on 5/19.
After all of these requests to change your behavior, you have continued to overwhelm the talk page with walls of text full of misapplied links to wiki policies, and hyperbolic misrepresentations of other editors' comments. had to ask you to drop the stick again today. Combefere Talk 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am willing to believe that it was an honest mistake to remove the other editor's talk page comment, but comp.arch, if you, a veteran editor with a decade's worth of experience and good contributions to the project, are getting so worked up that you end up accidentally deleting people's comments in an RfC, I don't think it is healthy for you to continue to be a part of this discussion. You've cited enough policy and made enough arguments for anyone who comes to the RfC to be convinced, if they ever will be. Do remember that much of (I am aware that that there some cut-and-dry rules) WP policy is not set in stone and not to be obeyed as law, and that the specific content policy that is in dispute at this article has a long history of being hotly debated and recognized as ambiguously written from both people who want it to be stricter and those who want it to be more lenient. PriusGod (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, it might not be healthy (for my mental health), to discuss at talk, and well here. I'm thinking of taking a 3-4 week break from that article, and would request that nothing is decided on ANI, while I'm also away from this ANI. [I still feel I need to point out untruths about me here, at least if blatant/relevant.] comp.arch (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comp.arch, let me just say I think this is a beneficial idea. In many underlying substantive ways, I actually agree with you. But where I differ is that I believe many (if not most!) decisions on Wikipedia are not susceptible to a black-and-white, all-or-nothing analysis. Policies certainly exist, but there will always be differences of opinion on how they should be applied, and reasonable minds can differ in good faith. I try to always be clear about my opinions, but I find myself in the minority plenty, and that's okay. I have a certain level of faith that, over time, Wikipedia gets things close to right. That said, all the best to you and a Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can we postpone this ANI (temp) block proposal? I've not edited that only page, Killing of Jordan Neely, I'm accused of being NPOV on, nor its talk page, for a week, and I intent to stay away from it, to show good-faith, and its (current, only) RfC; for at least 3-4 more weeks to allow consensus to form without (further of) my involvement. Any block will be appealed, however minor, but if people do not trust me then please go ahead with WP:SELFBLOCK for that page only (and its talk page, I'm ok with), for 4 weeks max, i.e. ending in June, assuming it doesn't go on my good record, i.e. block list. The page is even currently without my involvement considered "censored" by someone not involved with me[40] and the lead "decidedly un-encyclopedic".[41], and I agree. According to HuffPo: "Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said Friday in court that “several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers” and repeats elderly person-of-color statement, from "the Post published the account of an unidentified 66-year-old who claimed Neely had said, “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.” The woman said Penny had asked her and another rider to give their accounts to authorities. Penny, the source said, “did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was... threatening the passengers.” so it's clear other people are "excluding" info and admitting to it. comp.arch (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're still arguing the content here, so no, there is no reason to postpone this. Your behavior is continuing, even off that page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause disruption at GAN[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ErnestKrause started a review at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 on May 10. Rather than reviewing the article, ErnestKrause objected to the fact that each individual Federalist paper has its own article, and then complained about the main Federalist Papers article. ErnestKrause then proceeded to make this absurd comment objecting to the nominator changing the assessment for the article from start to B after massively improving it, inventing fake policy that says this is strictly forbidden, saying I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.

In a clearly retaliatory act for the nominator refusing to bow to his spurious demands unrelated to Federalist No. 2, ErnestKrause immediately quickfailed Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1 with a copy-paste message, full of absurdities. According to ErnestKrause, two articles over 1,000 words long and plentiful citations are still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. Both quickfails concluded with this statement, which I don't even need to explain the issues with: When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed.

When challenged at WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [42] [43] which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie [44]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [45] that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ErnestKrause? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm concerned about Ernest's claim that The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves.
It's true that any editor who has not contributed significantly to an article is welcome to review it for GA (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles. I and others have spent years reassuring editors that they really are trusted to rate all the way from Stub-class to B-class all by themselves, and it's really disheartening to have someone actively spreading misinformation and then basically punishing an editor who did the right thing. So just to make sure this is clear: Thebiguglyalien, you are allowed to assess any article you want, up through and including B-class, you are encouraged to assess articles that you have improved, and if you ever run into a dispute about this again, then the official guideline on Wikipedia:Content assessment says it's okay for you to assess articles that you improve, and if that's not sufficient proof, then there's usually someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council who will be willing to intervene (or leave a note on my own talk page, and I will). This kind of making up fake rules really has to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause disruptive at WT:GAN and elsewhere[edit]

information I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, having been persistently disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis) who initially replied.

ErnestKrause posted a long response to that section, arguing that he had acted with the agreement and consent of two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia. The "agreement" from Z1720 consisted of absolutely nothing at all, a fact which Z1720 pointed out in this lengthy and precise response—every single mention of Z1720 in ErnestKrause's response was in fact either some sort of misrepresentation or an outright fabrication. The "agreement" from Cecropia consists solely of (and no, I am not joking) an example table outlined by that user on 10 Jun 2004. Shortly afterwards, Mr rnddude posted a comment explaining how ErnestKrause has done this before at this discussion.

In both of his responses in the above-linked section, ErnestKrause has declined to address any of the issues other editors have brought up—or indeed reply at all on his talk page, in a classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Instead, he has persisted in accusing others of bad faith (for example: "The difficulty remains that BigAlien has fully refused to discuss this issue", "I'm conscious of the fact that there of six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances", etc.) and showing absolutely no understanding of basic WP:CONSENSUS. I was reluctant to come here, but the constant stonewalling and disruptiveness has forced my hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Remark: I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reportsAlalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a GAN ban, given his previous good work and lack of serious problems in that area. Also, it's possible that some of his inaccurate statements, e.g. claiming that Z1720 agreed with him on the Federalist issue, are caused by honest misunderstandings. I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you think it's fine that he tried to invent fake policy and has yet to admit doing so was wrong? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Invention would suggest a deliberate act... he may simply have wrongly assumed that the prohibition against an editor elevating their own work to GA status also applied to B-class. He hasn't explained his reasoning so far. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the problem, isn't it? He refuses to explain what he was thinking or made any assurances it won't happen in the future, instead disappearing. I did not support a topic ban until 3 days had passed with EK refusing to engage further here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, a simple "Whoops, my bad" could have gone a long way; perhaps still could, although I think by now more might be needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I really can't follow Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs), although I understand and to some degree sympathize with their position. Ernest Krause has a good track record, up to this point. His mishandled this situation, badly, and then disappeared without admitting fault (or retracting various accusations) when everyone disagreed with him. It's okay to be wrong, and it ought to be okay to admit when you've made a mistake. Anyone who holds that admission against you isn't thinking of the project's best interests. I won't oppose a topic ban from the Good Article process, but I think it's a little strong. I do think Ernest Krause ought to receive the equivalent of a yellow card: you made a mistake, you're on notice that you handled this poorly, and if this comes up again something will actually be done about it (topic ban or what have you). Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with this on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a warning will achieve consensus, I'll support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I support this as well. I agree Ernest Krause has been uncooperative since the matter was brought up, but would like him to have a chance to show through his actions that he gets it. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization[edit]

I’m not heavily involved in the MOS:CAPS discussion for sports pages, but I ran into this editor a few months ago attempting to make capitalization changes to baseball articles. This isn’t a topic I feel strongly about and on merits Dicklyon may even be correct. The issue is Dicklyon’s WP:BATTLEGROUND edits on this topic. Others can speak more specifically, but capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. In the current Hockey RfC, Dicklyon asked for a WP:SNOW close after four days when there was still ongoing discussions and even did a close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[46] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, capitalization is a topic about which I have strong feelings, and yes I asked for a snow close of that RFC, and yes I drafted a self-report (aiming for AN, not ANI, since there's no ongoing activity of relevance). Just waiting for that RFC to close. If the decision is to grant a hockey-specific exception to MOS:CAPS, I'll chalk that up as a loss; but it looks to me like that idea has been roundly rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read over the Hockey RfC and I'm not seeing a problem that requires intervention, administrative or otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nemov: This ping of yours is very non-neutral canvassing. If you'd ping the rest of the participants in that RFC, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those were participants in the Project that were discussing bringing an ANI case who have a longer history on this topic. If you wish I can alert the entire project. That's within the guidelines. You pinged several of us with that draft. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH; it’s only natural that Nemov pinged those of us frequently involved in the project and as a result having to frequently deal with your overzealousness. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We bar canvassing for the precise reason that it tends to be effective, and making consensus-based discussions a numbers game clouds the issue. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS needs to be removed permanently. It's clearly intended as soft canvassing. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the contrary, it's a neutral centralized listing for everyone (i.e. a noticeboard) of discussions involving the site-wide guideline in question, and it serves the excellent purpose of countering in-wikiproject groupthink that in previous times was abused to thwart guidelines applying to particular topics, sometimes for years at a time and to great deals of WP:DRAMA which we now largely avoid.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Nemov seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Dicklyon, in my experience, displays just the right temperament to shepherd through changes to capping in line with our style guides. He has long experience in the area, and approaches it professionally. This thread is entirely unnecessary and a waste of admins' time. Tony (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. And: Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. And: I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. ... De[c]apitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. And: It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight whenever the topic of capitalization — capitalization, for God's sake — comes up, consistently demeaning the opinions of people who care about the actual subject at hand, one subject after another, for years, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. Saying that it's acceptable to argue "for a codified exception" on a MOS Talk page rather than make a case at an article's Talk page is petty wiki-lawyering. Dismissing others' concerns as "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" histrionics while failing to consider the beam in one's own eye is... oh, what's the point? XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Whenever the topic of capitalization...comes up" simply is not what happens. Only a vanishingly small number of editors go into this "I'm gonna fight until I feel demoralized" mode, and they're almost entirely confined to sports and a handful of other topics that attract an obsessive fandom. If everyone who didn't get their way in some discussion or other could claim they were "demeaned" and turn it into another "pillory my evil enemy again and again until I finally get them censored" ANI, then WP would have imploded the month it began. PS: You're misunderstanding my point. I'll rephrase it: If editors from some topical wikiproject are tired of RMs that raise the same sort of capitalization issue, enough to go on yet another ANI witch-hunt, then they should seek a topical exception in the guideline and see if consensus agrees with them (e.g. notice how we have codified exceptions like capitalizing the names of standard chess openings, etc.). Of course I don't mean that RM should not be used in the first place; 99.9% of these kinds of questions are settled at RM. This "death to Dicklyon" shtick is in the 0.01% zone.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like WP:RM, and open discussions on broader issues at an appropriate venue, like WT:MOSCAPS (and even at venues where opinion is apt to be stacked against him, like WT:HOCKEY). The only interesting thing about this ANI report is that it's part of a long pattern of trying to abuse noticeboards to "get rid of an opponent" by editors who are bent on pursuing the WP:Specialized-style fallacy to over-capitalize things that pertain to their pet topics. One of the main reasons we have site-wide style guidelines and naming conventions is that various vociferous participants in topical wikiprojects (especially but not limited to sports ones) again and again refuse to approach capitalization and some other style matters with civility and with our broad readership in mind, and perpetually engage in special pleading fallacies to try to get weird exceptions that cannot be properly supported by independent reliable source material. That is the actual behavioral problem. PS: I just remembered I addressed pretty much this entire thread in an essay a long time ago; the most pertinent part is WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[54] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[55] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[56] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[57] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah, I see we're repeating Talk:Red_Line_(MBTA), Talk:Boylston Street subway, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_31#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations... I'll note that I disagreed with Dicklyon in that last thread, and I still think I was right — not that MOS:CAPS should be ignored, but that its proper application would imply capitals where he doesn't want them. But the conversation was so unpleasant that I gave up... which seems to be how consensus about these (largely frivolous) matters is determined. My condolences to those reopening the old wounds. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese". XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a reason that MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No surprise the usual suspects showed up to support. There must be off-wiki coordination between these guys. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry.

As for Dick, his constant failure to distinguish between uncreative proper names and mere descriptions shows a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar and shows he shouldn't be involved in this crusade of his in the first place. Not to mention the bludgeoning of discussions, inability to accept that others who disagree with him do care about articles (and thereby failure to adhere to the policy of WP:AGF) and practice of continuing to make edits and move pages even after objections have been raised and discussion is still ongoing are incredibly un-collaborative behaviors. He needs to learn that he's not automatically right.

Plus his "evidence" usually consists of an n-grams search. A product of Google. His employer. That's a conflict-of-interest issue. One that needs to stop. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I watch Dicklyon's activity closely, because he is so frequently attacked, along with all of MoS and the editors who work on it, by the same little WP:GANGs of topical-wikiproject blowhards. The "usual suspects" here are you and the few other anti-guideline activists. You don't need to agree with Dicklyon and his understanding of English. You need to stop denying the evidence he brings to bear. Properly constructed n-grams are precisely the kind of evidence that is of use in such debates. If sources independent of your pet topic are not overwhelmingly capitalizing something, then WP will not either. See first three sentences of MOS:CAPS. And "areas they've never edited before" is just more WP:OWN nonsense. Typographic cleanup across the entire encyclopedia, regardless of topic, is an activity for anyone, and it is precisely because of wikiproject-originating "special exceptionalism" that such cleanup is so often needed. PS: You clearly have no idea what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals" is enabled partly by the sort of "notice board" mechanism at the top of WT:MOSCAPS that we started several years ago, in an attempt to balance the WikiProject notification systems that brought so many topic fans to conversations. Yes, there are a few of us "usual suspects" that pay attention there; not very many, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that thing is soft canvassing and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Repeat: [58].  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I've ever been accused of "a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar" before. I actually write a lot, including a book and many peer-reviewed articles, and have been praised for how precisely I write. I just got a review back on an article I submitted, which included "The results and proofs are quite technical and the author is nonetheless precise in their treatment." Obviously, that's math, not English proper name issues, but still, I do know what I'm doing, grammar wise, and style-wise, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, unless you come here brandishing a hammer and nails, your not welcome. Sounds like more WP:OWN. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry. This is a serious allegation. Do you really wish to make it? If so, you need to substantiate it. What, in the fundamentals of English grammar is an "uncreative proper name" or for that matter, the converse, a creative proper name? WP:AGF does not mean somebody has to agree with your opinion because you think you are right and they are wrong and how does this allegation of a COI remotely coincide with WP:COI? Overall, this post is just saying, leave our patch alone, we know best. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not we'd go any specialist topic. I've had issues with Dick's battering ram approach in multiple topic areas. As someone said above, if there's constant conflict over this with many different topic areas and many different editors, then one only logically needs to look at the common denominator of the conflicts: Dick Lyon. Not everyone else. Maybe it's time for the MOSistas to realize that the tail doesn't wag the dog. It's not OWN to say that a small subset of editors on an obscure talk page (as all Wikipedia namespace talk pages are) don't get to dictate to the entire project how to write. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual common denominator is the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, in which topically-absorbed editors think WP articles on their pet topic should be written the way a website by and for fans of that topic would be written. MoS is one of the most-watchlisted WP:-namespace pages on the entire system, with 20-ish years of continual input from the community (and MOS:CAPS its busiest sub-page when it comes to discussion). In short, you are conspiracy-theorizing. If there's something in MOS:CAPS you disagree with, start a discussion at WT:MOSCAPS. Raging on about how you just don't like it, and casting aspersions at anyone who abides by it, isn't constructive.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a Bing alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say that all this reminds me of countless previous discussions about capitalisation - a proposal is made, it gets some pushback, and then Dicklyon and/or a few supporters (SMcCandlish included) turn up (if it wasn't them that made the proposal in the first place) and it descends into a war of attrition where n-grams are wielded as weapons and sources that present the opposing view are dismissed as "specialist" or otherwise unusable. This persists until the opposition gives up. Sometimes Dick et al are right about the capitalisation, sometimes they are wrong, but this is how almost every discussion in which one or more people strongly disagree with them (rightly or wrongly, whether policy or evidence based or otherwise) goes. Examples have been posted in this thread, anyone who cares can look at contested requested move in which they are involved to see plenty examples. As XOR'easter notes, it's pointless arguing against them because they care far more deeply about it and will not give up until they get the "right" answer. Don't bother pinging me here, I don't have the time or energy to fight (so they will just carry on driving people away from the project). Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personalized fingerpointing without substance. Why have policies and guidelines at all, since every line item in each of them is detested by someone, a fraction of whom will go into a rage when they don't WP:WIN? (Cf. any notability discussion, for starters.) Let's summarize what you wrote: A proposal is made, gets pushback; evidence is provided, other evidence is disagreed with; sometimes the proposals are right, sometimes not; people stick to their guns until one side finally concedes (or is decided against); and this is how it always goes. Yep. That is exactly how every proposal about anything, ever, on Wikipedia goes. Nothing to do with capitalization or Dicklyon in particular. This thread's purpose was pillorying Dicklyon (by those who wish guidelines didn't apply to their pet topic, so they could write here about that topic the way they would on their own website to other deep fans of said topic). But there's no evidence of his having done anything wrong. (I didn't get into it, but I could easily paste in diffs here of his haters being grossly uncivil across all of these discussions; the fact that they drive themselves to hate by their own typographic obsessions is the real problem.) The take-away from your post (and many others before it) seems to be that you simply don't like the facts that we have a style guideline and that anyone ever dares to propose that we follow it. Disliking a guideline doesn't make those who use it bad-actors; it means you have a problem with consensus. If you think MOS:CAPS should change, you know where WT:MOSCAPS is.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is getting too far into the weeds of a content dispute. My history with this editor was only for some page moves related to baseball. I don't really have an issue with the guidelines, but the suggestion that it's a simple black and white issue is a little misleading. Someone who doesn't follow baseball might not capitalize "Division series," but an argument can be made that it's a proper noun based on sourcing. The English language isn't a math equation. Treating it like one can lead to problems. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The argument does get to be made, and is either convincing or it's not, to the community and then an independent closer. The RM in question went your preferred way, so what on earth are you complaining about? You appear to think that RM process should simply not exist, or that anyone who uses it and doesn't WP:WIN should be barred from ever using it again. WP does not work that way.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I had a paragraph and a half typed that said your final two sentences less well than that. The MOS:CAPS, and the manual of style as a whole, is a guideline. The guidelines are generally right, but they are guidelines not commandments, discussions about how to apply guidelines to specific articles are not battles to be won or lost (and SMcCandlish's comment above is a great example of the battleground attitude on display in many such discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Calmly explaining the holes I see in your reasoning is not a battleground attitude. But you not understanding that is closely related to your refusal to see that proposing moves, using the process for proposing moves, and opening discussions about article naming (often in the wikiprojects most apt to care about the naming) is not battlegrounding either, but pefectly reasonable. There's a Catch-22 you're not addressing here, too. It's clear that you and a few others are just tired of seeing capitalization-related RMs. But WP has millions of articles, thousands of them arguably mis-capitalized, across many, many topics, and this necessarily means many RMs to clean them up, because no one will accept a monolithic mass-RM that crosses numerous topics. Every cluster of similar articles has to be handled in a separate RM. This is just demonstrably how the process has to work.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[59] I think BilCat said it best:

    Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules.

    - Skipple 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Their expertise in the subject" = "Wikiproject members should not have to follow guidelines". It's just more WP:OWN stuff. Hockey fans are not "experts", they're just hockey fans. Joining a wikiproject doesn't make you an expert and doesn't magically give you special editing rights. The very reason that we have WP:RM process is to populate the discussions with other editors than the ones already deeply involved in a page's topic. We have WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting control over content is inherently problematic. (And I say that as someone who participates in lots of wikiprojects.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I generally agree with Dicklyon's general position on each of these individual cases; the MOS in all of these cases was largely being ignored, and in most cases, it shouldn't have been. On the other, I find Dicklyon's behavior severely offputting. I find their WP:BLUDGEON-type tactics and borderline WP:INCIVIL tone to be so offputting, I've felt reservations in supporting them, even though I agreed with them. It really says something to me when I can't openly agree with someone because their behavior is so offputting, I fear some of the negative aspects of it rubbing off on my own reputation merely because I think they are right, despite their ugly behavior. On the one hand, many of the problems with this issue would not have been fixed had it not been for Dicklyon's attention to them. On the other hand, dude, chill. At some point, your behavior hurts your own cause.--Jayron32 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tend to agree with Jayron32, and said as much last year: I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case.... I would say that also goes for SMcCandlish, whose interventions on Dicklyon's behalf tend to raise rather than lower the temperature in a conversation. WikiProjects, and I speak from experience, can be clannish and internally-focused and don't appreciate externally-driven change. That's true for issues beyond capitalization. Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done, but it makes everyone upset and leads to unhelpful threads like this one. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On one point "Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done", I disagree entirely. One can be pleasant, civil, and not even come close to WP:BLUDGEON, and still get things done. Even more so, I assert that better behavior would tend to get more done as it would avoid driving away people from your cause that would otherwise support it. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm tired of the "but we're just enforcing policy!" arguments. First of all, they're guidelines in this instance, and secondly it is a massive waste of editor time to argue over capitalization instead of doing something that actually improves the encyclopedia for readers. I don't buy the complaints about people "defending their turf". WikiProjects can sometimes engage in such behavior, and I've seen it myself, but it's much more that people don't want to spend hours arguing with a few people who will stop at nothing to push their interpretation of guidelines down everyone else's throats, especially over something so minor and inconsequential. It has and will continue to drive good editors away from the encyclopedia, which hurts us far more than something having the "wrong" capitalization. I agree with much of what Thryduulf says above. MOS:CAPS is a guideline, not a policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's self-contradictory. If you've seen wikiprojects defending their turf yourself, then you can't reasonably say that wikiprojects don't defend their turf. If the matter is so minor and inconsequential and editors think it's a waste of time to argue about, then why do these few editors so unreasonably expend time arguing about it as if it's major and consequential? Can't have it both ways. The entire thrust of this ANI is "we really, really, really care about these capital letters and Dicklyon should be punished for getting in our capitalizing way."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not entirely true. A non-negligible part of this ANI is "We agree with Dicklyon's general stance on capitalization, but we find his behavior to be problematic, and would like him to get better at that". See above, in case you missed it. --Jayron32 18:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yet there is no actual demonstration of Dicklyon doing anything wrong, and lots of diffs of his opponents doing things wrong, like engaging in a long series of personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate your comment because I really don't have an issue on the content dispute. There's a good faith way to go about making those changes. It's clear that a couple of editors are very difficult to work with when it comes to this topic and based on this ANI and the other one it's not getting better. Something needs to be done because the status quo doesn't appear to be working. Nemov (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nemov – if you'll allow me some words in my defense – I don't know how/why you stepped into this, or how you decided that what's not working is my fault. Take a look at where discussion started on May 4: WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again, where I immediately started a discussion on being reverted. You can see that Deadman137 declined to explain why he wanted capital letters there, and instead resorted to personal attacks on me. I tried to stay as civil as possible, even after he forked the discussion to the project page and on May 8 canvassed editors to join in his ridiculous proposal (to "rescind the current horribly flawed and under scrutinized rule and replace it with a reasonable argument made by GoodDay in 2020..."). Oh, I see, you jumped in right after he pinged you. Downhill from there, and your involvement with the silly RFC and now ANI just fanned the flames. Why is this on me? (see also SMcCandlish's comments to that effect above) Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a general note, if an editor is about to bring themselves to ANI I think it would be courtious to wait for them to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After being pinged in the draft I waited a couple of days. It appeared that ship had sailed[60] and the behavior continued anyway. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out; I probably would have waited a week and perhaps half way through mentioned to them that if they didn't open a discussion I would, but considering that response your decision to open this wasn't unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The real behavioral issue[edit]

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines. That's why I made the "self report" that Nemov refers to, to lay out the back story and their case against me for doing what I do (editing and discussing). Here, I copy it in since some of you probably haven't followed the links (I leave the dated signatures from the draft):

User:Dicklyon is lowercasing things like "Preliminary Round" in hockey articles

I am reporting myself because the handful of hockey editors who keep threating to haul me off to ANI or t-ban can't agree on who should do it. We've been in discussions for quite a while, and they started an RFC about whether whether hockey's "status quo" should be an exception, perhaps under WP:IAR, to the usual provisions of MOS:CAPS. The response at the RFC overwhelmingly rejects that idea, but it's still open, and they want me to stop editing while it's open; my edits are not hockey specific, but some hockey articles are in the mix (I think it's probably mostly soccer, but plenty of other sports).

Relevant recent discussions include:

Their "case" against me seems to be that

  • I ignore editors who disagree with me (not so; I discuss and elicit consensus when there's disagreement)
  • I've been called up on AN and ANI before (yes, I have, usually by an editor who wants special dispensation for capital letters in their area)
  • I've been blocked more than once (guilty as charged; but I'm pretty reformed in recent years)
  • I opened (and lost) an RM discussion at Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020 after some of my moves were reverted (was that not the right thing to do?)
  • I've "edit warred" over the case of "Preliminary Round" (I did make a few such edits in hockey including one recently that Deadman137 reverted)
  • Another hockey edit of mine was reverted since the RFC started: "First Round" to "First round" on 17 May (that's 2 out of the thousands of edits I've done since then)

@Deadman137, Nemov, Sbaio, and The Kip: y'all wanted to talk about it here, right? Or is it just that you want to treat "Preliminary Round" and such as proper names in hockey? Consensus says no, so why keep threatening me? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask two things: 1. Close the RFC in favor of no MOSCAPS exception for hockey. 2. Suggest editors stop threatening me when I'm discussing in good faith – if the occasional hockey page gets caught in my case-fix patterns, feel free to revert but not to threaten or template me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not threaten you in any way. I just agreed with other editors that a topic ban might be an option, because you are running around with different editing gadgets (AWB, JWB, etc) and keep changing a lot of pages without even waiting for the discussions to finish. Therefore, that is disruptive to say the least and this is not the first time that you have done this (as can be seen in the edit link of mine). In addition, I am not going to waste my time here so you can just stop pinging me. – sbaio 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines.
I created this ANI and I'm not a hockey fan or edit hockey articles. The outcome of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral issues discussed by myself and others. I know some would like to focus on the content dispute because it obfuscates the central issue of disruptive edits. That seemed to be successful in the last ANI, but Dickylon is making a lot of changes to articles where its clear they do not have full understanding of the context.
Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sbaio, you don't read this as a threat to take me to ANI? I'm not "running around using lots of gadgets". Just JWB. And since that RFC opened, I apparently got 2 hockey articles into the mix (that's all that got mentioned anyway, and I left them after they were reverted; I'll fix them after the RFC closes). I don't see what you mean by disruption, just because I'm doing a lot of case fixing (99% without any objections). Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nemov, what context do you think I don't understand? Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Path forward[edit]

Instead of repeating more wall of text bludgeonathon that cover the same arguments about capitalization, is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? It clear that even some of the editors who generally support Dicklyon and SMcCandlish's edits have expressed the problematic nature of how they're going about it. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on and there's more productive things that editors could be spending their time on than arguing about it. Does anyone outside the usual suspects on this topic have any recommendations? I'll gladly withdraw this if there's no way reduce the tension, I don't want to waste any more time if there's no path forward. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are arguments about capitalization even relevant here? The RFC has already shown that there's no appetite for a hockey exception to MOSCAPS. The path forward is to close the RFC, close this section, and get back to routine. I have no intention to pick on any of you or on hockey as we move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should withdraw this because there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Dicklyon's part (and because you blatantly canvassed a wikiproject to come and pile on). Using prescribed RM process and opening discussions (exactly what Dicklyon was told to do in a previous ANI, I might add), which other people then turn uncivil in when they don't think they're going to get their way, is not an actionable offense by Dicklyon. This entire ANI is vexatious, and very clearly not going to come to a consensus on sanctions, despite some people becoming self-irritated by their own over-investment in the most trivial of all sorts of content disputes then projecting their behavior onto Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nemov I don't know whether I count as a "usual suspect" here or not (but I'm certain that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish do) and my comments are completely unrelated to the content dispute - I have no opinion about the capitalisation of hockey articles and before this thread I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute. My experience with capitalisation discussions comes entirely in different topic areas, but the behaviour is identical, and it is the behaviour that is the issue that needs addressing. My first thought is that either a topic ban for both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish from the topic of capitalisation would do a lot of good, but I'm not certain it needs to go that far (yet, and hopefully not ever) as restricting each of them to one comment (and up to one answer per direct question thereafter) per capitalisation discussion would allow them to contribute in an area they clearly feel passionate about without allowing them to continue bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would I be topic-banned from capitalization? Provide diffs that show me bludgeoning RM discussions. All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS and those who abide by it. "SMcCandlish agrees with Dicklyon, so ban him too." Who is it again who has a battleground problem? PS: Maybe in this discussion I've commented more than I should have, but this is not a capitalization discussion, it's a thread about proposing sanctions against an editor, at a page that exists for vociferous discussion of such sanctions proposals.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS shows that you have completely misunderstood the complaints here. Nobody here has an axe to grind regarding MOS:CAPS, the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A long response to Nemov

There is a social contract in editing on WP to follow P&G. What I am seeing in recent comments are sentiments that MOS:CAPS is wrong, there is nuance that only those that know the subject can deal with, it's only a guideline (we don't have to follow it) and its not that important so leave us alone. An interesting comment was Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner ... Well, unless we have a middle-case, it is a binary choice. These comments are ultimately an expression of ownership. Caps are often used for emphasis or distinction of what is otherwise a descriptive noun phrase, which MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says we don't do. It is a documented phenomenon, that this is more likely in writing by those close to the subject (WP:Specialist style fallacy). The capitalisation of such descriptive terms is then rationalised by [mis]labelling them as proper nouns|noun phrases - because they are important or significant things and not just any old generic thing. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on ... is a metaphor for the battle ground nature that can develop. I would agree; however, it only becomes a battleground when two sides contest the ground and the insinuation is that those holding the [moral] high-ground should be left alone and that it isn't important. If it isn't important, why should either side contest it? For those that would remove unnecessary over-capitalisation, there is a matter of improving readability (SMcCandlish could probably add to this).

Let us look at this specific case. DL was downcasing terms like finals which are descriptive. He was challenged (reverted) on some edits and bought this to discussion at WT:MOSCAPS, in which anybody can contribute and appropriate notification can be made. We get this response by the reverting editor: The group of editors pushing this need to find a more constructive way to contribute to the site, as all this does is waste the time of productive editors on general nonsense. And this comment: The worst part is they're going to claim consensus here among their little circle and then go bulldoze discussions elsewhere claiming to be the sort of broader consensus described in WP:CONLIMITED when it's literally only four guys in an obscure talk page as opposed to the larger numbers disagreeing in the actual articles. That was the only comment oknazevad had made to that point. WP:CONLIMITED states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Was this an appropriate citing of WP:CONLIMITED by oknazevad given that the discussion occurred at a highly visible guideline TP where the broader community consensus is explicitly discussed? Is there a consensus from the discussion? oknazevad's comment makes it clear that there probably is despite their objection. DL proceeds on the basis there was and was reverted again by the original reverting editor with this comment (and similar): We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. The matter has then been further and concurrently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization where we get this comment: Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. An RfC followed. The outcome has been pretty evident from the start and is still quite clear but the we get cries of burn the witch (take DL to ANI). The OP made broad assertions of misconduct but has lacked evidence to substantiate these and we have an allegation by meat puppetry by oknazevad, which has been neither substantiated nor redacted. We also have the caracterisation of "MOSistas" - milder but still an WP:ASPERSION.

  • If one writes for any organisation, there are editorial policies and style to abide by. WP is no different.
  • How is ensuring compliance with the established WP style wrong? If compliance wasn't expected, why was it written?
  • Given that compliance with style is a reasonable expectation, what is the source of contention and battle ground conduct? How is this remedied?
  • How has DL not reasonably followed process?
  • What specifically has DL done (evidence?) that is actionable at ANI?

WP:P&G is already a Wikipedia:Contentious topic but this does not extend beyond the subject pages to the application of WP:P&G. Potentially, this could be extended to the application of P&G to rope-in all of the afore events. What would be the consequences of this? I would look closely at the battlegroundy statements that have been evidenced. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without wading into all of that (though I agree with your step-by-step summary of what happened), I do want to comment that the one name that comes up again and again and again in these discussions, not just the recent ones, as an uncivil battlegrounder is Oknazevad; this post alone is probably block-worthy. If any editor needs a topic-ban from capitalization discussions, it is that one. I've repeatedly been of half a mind to do a diff pile of all Oknazevad's attacks and take it to WP:AE since this topic area is under WP:CTOP. But I have little stomach for "dramaboarding".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to ignore the content dispute because I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization of proper nouns. Let's go back to my original point. Capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. Just review this ANI: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have undoubtablty made my point for me. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will stipulate that I speak too much in my own defense. And maybe SMcCandlish speaks too much in my defense, too. What do you expect when you bring accusations to ANI? And why won't you answer questions directed to you above about clarifying vague accusations? Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nemov, am I to comprehend from your response, when you have said, I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization ..., that you have not read the response I made to you? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've skim-read it and didn't see anything of particular relevance to the behavioural issues beyond "it takes two sides to make a battleground" which doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Folks, my sense is that this is one of those situations where no individual edit is so bad that there is an easy-to-understand way of quickly describing (and proving) the problem. That makes the matter inappropriate for ANI. There is clearly a battleground situation here (" balance the WikiProject notification systems"). I don't have a horse in this race but, as an uninvolved editor, I think this goes to WP:ARB. It will be a very painful case to put together and, even with a few hours of work put into it, will quite possibly be rejected. But this issue is clearly long-running and needs folks with a longer attention span than ANI to deal with it. Note: I've not put in the time to figure out who is right. Merely noting that we all agree these types of disputes have been long-running and causing a significant degree of unhappiness. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Speaking as another uninvolved editor, I'll add that this thread has suffered from the all-too-familiar problem of too many long-winded comments from the principals. Like you, I'm also not inclined to put in the time to dig through all those words. There's clearly a problem, and it seems unlikely to be resolved here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There doesn't appear to be anything to add to this discussion. The proposal below is closed and I don't think there's a proposal that can gain traction here. This can be closed. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is it reasonable for an editor to make a serious allegation of misconduct against editors with no attempt whatsoever to substantiate same? Is it reasonable to ignore actual evidence (provided by way of quotes) of clear battleground conduct or is it too inconvenient because actual evidence indicates misconduct by others and not the named respondent? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Several editors (including those who support his position) expressed good faith issues with the Dicklyon. I don't really care about the content dispute. I just noticed a ton editors displeased with the behavior of the editor and saw the same type of overzealous activity. So I brought the behavioral issue here. You obviously don't see the problem, you've made your point, but I don't really understand what you're attempting to accomplish with your latest comment. Nemov (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see several editors above complaining of persistent battleground behavior from these two editors, and I can see above in both the number and nature of their comments an "us vs. them" mentality that frustrates the collaborative process. Perhaps we could try a relatively light sanction that Thryduulf proposed above: that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish are each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion. They're still welcome to participate in discussions of this topic that interests them, but in a way that prevents what other editors perceive as bludgeoning. Ajpolino (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may have over-posted in this particular ANI, because I see a lot of invective being hurled at Dicklyon without any supporting proof of anything. But there is no evidence of me bludgeoning "capitalization discussions". My usual input at RMs is a single post. However, some of these discussions become complex and require multiple rounds of sourcing and source analysis, which rather necessitates more than a single post.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - This is a really light sanction and if these editors are behaving normally as they suggest, then there shouldn't be an issue. This allows them to continue to work in these areas. However, the would help if they bludgeon future discussions. - Nemov (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for SMcCandlish; neutral (slight lean to support) for Dicklyon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for McCandlish, support for Dicklyon; perhaps I'm not as nuanced as SchroCat (wholly likely in fact), but I don't see the former's behaviour as approaching the same degree of... shall we call it asperity? as the latter's. SN54129 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral. It's been a while, but I've had brushes with both editors over the matter and can't be considered unbiased, although my views on MOS:CAPS have changed since. SMcCandlish: I meant what I said earlier about your interventions raising rather than lowering the temperature. You give the impression of charging in to defend to Dicklyon, and your presentation is aggressive. The pattern hasn't gone unnoticed, and that's why this proposal is here, though it's unlikely to pass this time. You tend to be on the right side of the policy argument. That's not enough by itself. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fair enough. I shall do so.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Anti-bludgeoning restrictions tend to be problematic; either they are too restrictive, as they are in this case (editors should have the opportunity to at least respond to responses made to them), or they are too open to abuse by both those who are subject to the restriction and those who are interacting with those who are subject to them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The OP has made broad allegations. Their only evidence is to a section where a snow close was requested and a link to WP:CR. They have failed to make a case as to how these links show that DL is unreasonably bludgeoning the discussion. They have provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of battleground conduct. They state: Others can speak more specifically. They are clearly not in a position to substantiate this allegation. Other editors may be in agreement but have not contributed to substantiating allegations with evidence. I don't see that DL's conduct at this ANI is exceptional nor that it extrapolates to catitalisation discussions. While SMcC acknowledges they "may have over-posted in this particular ANI", there is no actual evidence of misconduct in capitalisation discussions. There is however, evidece of battleground behaviour by way of quotes by those opposed to DL. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Neither editor has been uncivil and while I think maybe they could make fewer comments per discussion, I don't believe they're reached the level of bludgeoning. Their comments are typically rooted in policy and they provide relevant explanations and examples to back up their stances and Dicklyon does typically let things go after a discussion has concluded. I don't see this as being helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for Dicklyon, oppose for SMcCandlish ("raising ... the temperature" and giving "the impression of charging in", as Mackensen put it above, aren't sanctionable). XOR'easter (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for both—Insufficient evidence of claims, which are selective of the truth over time and come from editors with particular biases. Not allowing these skilled and knowledgeable editors to refute false information at a thread is not in the interests of the project. Tony (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’m not exactly a neutral observer here, but Support for Dicklyon. Not voting on SMcCandlish as I’ve had no interaction with them and can’t fairly judge their actions as a result. The Kip (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been involved in disputes with Dicklyon in the past with regards to questions of capitalisation. The upshot of those discussions was, if I remember correctly, that Dicklyon was correct on the matter of which words should and should not be capitalised, and he was able to demonstrate that after discussion; the way he went about making mass changes without prior discussion got up people's noses however, leading to friction. In those situations, I think it would have been better if he had been more discursive, explaining the rationale and the evidence supporting the changes he wanted to make in advance of making them. A restriction like this would only serve to make it more difficult for him to explain himself, whether before or after the changes were made, which would be a move in the wrong direction in my view. I therefore oppose this proposal, and any sanction at all, for both of them - while urging Dicklyon to put a bit more effort into explaining and persuading in a collegiate manner. Girth Summit (blether) 08:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed sanction is ill-defined as it's not clear what a "comment" is. Does it mean one edit, one sentence, one paragraph, one bullet point, one !vote or what? Arbcom has a rule of this sort for everyone. To prevent endless threaded discussion, parties make separate submissions with a word count limit. Responses to opposing points are then made in sub-sections of these submissions. Is this what is wanted? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing the evidence of bludgeoning that I'd need to see to feel that this restriction is necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (for both, clearly). Persistence over particular principles should not be a punishable offence, and that is all I see here. These editors have been making valuable contributions and demonstrating diligence and insight. Their actions should be encouraged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose—I don't care enough about this issue to comment one way or the other beyond opposing such a topic ban for either Dicklyon or SMcCandlish. I agree with Girth Summit, who I feel phrases his sentiments tactfully and constructively. I don't think sanctions will help matters. Kurtis (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland[edit]

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[61][62], general disruptiveness/vandalism[63][64][65][66][67], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[68], and other BLP violations[69].

Despite all this, they again moved Draft:Ilay Feingold to the mainspace, with the incorrect claims about winning a senior title (with a citation needed tag), and with the incorrect edit summary of "Perform requested move, see talk page", which they also used when they moved Draft:Tai Abed, someone else's unsubmitted draft to mainspace.

Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking at one of these page moves where the editor said to see a talk page discussion and, believe it or not, the article had no talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Liz for your misleading comments.
1. I was looking at one of these page moves again, and the draft:XXX, has a talk page. not the article:xxx.
2. Ilay Feingold is not different then any other soccer star playing currently in the U20 World Cup in Argentina. blocking israeli contributors and allowing argentinian contributors is just racism.
3. each wikipedia article, has a link to a wikidata. all those wikidatas have a legit TRANSFERMARKT section.
If Leo Messi's wikidata has a legit transfermarkt link, than Tai Abed can have a transfermarkt link as well.
please contact the wikipedia creator in order to remove the wikidata transfermarkt section from the wikidata template. if they will approve, then contact me again. until then, please stop BLP violate any of the soccer pages, and please do not remove the transfermarkt link from the article: Leo Messi. cheers, User:HonorTheIsland
  • Comment: Liz's comments are not misleading at all and Fram's points are accurate.
  • Here is the move [70] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.
  • Here [71] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [72] you move it back [73] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.
  • Repeated again here [74], no talk page, and again [75] (no talk page) and again [76] (blank talk page).
 // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see now.
just copy the current talk page of any other Israeli player to the ones that doesnt have it.
it should help you solve the problem. HonorTheIsland (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No clearly you don't see. The problem is you are using the comment "see talk" to seemingly justify problematic page moves, when there is nothing to see on the talk, usually because it doesn't exist. Creating the talk page doesn't solve anything, and is actively unhelpful when the corresponding articles don't exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And they continue to push the false claims of people winning the Israel Premier League to the main space[77], having apparently learned nothing from the above section or the countless previous page moves. Coupled with the 25 or so talk pages (and one mainspace page) they created the 28th, which all had to be deleted, this looks a serious WP:CIR problem, where they don't understand or don't care about the issues they create over and over again. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked the user for 31h. If administrative intervention is needed for deletion, I probably can do this, but I would need to do get a more precise instruction.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and we're back to the "Perform requested move, see talk page" edit summaries, when no move has been requested, as pointed out above in this thread.[78] Can someone please stop them? Fram (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I wrote this while Ymblanter blocked them and posted the above, so feel free to ignore the above "please stop them" plea of course. Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is an issue with the canned move summary. The "perform requested move; see talk page" summary at a glance probably looks like "perform move" to someone who is unfamiliar with the requested move process. I don't know if there's a good solution here, other than just warning people who use it when it's not necessary (which may be fine, it may not be a huge problem), but I doubt this is the only time we'll see issues with this particular move summary.

As for HonorTheIsland? Stop using this particular canned move summary for generic moves; its intended use is after a requested move discussion has taken place, which will be on the talk page. I would recommend never using it unless you're closing a requested move; you can maybe use it if there is discussion on the talk page, but even then, you're not necessarily "perform[ing a] requested move", but rather performing a move that had been discussed on the talk page. In that case, I'd write a quick custom move summary, something like "Discussed on talk page.". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK guys,
lets try a different method. If you are so confident about yourselves.
create the following article: Anan Khalaily.
@Fram and @Liz will create the new article, make sure you use the footballer infobox.
@Skarmory, your role is to find all the places that have misspeled this player's name: Anan Khalaili (and replace the last "i" letter with a "y" letter, as in his official page:
@Ymblanter - your role is to aid @Skarmory, and to find the users who wrote articles with the misspelled name, (probably other Israelis), and to make sure you find those BLP violations and block them for 24 hours from wikipedia.
@Sir Sputnik: you will improve the article: make sure you mention that Khalaily scored the most important goal of Isreal National team that qualified them to the quarterfinal of the World Cup.
also, @Sir Sputnik, it would be very cool to add data like: Khalaily's debut game, and the fact that he talked on a phone call with the Israeli president Herzog on 31.05.2023, (which is like receiving a medal of honour in some other countries).
Let's see how you 5 guys can make a new article, fix all misspells on current articles, and do it without any violations.
challenge starts on 02.06.2023, 00:00.
good luck (-: HonorTheIsland (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think you are in a position to give us orders. Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really beginning to look like a WP:CIR issue. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:14AE:B287:65C:D222 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict/pattern of behaviour/defamation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Wikipedia

I have been making small but hopefully valuable edits since I started this year and my reason for doing these edits is that it keeps me busy and helps me feel connected due to my disability which is fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I have come across something very interesting which I hope you will also find useful.

With reference to Adam Leitman Bailey - [[79]]

I recently removed part of an article relating to a suspension which ended in 2019, I then received a message from stating that my edits constituted vandalism and that they have been reverted. On the same day I noticed that another user left the following comment:

04:00, 29 April 2023‎ Iloveapphysics talk contribs‎  14,813 bytes +725‎  Undid revision 1149354607 by Bijou1995 (talk) Why does this keep getting removed? Is this another sockpuppet? undothank Tag: Undo

Normally I don’t mind being reprimanded for my edits if they are wrong but I don’t feel on this occasion that it was or rather ‘the reversion with no communication’ didn’t sit right with me. I normally thank people for their help as I find it constructive and useful.

I have contacted iloveapphysics today after speaking with Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. When looking over the history etc I found that there appears to be an ‘edit war’ going on so as a newcomer I thought it best to seek help.

The reason I removed the suspension was because I felt it had been spent, the suspension was for four months and ended in 2019. The old information appeared to overshadow the positive aspects of this business owner. I also found it to be grossly unfair on the subject. I didn’t think too much of it hence the small explanation on minor edits. I can assure you that my edit was incidental and I knew nothing of the subject or the history before I edited the page.

I started looking into Iloveapphysics and noticed that the user has reverted the suspension previously and seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects. I tend to have a more positive approach and enjoy adding awards etc but I do understand that information must be truthful however here is the problem. Iloveapphysics appears to have it in for politicians and businessmen. I noticed that he/she enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects, whilst the info may/may not be factual it seems vicious and deliberately added to cause harm to these people. Another point I have noticed from I loveapppysics list of edits is that three of the people she edited appear to be high profile New York City politicians or lawyers who have sued politicians. Sheldon Silver, Alesessandra Biaggi and Adam Leitman Bailey. Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue and that is why he/she possibly created an attack page and keeps protecting it and reverts it without a talk page. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects? Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts? Here are a few victims of iloveapphysics but there may be more:

Alexander De Croo

Marianna Madia

Sheldon Silver

Alessandra Biaggi

Adam Leitman Bailey

I am a newcomer here but shouldn’t Iloveapphysics have discussed it with me on my talk page? I found being called a sockpuppet (whatever that is) to be rather rude, hence my investigation. I also believe that ‘reverting’ my edit like that WAS hostile and from what I have been reading ‘clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia’ let alone the essay on ‘encourage the newcomer’

The talk page on Adam Leitmans account also aroused my interest.

Firstly there is a protection on the subject's Wikipedia account in the history, is this person the victim of attacks?

Other users on the subjects talk page make some valuable points:

WP G10 - this section constitutes an attack page

WP BLPCOI - Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used ‘for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities…

The language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WPBLPBALANCE, the phrasing “undignified conduct’ is slanted and goes against Wikipedia's policy that @the overall presentation and section headings should be broadly neutral”

Next you will see that another user has made some more interesting points:

Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page. It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey. Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities' '. The person who rewrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey.

From my humble investigations I do think that these users make some really good points and the fact that iloveapphysics seems to want to bring down others surely this warrants an investigation on Wikipedia’s part.


On a personal level please consider these points so that my edit on Adam Leitman Bailey's page is reinstated or if it has to remain then perhaps it could be in the document but not under an aggressive heading. The reversion wars should be stopped once and for all and that other subjects won't fall victim to iloveapphysics. The edits on the other people are of concern to me but as I did not edit them there is nothing I can do about them.

I feel the information on the subject is not a fair representation.

The information is old and suspension has been lifted 4 years ago

The serious defamatory comments should be oversighted/deletion by suppression

Edit warring make the page history less useful

The suspension information is not encyclopedic

The heading and information on the suspension is aggressive, bold and detracts from the rest of the page.

It could be possible that the Wiki author of the suspension has tried to directly assault the subject and others because of a personal vendetta, be a competitor or someone with a grudge against politicians and successful business men/women

Iloveappphysics does not have a user page which I find suspicious, is he/she out to discredit others?

The fact that someone received a discretionary sanctions alert by vandalizing the subject's Adam Leitman Baileys page is also very concerning and the history of the edit wars should be investigated.

There is a pattern of behaviour with iloveapphysics in reference to politicians, business men and possibly lawyers in which case is there an interest in favouring one political party over another? making his/her interest interfering with being unbiased.

Here are some points I read on reverting

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favour of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reverting drives away editors - Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists.

I apologise for this being so lengthy but as you may have noticed I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia as I have been busy collating all this information and trying to understand it for over a week. I also hope you will consider my points and take my contribution seriously. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Marnie - Bijou1995Reply[reply]

Bijou1995, I have some questions for you: What is your connection to Adam Leitman Bailey? Did he or someone else ask you to edit this page? What is your connection to the other people who have commented at Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey? – bradv 12:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no connection, nor is there any connection to the other people I mentioned. I live in the UK. I believe all these people are in the USA but I can't be sure, I'd have to look at their pages again.
Bijou1995 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's weird, since you are making the same edit and the same arguments as all those other accounts. What led you to this article? – bradv 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came across the article when trying to find something to edit ( sometimes I do a search for certain things) and took out the information because it was old (spent as we say in England) I didn't think anything of it really, I found it very negative and thought it was spiteful so I removed it. As for the arguments I mentioned other people's arguments which I found when I did some research, they are not mine . I only added them to give a clearer picture of the edit wars Bijou1995 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bijou1995, the article makes it clear that the reliably-sourced suspension was only for four months. Are you claiming that he was not suspended despite the New York Law Journal saying that he was? If the suspension was overturned then you need to provide a reliable source saying so. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I'm not saying that, I don't know if its been overturned or not my point is Illove physics seems to want to defame others, he called me a sock puppet but maybe he is. My edits are positive and I understand that if things are true then they should be on there but surely when the info is old or not directly related to that person as in one of the others I mentioned ( iloveapphysics adds info about crime in the family on another account) it just doesn't seem right because the info detracts from the rest of the article like defamation and these people suffer I imagine, it just doesn't seem fair and if ilovephysics has a Vendetta then shouldn't that be investigated? Bijou1995 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I empathize with your position Bijou1995. I honestly do except Wikipedia isn't about being fair. It's not even about being right. It's about reporting what is found in reliable sources. This is a typical position most people would take on various topics so don't feel bad or feel like anyone is trying to come down hard on you. I imagine people do suffer from things written on Wikipedia but not solely because it is on Wikipedia because Wikipedia only states what is found in those reliable sources. I think it can feel that way because of the extremely biased nature of what Wikipedia will allow to be included and because the encyclopedia coalesces all these sources together on one page. Wikipedia has to be biased to a degree because we can't allow just anything to be included and we are to take care to not include minority views on subjects just because they are there, especially when it comes to BLP's. It becomes problematic to start removing things from articles that we may not agree with simply because we think it isn't fair or we think that another editor may have a vendetta. It then becomes a slippery slope because what about the potential victims of said alleged crimes? This is why Wikipedia has rigid policies on notability and verifiability. I can appreciate where your heart is coming from and your concern for other people. I don't think someone should be accusing you of sockpuppetry without solid evidence to back that up. If they think you may be a sockpuppet then they should file an SPI rather than make accusations and cast aspersions. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello thank you for your very kind response, it's refreshing to receive a nice message. Sometimes I get scared when reading messages from other editors telling me I've done an edit wrong as they can be a bit rude but now and again I receive a kind message, so thanks again.
I do understand what you are saying but the rules of Wiki seem a little bias, for instance I did Google Mr Leitman Bailey yesterday as these conversations sparked an interest in me, I found this so he's obviously a good person despite that suspension, would it be ok if I added that if its not already on there? Although I feel for the others that iloveapphysics has attacked, they are not my edits so I cannot do anything about them apart from support them and try to get justice on their behalf. Do you not think that the heading of the suspension is a little brutal? If I cannot get my edit reinstated then perhaps the info could still be in there without that ugly heading. Or can the info be removed permanently at some point? I think what I am trying to say is that although the suspension is true, the article is not a true representation of that person, it is only a small part of their life but yet so damaging and could potentially hurt them and may have a negative effect on the good work they do as in the link above, ultimately aren't children especially 'children in need' more important than someone's ego of reverting an edit. I do feel like I'm on some sort of crusade for all of these people and its not my intention to hurt iloveapphysics I just find their intention rather hostile and it appears they deliberately want to hurt others. I'm not sure how things work in other countries but kindness should be at the heart of everything we do. I am a Christian lady which is probably why i find iloveapphysics edits offensive. Please consider removing all of the negative information for all the people I have mentioned especially my edit and please look into iloveapphysics account to check it is an authentic one. Please be kind when replying as stress flares up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.
best wishes
Bijou1995 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue? Oh, you poor, poor, totally real, not-at-all-pulling-the-exact-same-shtick-as-the-dozen-other-sockpuppets-this-guy's-made British Christian lady. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face it, Adam. Your Wikipedia page has a self-inflicted blot that won't be going away. No amount of SEO-optimized "charity" websites can fix it. Accept it, my dude. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. IP, read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a Christian lady, my church is st Mary's, Horsham, UK. I do have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue and I can prove it. I am extremely hurt by all these comments and actually I feel attacked, I was merely daring to point out the actions of another editor which I felt was wrong, I haven't edited since Friday 26th as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break. I cannot reply to some people as they have removed the link to do so. I do not know Adam Leitman Bailey and I only focused on this subject as this was my edit, I then looked into things and Genuinely thought things were amiss on other people's accounts too. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but you appear to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. Information doesn't appear and information isn't removed based on what a subject "deserves" or an informal system of rewards and punishments. Nor do we seek out additional information for the specific purpose of rewarding people based on their virtue. Entries reflect the weight of the reliable sources covering the person and there are a lot that talk about this professional suspension.
Now, negative information should be weighed appropriately and very well source, per our BLP policies. However, accurate, well-source factual information is *not* "defamation" as you call it and your attacks here are largely without merit. Like, for example, your reference to Sheldon Silver. The poster in question simply added one sentence detailed a change in Silver's prison.
Frankly, there is a lot about your complaint that raises alarm bells, but even taking it in the best of faith, it's a complete stretch and certainly no conduct violation, and the charges you throw out are far closer to breaking rules than anything you actually allege. This ANI should end with a boomerang and at least a warning to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Warning. Bijou1995, your attacks against other editors above ("seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects", "enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects", "Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue ", "Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts?", "It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey") are completely unacceptable. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. One more and you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
PS, since the existing semiprotection has not been effective against some obvious socking, I have applied ECP protection to the article. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Hello- I'm kind of shocked to be dragged into this. I am definitely not being paid by anyone and am surprised anyone would accuse me of defamation. Many of my edits have been to add reliably sourced and encyclopedic information, many have been to revert vandalism, and a few have gotten involved in edit/sockpuppet wars. In the past, when I have dealt with edit warring/sockpuppetry, I have consulted and abided by the appropriate authorities (as with the De Croo page). When more experienced editors have disagreed with my edits, I have not protested and abided by the consensus (as with the Biaggi page). I have never made any defamatory edits. What could the user possibly be referring to? I am not even the person who added the suspension to the Adam Leitman Bailey page, I simply added it back when it was deleted by a user subsequently banned for sockpuppetry. Because of this history, I thought it was appropriate to at least ask the question (not make an accusation) of whether another sockpuppet was responsible for the deletion again. I am just an ordinary Wikipedian who occasionally edits pages as a hobby (for zero pay), so I would appreciate any advice or suggestions for improvement, but I don't see how any of my edits constitute defamation. Thank you. Iloveapphysics (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Iloveapphysics, I'm sorry you've been subjected to this. The aspersions against you are completely unreasonable, I agree. That's why I warned Bijou1995 to cease and desist. If they hadn't been new, I would have blocked as soon as I saw the stuff about "defamation" and "vendettas". They haven't edited since my warning. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    Hello I was merely pointing something out that I thought was off, I haven't edited since Friday as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break. I am happy not to mention I loveapphysiscs again but I am shocked at how I have been treated too, accused of lying about my conditions and my faith, wow! Being threatened to get blocked for feeling I had uncovered some skull duggery and having the guts to point it out. I am from the UK, my church is st marys Horsham UK and I do have those conditions which flare up with stress, I am happy to prove it! I won't say anymore as I am afraid I'll be blocked for speaking out, I was trying to make Wikipedia a better place cos that's what we are supposed to, isn't it? I like editing Wikipedia as I said it helps me feel connected. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm afraid Wikipedia is not here to provide comfort to you. This place is harsh and critical, and you're going to have to abide by the rules. The fact is that the article subject has employed people to scrub it of information that he finds unpleasant, so your edits are going to come under scrutiny.
    I strongly suggest editing other, unrelated articles. And dial back the accusations when someone disputes your edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imamul Ifaz trying to evade scrutiny and bypass discussion by superficially emulating other editors + uses ChatGPT[edit]

Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Imamul Ifaz posted a uw-unsourced1 warning on my talk page. David Gerard had given him this same warning, with the same custom line (Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) prior to that. This shows that the editor copied it from his talk page onto mine. He did this in reply to a request I made in an edit summary that he first discuss his desired changes, and explain what the problem with the sources is, at Talk:Sheikh Hasina (an article which some will be familiar with). There, where he could have provided a meaningful reply to my question, he copy-pasted another message that he had received on his talk page (diff), from Nomian. The reply thus produced makes zero sense in context, which should be plain for everyone to see when looking at the history of Sheikh Hasina. Of course, he reverted back to his preferred version using a summary of "Last good version" which he picked up from his previous reverter (diff), which is more evidence of emulating other editors to cover for non-constructive edits. This means that the editor refuses to engage in collaborative editing, and is edit warring.

Further, such misuse of warnings means that the editor is not learning from the warnings. Perhaps he thinks that warnings are rocks that editors throw at each other: duck, pick up from the ground and hurl back. Perhaps, due to English proficiency limitations, writing authentic replies may be too burdensome, so he's parroting back what he's told to hide that fact. Probably, he understands that he has been disingenuous. Ultimately it doesn't seem that the editor is WP:HERE to a necessary degree, and shows little potential of improving his editing.

BTW, this is the edit that he started out with at Sheikh Hasina, with the following summary: expanded the intro of the political person for brief summery. WARNING!! Don't vandalize or remove anything without adequete reasoning. All the informations provided where written from massive research and trusted sources only. Thank you. Let me know in the talk page if anything needed. This was one of his sources: Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina deserves Nobel Peace Prize. When his positive-POV changes were reverted he pivoted to removing negative information.—Alalch E. 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, at FC Barcelona

  • [80] adds content
  • [81] is reverted once
  • [82] top tags the FA-class article with "citations needed" (not necessarily a problem in itself, but it is a bizarre turn), while recycling the same David Gerrard's custom addition to a warning template, mentioned above (... Also I noticed that a user added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) . . . yet, there was no edit warring

I think this more clearly points to WP:CIR now.—Alalch E. 18:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Imamul Ifaz is now using ChatGPT. He made one revert, and when he complained about being reverted back, he replied with ... I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article. ... But he did not make anything more concise, he just made one revert that restored the lead to a less-concise form. LLM detectors detect that his message was machine-generated ... this is obvious, under the circumstances (As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.)—Alalch E. 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now he is reporting another editor below for the mess at Bangladesh. Wow. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He saw me start an ANI about him, and is now emulating this by starting an ANI about someone else. But he doesn't understand what it's for, just as he doesn't understand what the warnings he had used are for, or how to generate replies using ChatGPT that are relevant for the conversation.—Alalch E. 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He assured me he does not use an LLM, said it was offensive, then accused me of using an LLM. He said that it could offend people and did it in the same breath. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's impossible to collaborate with this editor if he should keep making comments like @Alalch E. is not the representative of Bangladesh. I will not be convinced by his particular argument as he has been accused of being biased before.Alalch E. 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone is still on the fence, I'd say this diff is pretty incriminating. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Imamul Ifaz is now partially blocked for two weeks to prevent further participation in an edit war at the article about Bangladesh. This was in response to a report at WP:ANEW and done without reading this ANI thread here. I wouldn't object to anyone converting it to a sitewide block of any duration if that seems more fitting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long Term pattern of violations of WP:CIVIL by The Rambling Man[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user space is not a place for attacking an entire group of people, but that's what he's doing as the user space now reads Americans (most of whom have never left their country) are a real challenge here.... Can someone please admonish him for this? Also, his comments on WP:ITN, particularly, his outrageous statement that Your parochial little "one mass shooting every day" country is a disaster and shouldn't be ever used as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be. What an embarrassment. were also a violation of WP:CIVIL and were soapboxing, which he tends to do a lot. I don't want him blocked (although I suspect that if he were a new user, he would be), but I do think he should be admonished for this. I brought this up to him before bringing it here, in the hopes that he would listen and he just reverted it instead. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Went off-topic

*Nice comment. Stop being a snowflake, maybe. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)(WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)Reply[reply]

  • Maybe don't call people snowflakes? Read WP:CIVIL. Honestly, it's not just that TRM said this, if it was a one-off or occasional thing, I wouldn't really care. The problem is that it's been a pattern for him dating back years and years and it needs to be addressed for being disruptive. --RockstoneSend me a message! 09:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one cares about mass killings in the US (except some Americans) at ITN because the gun loving enablers of child murder (primarily in the republican party and it's conservative women-controlling, poor-hating, racist, sexist and ableist supporter base) have driven the country to a social failure of over 1 mass killing a day. A statistic that elsewhere is only in states at war or total breakdown. Uncivil? You would have to go a long long way just stating bare facts before you get to uncivil. Outside the US we care about them because they are so rare. Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? Go do something about it and don't whine because you hear something you don't like. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)Reply[reply]
    That comment is extremely unhelpful and bordering on xenophobic, and telling someone "don't while because you hear something you don't like" is uncivil. Editors need to think about what they say and stick to the issues, and not use inflammatory wording.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree. TrangaBellam and Only in death... should seriously consider striking these entirely uncivil comments. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree ... what if this game were played both ways ? Stop it, everyone, everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, it's absolutely xenophobic. But if TRM can get away with garbage like this, this, and this, it's hardly surprising that OiD feels safe posting such a hate-fueled message. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They have been doing it for years, and it is easy to check that in recent years this was the main part of their Wikipedia activity (they have zero edits in the article space in 2023 for example). However, they unfortunately have never been blocked for incivility and personal attacks, which apparently encourages them to continue and to harass people who disagree with them. Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Amen to that! WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)Reply[reply]
    Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? I enjoy discussing that with my friends in private. But on Wikipedia, in an ITN discussion about a Japanese stabbing, it feels rather like an off-topic rant intended to get a reaction, doesn't it? DFlhb (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...really? Only in death, your comments violate WP:SOAP. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a truly reprehensible comment, and its genuinely astounding that someone would "amen to that!" to it. It should be struck, at least. Individuals are not responsible for policy failures. The idea that you feel like you're really taking a stand against the people actually responsible for gun deaths in the US by grandstanding against random people from the US on wikipedia is just ridiculous. You have no idea what people have "gone out and done" about it, but I can guarantee that they've done more than you and been brutally affected by it more than you, because they fucking live there. Parabolist (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You forgot antisemitic. But Europe ain’t much better in that regard. Artificial Nagger (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This comment is a personal attack, and should receive a formal admonishment at the very least. You should strike this comment and apologize. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8979:9557:569E:6302 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TrangaBellam That's an unacceptable and disappointing comment. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As Johnuniq notes, TRM's comments came in the context of a discussion which the OP has ignored. I will be more concerned about the America-centric biases of our user base that gets reflected in ITN discussions on a regular basis. But I trust your judgment and since you find it disappointing, I apologize. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a one-off comment, perhaps it's a bit abrasive, but doesn't seem actionable. If there is indeed a long-term pattern, I think more than two diffs from the same context would be needed to establish this. If such a pattern IS established, then some admonition does seem warranted; if we replace "American" with any other nationality (e.g., "Iranians... ...are a real challenge here.") it seems like it would be taken as WP:NPA quite promptly. The fact that the US is one of the more privileged countries makes the attack less egregious, but it still seems like an attack on the editors, not the content of the argument. Also, the second diff seems to be attack a country, not editors, which while rude doesn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL. Disclaimer: I'm from the US, so my perspective may not be neutral.
    However, for this argument to apply, I feel there would have to be a documented history in the form of diffs, not just an assertion of a history. Even if a history were established, I don't think TRM would even need to apologize; a statement that he'll avoid categorizing whole groups of posters as problematic seems more than sufficient. And unless more diffs are provided, even that doesn't seem called for. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • TRM is a rude fellow, and always has been, but fwiw (and unlike the rest of it) "Americans (most of whom have never left their country)" is factually correct isn't it? Plus that's on his user page, where a good deal more latitude is normally allowed. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This always seemed like an elitist argument. Someone in the US heartland is geographically very far from any other countries and likely can't afford to travel to other countries. 2600:1700:B1E0:1620:61AD:445E:81F:F7B5 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Johnbod, the assertion is factually wrong. According to this survey by Pew Research, 71% of American adults have traveled to another country. Unsurprisingly, those who are more prosperous and more educated are more likely to have visited other countries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, thanks - interesting. I'm pretty sure it used to be true. From the link: "international travel is something a 71% majority of U.S. adults have done at some point in their lives, according to a June Pew Research Center survey. By contrast, around a quarter (27%) have not traveled abroad" - leaving 2% who aren't sure where the aliens took them? Or they just don't remember the 1960s at all, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Give it a rest, Rockstone. Honestly, more drama and trouble is being caused just by bringing this one-off remark to ANI, when hatting it alone would clearly have been sufficient. Furthermore, digging around in an established contributor's userspace and looking for problematic remarks is somewhat despicable, as I've stated a few times on MFD. I agree completely with TrangaBellam. --WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]