Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 28 October 2021

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not 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. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Block evasion by LTA

• 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits are still being made from this range, like the tampering with sourced data that Ninenine99 was known for. Is a block on this range feasible? --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still going... Please check all current revisions for unsourced additions or changes to data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232 and LaundryPizza03: Please be more explicit and spell out at least one example for dummy admins. For example, this edit given above shows 2603:8000:b00:386f:8d25:d46e:40c6:5aa4 fiddling with two lengths. If I were to check the article would I find an easily accessible source that easily shows the IP made the values wrong? I've investigated stuff like this before and it can be a wall of fog with model numbers not quite agreeing with the source and the source saying that variations occur. Something like this would make me more confident in issuing a block: "This diff shows the IP changed 180.6 to 181.6 but the source says '...180.6...'." Also if, without too much trouble, you can find a case where the blocked user made a similar change, please post a diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: - the original account would make edits like this, changing the data that appeared in the cited source to something different. The diff you linked to, I don't believe there's a source in the article for that and I don't have time to search for one now. However, given the track record and considering the changes to sourced data by the IP that I linked above, all data changes by this person are suspect. The topic areas and editing patterns are identical: automobiles, professional wrestling, and the occasional foray into liquor brands. There is no doubt in my mind that this IP range is Ninenine99. --Sable232 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Darylprasad & Platonic solids

• Platonic solid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Classical element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darylprasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Platonic solid (the attitude of the other edit warriors there was less than optimal, but I'll move on). When it became apparent the content would not be accepted there, they tried to insert the same content in Classical element . When I objected to this on the talk page and reverted it , they started mass-removing other content from the article repeating a sentence from my talk page comment as an edit summary . I think they need a cool-down period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as non-involved). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears that all non-sourced material has been removed from the article "Classical elements". And we quote Apaugasma who says quite rightly that "Writing sections based upon no source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Misplaced Pages" Have a nice day. Regards Daryl Darylprasad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be resolved for the time being . ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're right. Darylprasad strikes me as someone who has the capacity to improve WP, but who doesn't understand very well what encyclopedic writing is about, nor various cultural norms here. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I will try to do better next time. I will use the talk pages first before making large contributions. Once again, thanks for your comments, I am just trying to do my best to improve Misplaced Pages. I am new to "Talk" page etiquette.Darylprasad (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

While this editor has been very tiresome to deal with at Classical element, I think this mainly stems from inexperience. He has been editing for a couple of years, but not very heavily. He needs to learn to listen to others and not cause disruption when he doesn't get his way. This report should serve as a warning to him that such behaviour can get him blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 07:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Per this editor, see also Talk:Cerberus#Massive insertion (pinging Doniago, who was also involved in that discussion). Paul August ☎ 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think that discussion speaks for itself, and it was a year ago or so, but it should probably be noted that Daryl inexplicably (literally given they didn't leave an edit summary) deleted the thread on October 23 (i.e. after this ANI discussion was initiated), though another editor subsequently restored it. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The user is now asserting on his talk page that all messages will be deleted unread and that he won't engage on any talk page. We have two behaviour problems here; WP:COMPETENCE and failure to work collegially. SpinningSpark 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at their talk. Please let me know if problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

To me the current state of their Talk page represents a WP:NOTHERE problem even after you gave your warning. DonIago (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems with User:Vice regent not accepting the result of a closed dispute

I believe we might have a series of problems with the Sexual slavery in Islam page and its POVFORK. More than one year ago an editor, Vice regent, who did not like the “sexual slavery” label in the page title, attempted to rename the page without consensus, but the the issue was solved and the previous title was restored. However, as of today, they still claim that “the title dispute was never resolved”, and in the name of this belief they keep restoring the {{POV}} template that they had inserted long ago during the title dispute (#1, #2, #3, #4 – I am not sure if this list covers all the reverts). Furthermore, in the meanwhile they have also WP:POVFORKED the page and created a duplicate, Islamic views on concubinage, basically as a way for bypassing the closed dispute. I was not aware of the WP:POVFORK, and after becoming aware I have requested a page move (please see Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021). The issue should be considered long solved by now, and I find it challenging to discuss: on the one hand, for defending the separate existence Islamic views on concubinage, they claim that sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam speak about different phenomena, while on the other hand they also claim that the they are the same thing and the Sexual slavery in Islam page should be renamed to “Concubinage in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits on 11 different articles. At one point I counted their edits and found that Grufo spent 90% of their edits on[REDACTED] getting into disputes with me (all of which Grufo followed me to, not the other way around). Grufo was warned against edit-warring by an admin, and then eventually blocked. If you look at Grufo's latest proposal, every single user has opposed it, but that's not an ANI matter. This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior.VR _talk 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

“Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits”

Vice regent, you cannot link an old failed attempt of yours to bring me to ANI for WP:HOUNDING you as a proof that one year ago I was hounding you.

“Every single user has opposed it”

Being minority would not be sin. WP:POVFORKING after being minority instead would be. You, Mhhossein (who once accused me of being uncivil for defending two atheist bloggers who opposed a bloody dictator), Baamiyaan2 (who you keep accusing of being a sockpuppet), Jushyosaha604 (who was involved in the previous discussion on the minority's side) want to keep your WP:POVFORK as it is, while Anachronist, Wiqi55 and I are open to a change. Your side also uses opposite arguments (some say that it's because “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” are two different things, while you say that it is just one thing). There are not many users currently involved in the new discussion.

“This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior”

WP:POVFORKING a page and not accepting that a dispute ended after more than one year is not “a content dispute”, it is a natural case for WP:ANI.

Could you please explain to the admins here, do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why have you created Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why do you want to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re POVFORK, see this discussion.VR _talk 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics, broadly construed. They are practically a WP:SPA when it comes to this topic area, and seem keen to push an anti-Islam agenda. I encountered them last year when they were pushing Nonie Darwish, a noted counter-jihad personality, as a reliable source for Ruhollah Khoemini's views on sex with underage children. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

• Yeah, I remember you too. I remember that you called me “a civil POV pusher” one of the first times we met (or you met me), commenting about a discussion of mine related to the Planck units (in which you were not involved and I am not completely sure you understood), in the WP:HOUNDING discussion that Vice regent had raised (which had nothing to do with physics).
• Fortunately we don't need your memory, as my contributions are public
• How can someone be “a WP:SPA when it comes to area”? If I have many interests, how can I be WP:SPA? You do you realize that this is an oxymoron, right?
• As it seems, you were not happy with my contributions even when they were about physics, so maybe I should be banned from physics-related topics too?
• I was not pushing Nonie Darwish (who I certainly did not know), I only fought to make sure that the reliability of a source is always discussed first. Thanks to me we discussed the topic, and my opinion is still that despite her political views are disgusting (according to me) she can be reliable when she tells the story of her life. Opinion-wise, I consider Nonie Darwish utterly garbage (sorry, I am far left politically – so I also can hardly have a “counter-jihad personality”).
• “A topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics”: Specifically, what edits of mine are you referring to? I would say that your attacks are purely personal, I am not the one who lost a dispute and WP:POVFORKED a page, and I also haven't edited many Islam-related pages lately.
• I had expressed in more than one occasion that I sincerely believe that Vice regent is in many ways a WP:SPA: his edits tend to be Islam-related and with the intent of pushing the same point of view (in this case that of using an apologetic alternative to “sexual slavery”) independently of the consensus – but we also don't need my memory, as his edits are public too. And yet we are not even here to discuss the WP:SPA nature of Vice regent's account, we are here to discuss two very specific facts:
  1. The fact that Vice regent has WP:POVFORKED a page after loosing a dispute more than one year ago
  2. The fact that Vice regent keeps pushing the {{POV}} template that he inserted in Sexual slavery in Islam during that dispute one year ago, despite the dispute has ended, and despite several editors have attempted to remove it
• Do you have any actual opinion on what we are discussing here? Feel free to contribute.

--Grufo (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with you on the Plank Units discussion either. Vice Regent is a competent editor who mostly focused on Islam and Iran related topics. This does not make him a SPA. My SPA accusation came from your very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles. Which you returned to after a year hiatus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I thought. Obviously you haven't read the Plank units discussion. It was a very long discussion with only three editors involved (me included). The trio became a duo almost immediately. And yet you commented about that lonely duo that I seemed to “have issues finding consensus with other users”. On the other hand, the discussion about Vice regent's proposal of using an apologetic alternative for “sexual slavery” has been a rather participated discussion, with many editors involved, about which he still struggles to make peace with the fact that the dispute ended.
• “This does not make him a SPA”: this is literally what makes one WP:SPA. He literally is a WP:SPA – whether good or bad, we are not here for that (my personal opinion based on the nature of his edits is that he is on an apologetic mission even at the cost of the truth – but again, we are not here for that).
• My “very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles”? Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The RM you linked to was closed as non-consensus so you can't say it was resolved. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to simply ignore the previous RM since when there's no consensus we preserve the status quo ante, but since we operate by consensus working towards consensus is generally a good thing. Also while this wasn't mentioned by the closer, it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam. So VR's actions don't seem inherently even against even the no consensus RM. Clearly we don't want duplicate articles, but what each article should cover or even whether we should have two can only be resolved by further discussion, again aiming towards consensus. You are free to link to the previous RM help guide the discussion but you can't claim it establishes something it clearly doesn't. Frankly although it's probably too late to close, the new RM you started seems a disaster as it's missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things are mysterious for me in this discussion. The first is the passion for discussing about unimportant things, the second is the passion for discussing about what I do, although I haven't done much in the last year. Unless people are really interested only in me – and I will be happy to have conversations in my talk page – I still believe that the question here is: do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Misplaced Pages rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

It is a stale mate created on purpose by a specific user. You say “it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam”. Yes, some (few) editors supported that (not me). The result? Vice regent created a clone and uses that clone (which shouldn't exist) as an argument for pushing the {{POV}} template in the original article, despite a dispute was closed (you like it or not). Do you sincerely believe at this point that Vice regent wanted to treat a different topic when he povforked the page, or instead he deliberately wanted to bypass the ended dispute and treat exactly the same topic under a different name? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of Grufo's WP:IDHT. They asked this exact question earlier in this section, and I pointed them to the answer. Yet they continue to WP:BLUDGEON with the same question. Per WP:BOOMERANG, examining Grufo's conduct is appropriate.VR _talk 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I hadn't replied to your previous non-answer for politeness, but now I will: you have not answered my question yet (no, your link is not an answer to my question). --Grufo (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed

• Islamic views on concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both Grufo and Vice regent have dug in their heels at Talk:Islamic views on concubinage and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. Grufo seems to have vowed not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery" instead (coming here after their move request was receiving much opposition). Vice regent appears to have vowed the exact opposite, and will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles (as it is entirely absent from Islamic views on concubinage, a POV-fork which they wrote, also after a failed move request last year). It seems that Grufo wants to turn these articles into attack pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam was a special, institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage), while Vice regent would rather like them to be apologetic 'defense' pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam should ever be called or treated like a form of sexual slavery at all). Neither of them seem particularly interested to work towards a solid summary style- and NPOV-compliant article, and instead they (ab)use these pages as a battleground for (anti-)Islamic apologetics. This has become time-consuming and disruptive. I therefore propose to topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed.

Pinging editors recently active at both articles' talk pages: Toddy1, Wiqi55, Baamiyaan2, Assem Khidhr, Srnec, Mhhossein, Anachronist, Aciram, Slywriter, Jushyosaha604, Sirdog, FormalDude, Wikiedit01995, Bookku, Mcphurphy.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If both are topic banned, what is to become of the POV-forkiness? Vice Regent proposed a reasonable split, one article being about the history of sexual slavery/concubinage (I don't care what it's called), and the other being about Islamic views (theology, legal issues) toward it. Right now there's too big of an overlap for the two articles to exist, but a case can be made for two independently notable topics. Vice Regent is a major contributor to one of the articles and would be the best person to get them both into shape, as long as the arguments over titles stop. That can be handled in a RM discussion covering both articles simultaneously, and both editors could be banned from that discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist do you see anything problematic with my participation in the RM discussion? I have consistently cited loads of RS. In fact, Apaugasma referred to my research as "impressive" so this topic ban proposal comes as a surprise to me. What have I done wrong here? I'm happy to listen to feedback and use it improve my conduct during discussions.VR _talk 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We would not be here if you had not created a POV fork. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where this proposal comes from, or why. With the idea that discussing openly and reaching consensus is always the right approach, the only thing I have edited after being pinged in a talk page by a user on 13th October have been talk pages. “Receiving opposition” for a request is not a bad thing as you present it, I consider it rather good. The bad thing would be ignoring the will of a community and proceed with an agenda anyway. I can proudly say that I never did or attempted anything close to that. --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The disagreements between them are not restricted to those two pages, and lots of stuff seems related to sexual slavery - for example Grufo moved Contubernium to Contubernium (Roman army unit) and then wrote a new article on sex with slaves on top of the redirect created by the move, which Vice regent disagreed with (see Talk:Contubernium (Roman army unit) and Talk:Contubernium). The thing that comes out of looking at some of these disagreements is how reasonable Vice regent seems to have been.

• Interaction analyser (undated)
• Interaction analyser (2021 edits)
• Interaction analyser (2020 edits)

It does not make sense taking any action against Vice regent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Excuse me, is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The "accusation" is that Vice regent behaves reasonably in disputes with you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That is rather subjective. It might be that I have just different opinions than you. And if your accusation was that of not being responsible in disputes, don't you think that started with the wrong foot? --Grufo (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I commented on him. I did not comment on you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's even weirder. So your accusation against me is that he behaves reasonably? --Grufo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I "accused" him of behaving reasonably in disputes with you. I did not comment on your behaviour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are making things worse, Toddy1. You were answering to “is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article?”. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any "accusation" against Grufo. I looked at some of the many disputes between Grufo and Vice regent. I gave the Contubernium one as an example. It seems to me that Vice regent generally behaves reasonably, and a topic ban against Vice regent is not justified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Grufo (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The Contubernium example is a nice example. Basically, after I created the page, Vice regent appeared out of the blue and started to POV-push the idea that “concubinatus” could be used as a synonym for it, oddily using a source about Middle Age in support, despite “concubinatus” and “contubernium” were separate institutions in the Roman Law, on which the amount of specialized sources is uncountable (you can read the short discussion at Talk:Contubernium). That was also the time when Vice regent was trying to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam” – it looks like it had become a passion for him to push the word “concubinage” into Misplaced Pages articles. Was this particular behavior what you consider a “reasonable behavior”, or are there other reasons why you found it useful to present my Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma's proposed topic ban was limited to "sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed". So it was useful to show that the sex-and-slavery disputes between Grufo and Vice regent have been more wide-ranging than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I was quoted here. I am interested in the articles in question. However, I have not followed the conflict and discussion between the two editors mentioned here, so I can't really comment on them. But I will say this; these articles are sensitive. They present a subject which is sensitive in the eyes of people with religious bias. For a long time, I have obsered through the edit history of these articles, particlularly Sexual slavery in Islam, that they are almost routinely vandalized by IPs, and the reason seem to be that Muslims regard the subject shameful to Islam. Because of this, I asked for the article Sexual Slavery to be protected. It resulted in the article being accused of racism and all sorts of things, which did not give me a better impression. Because of all this, I have more or less stayed out of getting involved in these articles. I was strenghtened in this decision, when the User Vice regent aggressively attacked me out of nowhere because I asked for citations for one or two sentences in the article which did not have citations - I was not aware of this user beforehand, but they appear to have felt personally attacked, and I did not wish to become further involved with them.

To summarize my opinion: these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it. It is my impression. But the subject are important and should not be censured because of religious bias. If these two users can't edit in neutrally, they should be banned from the article. Due to the sensitive issue of the article, and my experience by observation of its edit history, I am afraid that this would not be suprising, and perhaps not the last time such a ban would be necessary. We should not bend to religious pressure, but present the sensitive subject neutrally.

Without being closely informed about the article renaming and split; Islam had special rules around sexual slavery and these warrant its own article. It isn an important subject. All concubines in the Muslim world were by definition slaves. Hence an article about concubines in Islam is the same thing as an article about sexual slaves in Islam. However; not all sexual slaves in Islam were concubines. Therefore, Sexual slavery in Islam and Concubinage in Islam is not the same thing, and therefore separate articles about sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam is justified. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma pinged me and some others above. I feel that if Vice regent keeps inserting a {{POV}} tag and creating forks for Islam related articles, he should be blocked or topic banned from Islam related articles, essentially because he's a biased Islamophilic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aciram: Thank you for intervening despite the tension that the topic brings. Without going into content-related topics here, I would like just to emphasize that my only edit in Sexual slavery in Islam in more than one year has been my attempt to remove the {{POV}} template, which was immediately reverted by Vice regent – and that led me here. After all, the dispute was over, I thought, and they had even povforked the page, all problems seemed solved there. Before that, my last contribution was from more than one year ago, dated 23 September 2020, which was also reverted by Toddy1. If I am guilty, my crime has been that of reporting a problem that originates from a compact group of users. The same problem was probably felt by who created the page, Mcphurphy, who has slowly loosened their involvement in the article. One month ago Vice regent was “warned against a battleground mentality” and Mhhossein (another editor involved in these topics and in this discussion too) was “warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility” and “topic-banned from People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), broadly construed”. I will not report older events – I do support the principle of Non bis in idem and I am not really eager to recall them – one month though is too short for making this a “bis”. --Grufo (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not "aggressively attack" Aciram. It is an WP:ASPERSION for Aciram to accuse me without diffs. Last month Aciram repeatedly put cn tags on sentences, where the very next sentence had the citation along with a quote. I told Aciram about this politely here. And Aciram's comment "these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it" is unhelpful.

Baamiyaan2 might be upset that I reported them for sockpuppetry here (where two other users agree with my assessment). And Grufo is connecting this to a completely unrelated arbitration case here.VR _talk 21:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your warning “against a battleground mentality” together with the very same people that keep POV-pushing apologetic content is unrelated? Are you not making confusion with your WP:CANVASS attempt to involve editors from a discussion about Planck units in a discussion about sexual slavery and Islam only because they were the only people you had found in the entire Misplaced Pages that were arguing with me? That indeed might sound unrelated. Or maybe that time when you asked an admin whether you could contact an Iranian about a controversial Farsi translation concerning Khomeini, and the admin answered that you could, as long as the involvement was due only to their language skills (“I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position”); except that the day after the Iranian (with whom I barely had any interaction) was already polarized against me and had asked for the intervention of another admin because of my critical opinions about Khomeini (I know it sounds absurd, but apparently the bloody Khomeini has still supporters around). The “uninvolved” Iranian was no less than Mhhossein by the way. So no, your warning “against a battleground mentality” does not look so unrelated. Or should we discuss about how you have literally bombed Mcphurphy's talk page? – no mystery that that editor does not want to get involved in these topics anymore. I was really making you a favor, Vice regent, I sincerely support the principle of Non bis in idem – although for most of these things you have not been really judged yet, so non bis in idem would not even apply. --Grufo (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent, I have merely made an unprejudiced observation. Your sock puppet investigation will surely fail because I am not the person you are accusing me of being, I have edited only 5% of the articles he/she edited and thanks to the analysis of Toddy1 which listed out the articles edited by that user, I am even avoiding those articles - nobody has blocked or banned me probably because they believe that I am not who you claim I am.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Sockpuppet.VR _talk 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read through my comment since posting it, I realised I forgot to write something I thought I already wrote in my first comment but did not, so I will add it as a Postscript to my last comment. If the situation is as described (and I will simply trust the description given here) then in that case, what the user Vice regent is doing ("will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles") is more incorrect and destructive than what is described about user Grufo ("not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery"). Concubinage in Islam was indeed sexual slavery, regardless if this form of sexual slavery is a "institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage" or not. Slavery is slavery regardless in what form it is performed; Misplaced Pages must have a Global view on this phenomena and not, for example, assume that the form of slavery taking place in the US is the only form of slavery which should be defined as slavery. I don't think the fact that Islamic concubinage is synonymous with sexual slavery need necessarily be included in the title of each article, but it was indeed sexual slavery, and that should be made clear in the article text, not hidden. If user Vice regent is indeed making edits of an apologetic kind designed to hide the fact that Islamic concubinage is slavery, then this user does indeed give a biased impression, and are in that case not suitable to edit these pages. There is a problem I have observed in several articles about women in Islam, and that is that they are tagged as non-neutral, vandalized by people who think that they blacken the name of Islam, called racist and even hate pages and so forth, merely because of their subject, and despite having plenty of scholarly references. This does not give a good impression of the intent of the users's and anonymous IPs who perform these acts. It does give the impression of religious bias. I am fully aware of how deeply sensitive this subject is - that is why I prefer to stay away from discussions were users of this kind participate - but Misplaced Pages as a project must be religiously neutral and give a neutral, non-biased and non-apologetic description of subjects, even when the subject is sensitive to people with religious bias. Apologetics can not be tolerated. Now: I realise that the conflict between these two users may be very infected, and it seems it is. But when it comes to the subject at hand, I feel it is my duty to strongly point out the importance of the principle of religious neutrality, regardless of the sensitivity of the subject, since my observations in this context have sometimes given me concern. --Aciram (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Oddities

There is something funny about this discussion. I go to someone for a question – let's say “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with another question concerning me, something like “What color is you hair?”. I answer the question, then I ask again “Do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with a another question, “Where have you been yesterday?”. I answer also that question. After going on like this with me answering all the questions, I still ask “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. But then the person screams at me, and says “Stop asking that question! Don't you see that we have moved forward, you stupid WP:IDHT! You are just a WP:BLUDGEON with your wish to manipulate the discussion about the time! You know what? I think you are a WP:SPA.”

I am perfectly fine with all you asking me all the questions you want to ask, and look at my contributions as much as you want, and I love the WP:BOOMERANG idea, but I would still like to know: Do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Misplaced Pages rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

Thanks to all of you who want to give their time to answer. --Grufo (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss whether Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is the only possible place when a dispute goes on for more than one year despite formally closed, and a user keeps forbidding other editors to remove the {{POV}} template that they had placed in Sexual slavery in Islam in the name of that dispute, in spite of the fact that they have even povforked the page in the meanwhile. Where else should it be asked? Thanks for not answering – at least you didn't scream. --Grufo (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussing users' behaviour. The article talk page is for discussing the article. You could raise the issue at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gender studies. You could use the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment process. If you think that one article is redundant, you could propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. But be careful not to engage in forum shopping-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the introduction, a behavior (#1, #2, #3, #4) is what brought me here. --Grufo (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent's behaviour in the diffs, Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template (again) seem entirely reasonable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

100% agree- ANI is the wrong place to discuss content- stick to behavior here. If you want a moderated discussion of content- your options are WP:RFC, WP:3O or WP:DRN, please head to one of those venues. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I go to WP:RFC or WP:3O and ask what? “Hey guys, there is an editor that keeps pushing the {{POV}} template in a page in the name of a dispute that ended more than one year ago. It is not like anyone forbids them to improve the page, and indeed they often make contributions, they just like to keep the {{POV}} template anyway. Can you make them stop? They have even povforked the page in the meanwhile.” Do you think that could work? WP:DRN might not be a bad idea though. WP:DRN is for solving disputes. There are currently no disputes in that page. --Grufo (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you go to 3o and write a neutral request for a 3rd opinion- you don't put your POV in there. Beware flying boomerangs my friend- I think one is seeking you out. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask them directly. @Vice regent: Why do you think it is better for Misplaced Pages that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic? Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself? Are there sources that you would like to insert but you are forbidden to insert? Any concrete example? --Grufo (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, please stop trying to discuss content at ANI!-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Things are getting out of ANI scope. --Mhhossein 05:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: What is the sense of coming into a place full of admins and trying to convince them that behavior-related questions are not behavior-related? A Misplaced Pages admin tends to be familiar with rhetoric fallacies, and WP:BOOMERANG applies to everyone after all. These are both behavior-related questions:

• “Why do you think it is better for Misplaced Pages that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic?”
• “Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself?”

The very fact that a single user “maintains” a {{POV}} template in a page for more than one year without trying to address it is a behavior problem. There are two sections in the discussion – § Neutrality template and § Neutrality template (again) – that were created by editors who attempted to remove the template, not by who keeps pushing the {{POV}} template. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This behaviour by Grufo is called sealioning. As you can see, he/she has been doing quite a bit of it on this page. It is very annoying. Can I suggest a 2 week block for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Wojak6 Needs to be stopped from misusing article talk page. Editor needs corrective action.

Wojak6 is misusing the Kisii people article talk page (refer to recent inputs on the talk page by editor). The editor is using the talk page to express his personal views and his inputs to the talk page are full of negativity and appear to express hate speech to an editor and a group of people. The editor appears to be using the page to fight another editor rather than using it for a discussion to improve the encyclopedia. The editor posts unnecessary content to the page and does not add anything rather than continuously criticizing an article without providing any solutions. I am personally tired of having to reply to the editor's rather irrelevant posts which seem to be getting out of control as the talk page is now getting overfilled with a lot of unnecessary content. It is also getting tiring to report on this editor and long term solution is needed. I don't want to engage in any more discussion with editor as he appears to be fighting me. The editor need to be stopped from posting irrelevant and unnecessary content on the talk page. The editor seems to post anything he feels like on the talk page. The editor also seems to ignore the feedback and warning on his talk page since he repeats some of the concerns on his personal talk page. Serious intervention is needed to help stop the editor from misusing the talk page. The posts by the editor on the article talk page need to be removed to clean up the page which is now overcrowded with unnecessary discussions. The editor needs corrective action.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Wojack6 isn't communication great on the talk page but your long posts on Talk aren't exactly helpful either. Additionally, while you managed to get an admin to previously protect the page as edit-warring, even got Wojack6 warned, a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions. The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter The article has been edited by several IPs and for some reason you seem to assume I am the one who edited the article over the years. That is simply not true. As much I have mostly worked on the article, it does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has edited the article over the years. "a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted....." I have no idea of what you are referring to and I have only done very few reversions on this editor and I have always left reasons for reversions. I only restored earlier to earlier version of the Kisii people article this morning and did not quickly restore content and seek sanctions as you put it. There were intermediate edits between the edits by the editor and my edit where I restored an earlier version. So I did not quickly revert as you put it. The report is about the Kisii people article talk page and not the actual article and was filed yesterday. It does not make sense to claim that I should provide sourcing not restore content and seek sanctions. You are not addressing the report but defending the editor and blaming me and even wrongly accusing me of being the editor that bloated the article on an article edited by several people before I even started editing.

The long posts were just unavoidable. What are your suggestion for the talk page? Should the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page as they are mostly irrelevant and a number of them have negativity. Are editors allowed to deleted content from the article talk pages, or is that the work of the administrator? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1045663114 where you accuse the Wojack of vandalism and restore content, half of which is completely unsourced. And I did not blame or state you were the ip editor(s), in fact I said " No idea if.. " I was pointing out that both the article and talk page are suffering the same problem which is dense walls of text, which make it difficult for a reader to comprehend the article and difficult for other editors to get a grasp of what the issues are without committing significant time. Wojack isn't without guilt as they are removing sourced material as well as unsourced but as other editors have noted here, their concern about the article is not without merit. Slywriter (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter I still don't understand why you state that ...."a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".....That is very biased and one-sided view. The point is that Wojak6 was blanking entire sections and parts of sections and not providing any solutions. The reasons provided for deletion were not good enough to justify deletion of entire sections of the article. And on the basis of the claims on some of his summaries and on the talk page indicate that he did not read through the article for starting blanking it of content. The best solution was to reverse the article as the editor was not helping the article rather than making it even more worse. Why did you even talk about this issue as it was already resolved?

What the editor did to the article was vandalism because he was basically blanking the article without sufficient explanations. Your claims that half of the content was unsourced are also not correct and biased. The editor continuously continued deletion of content despite being reversed several times and then the page was protected. I was basically reverting to safe the article as the removal of deletion of entire sections of both cited and uncited information was not constructive. Was it wrong to seek administrator intervention to stop what was happening on the page? Was the reversion wrong? Should have been left to blank the entire article of content because that is what was going to happen if the page was not protected.

I basically only did the work of reverting the article that was being blanked of content. Why do you then claim that ..." WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".... You seem to be assume that I am the only editor who edits the article that is edited by many. Why should I be the only one responsible for providing sourcing on an article that is edited by many? I did not restore content and seek sanctions as you claim as I only reverted an article that was basically being vandalized. Blanking of articles is really vandalized as both sourced and unsourced content were removed and no solutions provided. It is very surprising that you think an administrator intervention should not have been sought.

Your claim that ...." The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard.".... Indicates that you support what the editor was doing blanking entire sections of the article. Why do you assume I was guarding the article when I was simply saving it from losing entire contents? Was blanking the article a solution? You should admit that you are biased and have only provided one sided views. You have also mostly defended the editor rather than addressing the report. You have only talked about an issue that was already resolved.

What are your stands? should the editor continue with his current editing practices. The editor mostly never leaves summaries for most of his edits, deletes and adds content without providing any summaries and if he provides then they are not good summaries. I suggest talking a look at his talk page to see concerns from other editors. I mean you mostly defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My stance is simple... you see enemies everywhere, which is not in collaborative spirit this encyclopedia is based on. Even here, you are making accussations against me and accusing me of bias. WP:Vandalism means something very specific here and WP:AGF is not optional.

The talk page is covered in long winded rants by you. Even here, you still insist on writing novellas as a response. And I have repeatedly started there are concerns with Wojack's editing but I do not see them as the only problematic editor on the page, you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.

And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic . Slywriter (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter What do you mean I see enemies everywhere? I only expressed my concerns about your one sided-view in your replies which I found to be unfair. Of course you had bias in that you mostly defended the other editor and made blaming statements that I quoted in the earlier reply against me. How does that apply to collaboration on Misplaced Pages? I have not accused you anywhere but expressed my concerns about what you said earlier which I quoted. There is no battleground mentality here and there are no disagreements between you and I on anything. I have just expressed my concerns. Please clarify this statement...."you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.".... what are you referring to? ..."And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic.".. which topic are you referring to? you are confusing me with the quoted statement. The report was about the talk page and not the article itself. How come you are now talking about the article and not the talk page? Are you trying to imply that I am the one who wrote the Kisii people article and/or it is based on my personal views and so I have a battleground mentality on whoever disagrees with me? Because if you are assuming that then it is wrong because the article was not written by me. The article was there long before I stated editing and there are many people who edit it. There is no accusing you are having a battleground with you. I am just offended by the statements you have made on your replies which I have quoted. I will appreciate if you can use a neutral language rather than the one you have used in you replies. The only thing that I have done on that talk page is replying to threads by Wojak6. How come you think I am developing a battleground with those who disagree with since the threads were not mine and I just replied to them? Shouldn't be the other way round because it is the other editor who started the threads? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is grossly lacking citations for much of its content. From a quick look, it would appear that much of it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've brought this editor to ANI in a month . At this point this is simply becoming harassment. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:192.76.8.77 Like I said I am not going to be engaging with the editor anymore. I only had a choice of reporting him and I am just tired of doing so.

I do not see that Wojak6 has been any less constructive on the talk page than Nyanza Cushitic. Both editors need to base their arguments on the sources rather than what they "know" themselves, which seems to be informed by misplaced ethnic pride rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Thank you for your input. I have just tried my best to reply to the editor on the talk page and just got tired and don't want to engage with the editor. Can the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page? Is that the work of the administrator to delete threads from article talk pages? or Can an editor go ahead and delete the threads. If the threads were never posted, I possibly could have not even replied to them. It is the threads that led to replying. Can they be deleted? I believe that will help remove unnecessary discussions and some negative threads from the page. If you can please help delete the threads from the talk page. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit an article then you have to be prepared to discuss issues with people who may disagree with you, rather than come running to a noticeboard whenever that happens. I don't see anything so egregious that it warrants deletion from the talk page. Instead of going off on long rants just say in a sentence or two what reliable sources you have looked at and what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil BridgerWhy do you for some reason assume that I am the only one who edits the article. The edits put some input on the talk page which I tried my best to reply. Why do you assume the editor was disagreeing with me and the editor too seems to assume I did this and that according to the input on the talk page. What do you mean I run to the noticeboard? was it wrong to file a report about a misuse of the talk page? The editor put some input which I replied to, so how come you say he was disagreeing with me? I mean the article is edited by many people and for some reason you are assuming that I am the one who wrote the article and the editor was disagreeing with me. That simply wrong. The article is editing by many people and has been edited for wrong before I even started editing, so how come you assume that I am the writer of the article? You claims are simply biased and unfair. So do you probably believe that I did not have or don't have rights to seek administrator intervention? You should accept that some of your claims are wrong. You have also very much defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody misused the talk page, so it was wrong of you to say that anyone did. Your only complaint is that you disagree with what someone said there. Talk about it there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read through that talk page and Nyanza Cushitic, I highly recomend you review WP:NPA because you have been incredibly uncivil and have made some unnecessary personal attacks towards the other user. There is no need to question their intelligence or understanding of English because they disagree with you. You must be WP:CIVIL when you interact on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle I asked the editor understood English because he posted content unrelated to the thread being replied to. It was not meant to attack the editor. Is asking whether one understand English really an attack? I don't remember questioning the intelligence of the editor anywhere on the article. I have not attacked the editor other replying to his threads. Your claim that I was incredibly uncivil is simply an overstatement. Is asking whether one understands English really uncivil? I don't remember question the editor's intelligence in the talk page, but to claim that those two claims are incredibly uncivil and personal attack is an overstatement. I have mostly replied to the threads and nothing more than that, unless replying to the threads is an attack. Your claims of attacking the editor could be misplaced. Has Wojak6 been civil in the talk page? The editor has mostly assumed that I am the one who I wrote the Kisii people article and even quotes content from the article assuming that I am the one who did this an that. Whenever he read anything on the article that he does not agree with he assumes I am the one who put it there. isn't that also an attack against me then if asking if one understands English is an attack? It could be great if you can clarify by personal attacks because I could not see any attacks made other than replying to the threads. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You ask at least 3 times if they understand English..... and yet nowhere does there appear to be a language deficit on their side. Their syntax, vocabulary, and grammar all indicate a total understanding of the language. The only problem is- they differ in opinion from you. So yes- that is 100% a personal attack. And Wojak is remarkably civil to you- far more so than I would have been if I had been ridiculed for my opinion by you as they have been. I, again, recommend you review WP policies on civility and cooperation and WP:dropthestick at least- preferably with an apology. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interaction and topic ban proposal

It is clear from this discussion that although Wojak6 (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate edits at Kisii people and its talk page, Nyanza Cushitic (talk · contribs) (NC) has also behaved unacceptably toward this user.

• The two users had an edit war about a month ago where Wojak6 blanked content regarding the origins of the Kisii people. While their edit summaries were clearly based on their personal opinion about the topic, the content they deleted contained lots of unsourced OR, and NC's reverts contained unambiguous personal attacks, including accusations of vandalism. The section in this particular edit was recently removed by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) on the correct basis that it was entirely OR, with no references that were actually about the genetics of the Kisii people.
• More recent edits to the article by NC, such as the first edit after unprotection, have been focused primarily on making genuine improvements such as removing unreferenced content and redundant statements. Hence, NC should not be topic-banned from the Kisii people.
• They have discussed this issue on Talk:Kisii people, beginning around the same time as the edit war, concerning the article's POV. NC repeatedly asserted that Wojak6's concern should have been brought up at Talk:Gusii language, which is incorrect per WP:NOTFORUM since the original concern was about a POV issue in the Kisii people article. Both users' statements are tainted by personal opinion: While it is obvious in the case of Wojak6's statements that their POV is heavily based on the Niger–Congo hypothesis and a misinterpretation of the Bantu expansion hypothesis with unreliable sources (as asserted by NC), NC's arguments were also based on OR with no attempt whatsoever to back up their claims with reliable sources. NC also made a few personal attacks such as, Your assertions indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd.
• NC continued to attack Wojak6 after both users (along with a few others) turned to revising the article and deleting unsourced content and OR, such as on October 13 where NC once again dismissed Wojak6's concern about poor grammar, and order them to fix the claimed grammatical errors themselves. An overview of the later Special:Permalink#1051310691, the last revision before I started deleting OR and redundant content in the History section, clearly shows a number of grammatical errors, mostly missing commas such as, The Abamaragoli though close to Abagusii, their relationship is only tied to having similar oral traditions. Other than that, they are distinct in terms of culture and language and the Lulogooli is very distinct from Ekegusii language spare some lexical items shared through interaction and intermarriage. A recent thread that lasted from October 11–20 repeated many of the assertions from before with new claims (unsupported by RS) about the Khoisan peoples, plus a new personal attack by NC where they told Wojak6 twice to stop putting words in my mouth. Since this started with an off-topic question by Wojak6 about the speakers of the Omotic languages, with zero relevance to the Gusii language or the Kisii people, I think Wojak6 cannot edit productively about this topic area.
• On October 14, C.Fred (talk · contribs) warned Wojak6 about a personal attack about NC in an edit summary at Great Lakes Bantu anguages 3 days prior; Slywriter (talk · contribs) complained about Wojak6's lack of participation here and (without specific examples) that they use rude edit summaries or none at all.
• The fact that NC has filed 5 ANI threads about the aforementioned dispute, including this thread, is a serious behavioral problem in and of itself, as pointed out by the 192 IP. Harassment is often grounds for an interaction ban.

In conclusion, I propose that Nyanza Cushitic and Wojak6 be banned from interacting with each other, and that Wojak6 be topic banned from the migration history of, and linguistic or genetic relations between, African peoples and languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) I don't know what to say about the interaction ban, but it might be a good idea to prevent edit wars and other things that have happened from being repeated in the future.

In terms of Wojak6 being topic banned from the mentioned topic areas, it is probably a wise and good idea. The editor has not been able to edit that topic area productively on the basis of feedback from other editors on their personal talk page and their contributions in that topic area. On the basis of their contributions, they mostly edits articles on that topic area and have mostly left no edit summaries for most of the articles and if they left a summary it is not necessarily a good one. They also delete or add content to some of the articles if not all without providing rationales for doing so. The editor being topic banned from the mentioned topic area will allow them to possibly explore other topic area where they may edit more productively or are more comfortable in editing. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think that an interaction ban really addresses the underlying problem, which seems to be one of neither contributor fully understanding Misplaced Pages policy, particularly in regard to original research and the need for sourcing. Certainly their behaviour towards each other wasn't at all appropriate, but it seems to me that it arose in the first place because of the poor state of the article as they found it (for which neither seems to be directly responsible), and to neither contributor seeing the fundamental issues with how it had been written. I'm inclined to suggest that the more appropriate action here is to suggest that both contributors read up on policy and guidelines, not just on WP:OR and WP:RS, but on Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, and the options available when two contributors cannot reach an agreement. Maybe I'm being overoptimistic (not my usual habit) but I'd like to think that given a better understanding of how their interactions might have gone more constructively, they may now be capable of still working together. Misplaced Pages clearly needs contributors capable of creating appropriate content in this topic area - our coverage of the complexities of ethnicity in an African context is sorely lacking, and what exists is often of questionable merit - and an interaction ban that prevents two such contributors from working cooperatively together may not be in anyone's best interests. If they don't wish to work together, they clearly aren't obliged to, and if we find that they can't, without causing further drama, maybe an interaction ban or other sanctions will prove necessary. For now though, I'd say give them a chance to see if they can work together if they wish to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

While I don't know if I'm fully for a topic ban, I wanted to chip in with my two cents, as someone who edits in the same niche (and was the other editor on the Kisii people page): it's confirmed on Wojak9's talk page ] that he has been warned several times for his little to non-existent edit summaries of his edits to African languages and ethnic groups on his talk page. A fraction of his edits are accompanied with summaries, and often times these summaries are very accusatory or hyperbolic to the previous material and/or editors. Unfortunately, despite all these warnings, he doesn't appear to be changing his behavior. It would be lamentable to lose a fellow contributor to these topics often lacking in information, but he doesn't seem willing to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. Wdonghan (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

HK unregistered ip cult again

Please read Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

• I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
• Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
  • (210.6.10.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
  • (210.6.10.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:Military of Hong Kong, Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
• despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me

  210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402

  210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100

• And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
• A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
• Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI " do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what[REDACTED] should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

      With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.

    • 210.6.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): The main one in Matthew's complaint, and in my opinion outright trolling, including in this thread. Could be given a few weeks off with limited (maybe no) collateral.
    • 219.76.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Appears to be involved in this based on this edit, but (assuming that it's not the same person as 210.6) I don't think has done anything blockable (but maybe worth warning).
    • 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Part of the trolling, and the overlap with 219.76 at Enping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) makes me think still at least partly operated by the same person, while these edits suggest that the football edits on the same range may be coming from that person as well... But maybe better to wait and see.

    I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing

    • Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What are you doing? You requested for our help , but as soon as you were spotted , you want to get me banned? It was not just me who came to your assistance on your request. One other forum friend has done so too. Are you just trying to get us all blocked? Are you actually siding with the LIHKG and TeleGram people? 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Joiedelacruz6 creating draft hoaxes

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

Joiedelacruz6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating draft hoaxes such as Draft:A23 (TV channel), Draft:Studio TV, Draft:Sky Network Television Philippines and User:Joiedelacruz6/sandbox (that has the same edit of Draft:A23 (TV channel). These are hoaxes because these came from an opinion of the Solid Kapamila's or Kapamilya Fans from a FB Group called ABS-CBN ( In The Service of the Filipino Worldwide). They like this to happen if ABS-CBN will be given a new franchise on 2022. I cannot find their post about this topic because they posted on the FB group a few months ago (I always read their posts but I am not a member of the group). This discussion was originally discussed in a MfD, but a user said, it would be better if I report it here. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any action needs to be taken against the reported editor. What has happened is that the reported editor has created unverified drafts reporting planned television broadcasting. My opinion is that the drafts are crystal balling with no references, and so they should stay in draft space. The reported editor hasn't submitted them for review. If they were submitted for review, they should be declined. The filing editor has nominated them for deletion at MFD. I personally don't see a reason to delete them as drafts. If they were in article space, they should be deleted or moved to draft space. I also don't see a conduct issue. I don't think that they are hoaxes. They are unsubstantiated plans or business daydreams. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't edited in ten days. But, in my opinion, the drafts are not worth the concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These drafts are also WP:FUTURE, it needs to be deleted "ASAP" because as stated on the WP:FUTURE, Misplaced Pages does not predict the future. As I said above, these drafts were only an opinion from a FB Group. Please, delete it ASAP, no need to wait to die within 6 months if not edited because it is making Misplaced Pages violating WP:FUTURE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

They are drafts- not articles. Therefor they are not part of the Misplaced Pages catalog of knowledge. So- they are not predicting the future. If a user wants to work on an article so it is ready to be published if/when it becomes true- that is on them. As long as they don't actually publish them into article space- its not a big deal. Just ignore it and move on until it does become a problem :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Some LTA

Some LTA is going around and creating blatantly inappropriate usernames that are borderline offensive, with the clear intent to evade edit filters designed to stop such abuse. See here and here. Note the use of the extra "l" in the first word, which effectively bypasses edit filters. This is clearly some LTA (both of these accounts are without a doubt the same person) but I have no idea which one it is. Admin eyes requested for further account creations. Also, {{checkuser needed}} to figure out who this is. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any other user names with the term "plenis" in them that need blocking? Does this need an edit filter setting up for? Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find a handful: Quarry 59451. Doesn't seem to be too common. If you do want to filter for it, User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist might be a better way than using an edit filter. – Rummskartoffel 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disabling your CU request since a check has been run at SPI. If you see more sox, you can report there. Let's try to give this person as little attention as possible. -- Tamzin (she/they) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly that's a lot of socks! Seriously, some of those usernames should probably be oversighted. And it seems like this started all recently in relation/response to the recent ArbComBlock of an RFA candidate, which means that it's perhaps not an LTA but some other new troll. Was CU able to turn up an older master, or is this case truly brand-new? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Those sock names sound like track listings from a certain extremely NSFW shock band. But yeah, oversight that crap. Dronebogus (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandry Sm being difficult about accepting his sources are not RS

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

I considered EWN for this, but it's become a conduct issue. User:Sandry Sm has been adding increasingly poor quality sources at Run for Cover in support of a release date, none of which satisfy WP:RS. These range from Last.fm to Rateyourmusic, and some absolute junk website which specialises in celebrity gossip rather than music. I'm certain that the latter have simply lifted the dates previously removed as unsourced from WP.

Via edit summaries and user talk page discussion I have tried to make him aware of this, but he's having none of it. Instead, he resorts to ranting at me on his talk page. Remarks like "You animal!" and "It seems to me that you're doing this either for personal taste or for a fetish" just ain't gonna fly with me. I've been editing music-related articles since 2008 and know full well what WP's guidelines are by now—hey, we all have to learn sometime.

Also, deflections such as "If you're not satisfied, go find your Kerrang or Rolling Stone source. If you think you can do better, then do it", upon my request that he find some reliable magazine publications, says to me that he has no concept of WP:BURDEN. Therefore, instead of ensuring that his sources comply with WP:RS or omit them altogether, he flies off the handle and expects others to do the work for him.

Finally, a quick glance at his previous talk page interactions regarding the same complaints about poor quality sources would suggest WP:CIR issues. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now he's parroting himself like a child, as well as telling me to "stop talking like a robot. It's making me itch" and to "Don't be stupid". He obviously has no idea why his conduct is wrong, and now seems to have issues with communicating in correct English. Not civil, not constructive. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: The edit-warring/poorly sourced contributions are one thing (which probably would require a sanction regardless), but the personal attacks are just plain not needed. I've blocked them for two weeks ~TheresNoTime 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And if he's unrepentant upon returning? He's certainly not going to listen to me when it comes to the WP:RS and WP:BURDEN issues. It may be the language barrier or just his style, but we don't have much of a rapport, shall we say. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well if their behaviour doesn't change, then they'll get indefinitely blocked... I normally lean indef for personal attacks anyway, but fingers crossed ~TheresNoTime 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CompactSpacez

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

CompactSpacez has a light editing history, but the history is strewn with warnings for uncivil behavior. One of them resulted a week-long block. Most recently, he voted in an article discussion for deletion in which he made a baseless and insulting statement about the nationality and motivations of editors calling for the deletion of an article: . I propose that the editor be blocked for a longer period. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. And the history has stuff like this, so NOTHERE is not totally inappropriate, given the recent edits. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked them indefinitely as not here to build the encyclopedia. While looking at the basis of the various warnings on their talk page, it became clear that this editor has repeatedly engaged in very malevolent behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why was this user not indeffed a year and a half ago after posting this? Better late than never, I guess. Mlb96 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That comment was a major factor in my decision, Mlb96, although I only became aware of it minutes before I blocked. Fortunately, the recipient of that abuse was not bullied off the project and still contributes occasionally. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs)

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

the user सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs) is known for disruptive edits. Almost every edits were reverted and sufficient warnings and blocks are in talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.173.117 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah. You didn't sign this, you didn't notify them, you didn't discuss the matter, so no, you can't ask us to get involved with this. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies Although, on further investigation, the IP that started this (which has now been blocked for disruptive editing) does appear to have a point. सत्यशोधक's talk page is littered with warnings, and their latest thing appears to be repeatedly removing any mention of "Hindu" from Pongal (festival). In this edit, they actually changed the quote from Britannica (which says this). The same appears to be happening elsewhere (i.e. Satavahana dynasty). I don't have a lot of tolerance for religious warriors who actually subvert sources, so I am minded simply to indef them. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, Black Kite, that is probably all true and I appreciate the time you put into this. But anyone who reports here should not expect us to do all the work for them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Very true. But I'd noticed the username before, so I investigated it. Anyway - indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC):
        • @Black Kite: The block did not work. Please check. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I carried out the block per Black Kite's clearly expressed intentions. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks for doing that. I definitely pressed the button, but clearly something didn't work. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
              • I keep clicking and clicking. Why am I blocked? El_C 14:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Oh no, did you self-block again? Bishonen | tålk 05:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
                  • The moon must be in klutz . EEng 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on The Patrick Star Show

There has been an IP range disruptively editing on this article for months now, many of their edits randomly removing words with no explanation other than, "______ gone". Primary range is 2003::/19, and they've previously been doing it at 188.146.0.0/15. Some edits (such as this recent one) also adds in information not supported by any of the sources whatsoever.

At this point, it's becoming blatantly disruptive. Is there any sort of block that can be issued, or not given the ranges are too small? Would prefer a blocking (somehow) rather than a page protection, because it will likely just continue on after the protection has expired, and a new one will need to be applied once more. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And again, another disruptive edit from the IP. Magitroopa (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I've semi-protected the article again for two weeks. In the future, you may get a faster response by requesting page protection ~TheresNoTime 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic

This project has largely just become a canvassing platform for a small group of hard-inclusionist regulars (namely Andrew, Dream Focus, 7&6=thirteen, and lightburst— just look at some of their dubious nomination summaries like “really?” “An effort is underway to delete the airmen” and all Andrew’s random pop culture inside jokes). This project also gives users inexperienced in AfD the wrong idea about what AfD is— namely that it’s almost inherently bad, that articles must be “saved” from its all-consuming maw, and that most nominations and delete voters are wildly indiscriminate and disruptive. I understand that it explicitly states it’s not a canvassing operation, but that isn’t an excuse when that’s how it both superficially appears and is treated by its main participants.

This isn’t meant to be a Wiki-political attack or just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT— I’ve voted “keep” on some of their highlights and “delete” on others — but when a project is violating behavioral guidelines I can’t just let it sit there. Dronebogus (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• This same conversation just happened on the ARS page in the shadow of a giant skeleton of an extinct dinosaur. . If you accuse anyone of something, link to specific examples of it, instead of this vague wave nonsense. Dream Focus 10:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I had a look at some of these AfDs, including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with two entries, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of popes by age and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of water parks in the Americas and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. All I see are wildly different opinions on whether or not we should have those articles; there doesn't seem to be any direct disruption or incivility other than basic disagreement. As for the Article Rescue Squadron, I agree that it doesn't really suit the purpose it was designed for; after all, if you want to rescue articles by improving them, simply go to WP:AFD and see what's there. Ritchie333 10:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  They haven't got more problematic though. They are just as bad as they ever were, and I'll be very surprised if this enquiry results in anything to rein them in. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note that the articles for Misplaced Pages lists mentioned were not listed on the Article Rescue Squadron request for help page. Just a lot of us for years have looked at the List Wikiproject's list of list articles nominated for deletion. And we can't visit all articles, just too many up for deletion each day to properly sort through. If someone wants to request help in improving an article or finding reliable sources o prove its notable, they can make a request. You can look at the current list of things and see where someone asked for help, but no one could figure out how to help them, and no one went to the AFD and posted anything at all. So it is not a canvassing platform. Just a request for help. Dream Focus 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Ritchie333 that the best way to improve articles nominated for deletion is to just go to AfD, and would add that the best way to avoid slogging through dozens of AfDs you have no interest in is to go to deletion sorting and put your preferred topics on your watchlist. The fact that anyone listing pages on ARS is doing so to oppose the deletion and no other reason means the ARS is cherry-picking for the purpose of aiding a particular wiki-faction rather than a particular nonpartisan interest group. I also think it’s problematic since on top of obviously encouraging canvassing it also encourages attacks on “the other side” due to its blatant pro-inclusionist bias. Dronebogus (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• We're near the end of October and so far this month, just two articles have been listed at WP:RESCUE: Big John (dinosaur) and Erynn Chambers. I have attended neither of these matters and so have obviously not been canvassed in the way that the OP suggests. See WP:ASPERSIONS.
• As for the humour, the OP styles himself a WikiHunter on his user page: "... a Wikipedian who devotes his/her time to tracking, hunting and killing articles." See WP:POT.
• Andrew🐉(talk) 11:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

“… that no longer contribute to the herd” i.e. are bad. And I don’t help maintain a canvassing platform, which is what I’m accusing you of doing. Write whatever you want on your page within reason, label yourself whatever you like, just don’t contribute to whole projects dedicated towards pushing your agenda. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• In any case this is just an ad hominem diverting from my main point: it doesn’t matter if poor behavior is inconsistent or ineffectual, it’s still not good, and the ARS is a essentially a canvassing platform due to canvassing being the cherry-picking of editors for their opinions even if it isn’t in the form of an organized conspiracy. Dronebogus (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, that’s an interesting summary you left when you reverted my routine noticeboard alert on your talk page. Always nice when someone’s idea of wit is making fun of my username. Dronebogus (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• The ARS isn't the disruption it was in its heyday, when one member would slap their template on a bunch of articles and the other members would dutifully go through the list to go "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable." on everything. It's been defanged and is now mostly moribund. But it is and always has been a canvassing club and, although the community generally recognizes this, there's general apathy and indifference about actually doing something about it. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I note that most of my AFD's seem to make it onto ARS (lucky me!) and then the pile-on of Keep !votes follow at the AFD. Whether that's because certain Users have me on their watchlists or just follow ARS I can't say. The Keep !voters seldom make any contribution to the page that they are so keen to keep. ARS is a thinly-disguised canvassing site. Mztourist (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The modern ARS is no wikipedia:Esperanza but it’s certainly a clique for inclusionist hardliners to target and complain about arbitrary AfDs they disapprove of and provide resources to promote their wiki-ideology (look at the top of Dream Focus’s talk page for crying out loud). Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Pile-on keep or deletes should not be an issue, because AfDs should be decided by strength of arguments and if a bunch of people show up and say "it's obviously notable! keep! It's obviously trash! delete!" with no useful content other than that, they should be treated as the low-effort arguments they are. If admins aren't closing AfDs because they're afraid of getting dragged to DRV all the time, that might be the bigger indication of an issue. There's effectively no way of stopping this kind of canvassing given the central notice approach of it, short of banning individual contributors or the notices themselves.
  (As an aside, the WP:NOTCLEANUP essay is absolutely out of touch with reality, because the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better is through the AfD process. People acting like nominating something for deletion is some sort of personal attack need to readjust their expectations, the same way no one should treat the existence of WP:FAR as an attack on Misplaced Pages's article quality.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not just nuke the whole project and deny them a canvassing platform? Even Ritchie333, who was largely neutral, admitted the project is pretty unhelpful and pointless. Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • the only times any questionably-notable article, even ones languishing for years with all manners of tags on them, consistently get better is through the AfD process. Indeed. Some have cottoned on to this and are removing banner tags for having been on there for a long time. The point is to impede the identification of bad articles. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody else has made any personal attack, or complained about either WP:AFD or WP:ARS.
As to the article that is the new source of complaint, not the article it was when nominated for deletion. So the article and sourcing was vastly improved. What's your point? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody’s talking about whatever you think it is, this about the ARS in general. Dronebogus (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist (which I think my record reflects), but I've experienced nothing but woe from ARS folks whenever their practices have come into question. So have avoided for years ever since. El_C 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I battled Template:Rescue for several years. I was blessedly without a computer during the time ARS was defenestrated. ARS is a great idea and has some really dedicated very smart users, but as a platform, it has a continuing reputation for canvassing and vote stacking. If all ARS did was source pages at AFD I would be a supporter as I once was. A WikiProject dedicated to a specific outcome in a formal process has tended to prop up pages that aren't ready for mainspace. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this repeatedly, if not constantly, again and again at WP:ANI. Carping isn't helping. But knock yourself out.

I wish you all well, and suggest that we build better encyclopedia together. We have more in common than you think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

While obviously, I can't speak for BusterD (nor have knowledge of their experience with ARS), I do think that after a few years, I'm entitled to revisit and reflect on my view that ARS is problematic, when it is brought up for review. And I'd hope to be able to voice that absent a dismissive carping or knock yourself out exclamations. While I appreciate the well wishing and so on, I feel like unfortunately there's a (familiar ←indeed) dissonance with how the two sentiments contrast. El_C 16:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the sincere well-wishes from User:7&6=thirteen. They are quite correct; we do share much in common. I don't want to see worthy pages deleted either. When I see such I endeavor to source the page, then make argument on AFD processes. I'd like to go on the record to say my experience with individual ARS members is almost entirely positive. I've grown to regard User:Dream Focus, whom I've long opposed in this particular case, as a wikifriend whom I trust and rely on. When that user asserts "Keep" I find that I almost always agree with them. Because of this I have learned not to doubt motives. But for the record, the many times I tried to raise issues with the squadron on project talk or template talk, the response was invariably like the one 7&6=thirteen provided above (repeatedly, constantly, again and again, carping, knock yourself out). We clearly have NOT discussed this issue to death. That we are discussing this issue yet again demonstrates that we may still have a problem all these years later (almost ten years after the deletion of Template:Rescue). A WikiProject as dedicated to deletion as ARS is to keeping would not be allowed to continue. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

From the my perspective, this has been discussed to death. Your viewpoint might change if you were on the wrong end of the gun barrel. YMMV. In any event, discuss it as much as you like; I was not attempting to stifle your discourse. I wish you all well in this exercise, and hope for the right outcome. I would only note that I am in the great majority of the AFD discussions in which I participate, and I try to be a positive in building the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are these your AfD stats? Vexations (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As that only lists 2 AFDs, and none since 2013, then it's safe to say, User:Vexations, that are not his stats, given it's easy to see many more AFDs in his edit history. I'm not sure where you are going here. Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone makes a claim about their AfD stats, it's not surprising that someone else might want to look at them to see if the claim holds up. It's the first time i have seen afdstats return only partial results. Vexations (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that this may be processing incorrectly because their name has an ampersand and an equals sign in it: both characters that are notorious for messing up URL query strings. jp×g 03:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm another one who has fought this fight and given up. In 2019 at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 163#Shut down Article Rescue Squadron, I opposed shutting down ARS, but if that RfC were run today, I'd support it. Levivich 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Compared to the inclusionist/deletionist "wars" from around 2010, this is really nothing, but I think cautions that ARS should not be canvassing is merited. When ARS works - that is, they see an article at AFD and they actually find sources (whether at the AFD or included at the article) to demonstrate why the article should be kept - that's generally a good thing, though I think the members need to keep in both WP:RS/P and WP:SIGCOV factors (mere mention is not sufficient) for sourcing purposes. But that's at least a far better effort than when ARS was just doing mostly vote stacking way back. I generally think the better solution is Delsorting to draw proper interest, but ARS I think works on those that fall through the cracks in that process. --Masem (t) 17:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not at all surprised that Project Arsehole has garnered these responses from people who I respect. What I want to know is is there sufficient feeling and motivation to somehow deal with their unpleasant general behaviour. I once decided to attend a wikimeet in London in order to confront Andrew, who was recruiting at the time. Looking at comments here, is there sufficient motivation to send the complete Arse project to the Admins workshop at Guantanamo Bay? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 17:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn’t use such rough language, but yeah, the ARS’s “gang of four” has had an attitude that’s decidedly smug and superior and does them no favors in the likability department. They clearly seem to think they’re invincible, which obviously isn’t true since I don’t believe any of them hold any real power outside of their little domain. Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    • At least one of them was warned here about their aggressive behavior. Not sure if there was any follow-up. That's a side-issue to canvassing allegations, but it's not unrelated. ApLundell (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• thirteen also left this delightful message on their talk page: “I find my involvement in this continuing brouhaha to be offensive. These folks are just doing an end around do-over because they don't like some outcomes at AFD. Indeed, you can look at their editing history to get an education about their motives. They want to kill the article improvers and kill the messengers. I won't do that.“ Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm another who has had very dismaying interactions with ARS at AfD bringing in blogs, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention sources and arguing they prove notability, then backing one another up on those arguments. Everything that article rescue shouldn't be. It left me with a strong impression ARS is about winning rather than about finding quality sources and using them to improve articles. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Correct. Apart from a minority of ARS editors, that's exactly what it has always been. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I want to second (or third) this last assertion from User:Valereee. This issue here isn't with the context of the work ARS does, it's the approach. ARS is a unique WikiProject in that its apparent core underlying assumption is: "keeping" pages=good; "deleting" pages=bad. That is, the premise of the squadron is interest in achieving a specific outcome in a formal process. Unlike any other project. All WikiProjects share the desire that pagespace be improved, with disinterest (not a lack of interest) in the final outcome. Because of the failure of the project's contributors to live up to their own project standards over the long haul, as expressed on their own project pages, the appearance is that of votestacking and canvassing. This is the point I made the very first time I objected to the usage of Template:Rescue a dozen or more years ago. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That El_C 18:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody wants to see worthy pages deleted. That should be obvious to anyone. However, what certain editors in the ARS are - and have aways been - unable to comprehend is that it is equally problematic for an online encyclopedia to keep articles that are unencyclopedic and/or do not advance the sum of human knowledge. Where those certain members have misunderstood the concept of Misplaced Pages is that they believe that pretty much anything, regardless of whether it advances Misplaced Pages's mission, should be kept. Which, of course, is wrong. However, what are you going to do? If you deprecate WP:ARS, that isn't going to solve the problem of the actual attitude of those editors, is it? Whist I appreciate that sometimes, I have seen some of those editors actually improve articles (6&7 especially), most of the time it appears to be an ideological crusade against deletion. We don't need that. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe we prohibit people bringing in BS sources to AfD? If you bring a blog, crowdsourced, affiliated, irrelevant, or bare mention source at AfD, it's grounds for a user talk warning, warnings to escalate? —valereee (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good, if you could apply it consistently and objectively. People differ on whether a sentence or two is significant enough. But I agree the blogs, advertisements, links to google hits for partial text matches, and title pages of books that don't contain the claimed material- that all needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Templating people based on bad AfD arguments is not a good idea. It will devolve into punishing people for "losing" at AfD, since what the AfD process does is evaluate people's arguments to see if they're good and evaluate sources to see if they're reliable/significant. If an AfD closes with "sources were not acceptable" you'll have people who make it their job to give everyone who !voted "keep" based on the sources a userwarning-shitsource template. We already have enough of a problem with groupthink at AfD as it is. It's important that we don't also punish people for expressing a dissenting opinion.

  We're also the number 1 source of knowledge in the English-speaking world and it's important that the processes we have for removing information are perceived as fair.

  AfD io one of our most well known "internal" processes; many people's first encounters with our governance structures comes through seeing an AfD tag on a page they likeThe deletion of Donna Strickland got a lot of flak after she won a Nobel prize and there wasn't an article on here for her. Right now the CBC can blame that on murky systemic issues with the AfD process. But if we start punishing people for dissent, the AfD process looks a lot harsher to outside viewers and that negatively affects our credibility, regardless of whether or not be were actually justified in punishing people. Donna Strickland is such a good example of this because she didn't even go through AfD but yet the perceived credibility of our AfD process was still the subject of that CBC article & influenced the public's perceptions of whether or not we handled the Strickland situation well.. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I’d say a clique of four editors maintaining a whole project where they work to demonize the very notion of deletion is more problematic than “murky systemic issues” and letting those disruptive editors get to be devil’s advocate to try and appease people who don’t remotely understand AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  There are middle grounds such as nuking ARS that aren't Template:uw-shittyAfDargument Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • That’s lovely, but I still think ARS needs to get nuked or at the very least deprecated and locked to emphasize we will no longer be tolerating ideologically motivated wikiprojects. Thirteen and Andrew (and possibly others) should also receive some kind of warning or sanctioning for their general incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, if you take a look at the sources 7&6 added to Daniella van Graas during that AfD, you might be surprised. At one point they added a 22-second YouTube bio that itself was sourced to Misplaced Pages. The AfD eventually was resolved as keep after someone with access to Dutch sources came in and found some actual coverage, but up until then ARS, including 7&6, were arguing that appearing on fashion magazine covers and being listed in crowdsourced directories and affiliated websites (such as her bio on her agency's website) were proof of notability. After the AfD I and others had to go back through the bio and remove all the dreck that had been added by members of ARS. It was shocking. —valereee (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have already opined to excess here but now want to cut across the grain. I just made a joke on an AfD and pinged User:Dream Focus, throwing down a gauntlet. And they responded with pretty good sources as I anticipated they would. There is a baby/bathwater situation here. The editors who have been supporting ARS a long time (like DF and User:7&6=thirteen) are pretty skilled at finding sourcing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I rarely participate in anything major, I am mostly a gnome who curates a handful of pages. But even I have noticed how this group acts at AfD, with such problematic behaviors as pile-on voting and dumping a bunch of (bad) "references" with the declaration of "this proves notability!", when no, they do not at all. As well as writing walls of text in support of their hard-line inclusionist stance. I say nuke them and possibly restrict the four most active from !voting at AfD unless they also work to significantly improve the article as well. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I find it interesting that ARS often vanishes as soon as an article is kept. I've spent a fair amount of time sweeping up after their efforts, and find it annoying. They also don't seem interested in actually trying to save articles before they make it to the theatre in the round that is AfD. The most recent CCI involving Tuskegee Airmen is a great example of this. I have posted links to said CCI a number of times in discussions, and even on the ARS talk page. Yet they still don't seem interested until the spotlight's on an article at AfD. To me it feels like CCI would be a great point to get involved if you want to save articles. Intothatdarkness 19:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can those claiming a problem kindly link to any AFD in recent years where this has happened, and specifically which editors you believe are responsible for doing this. I believe all of us participate in more AFD that aren't on the Rescue list, then the few things that are listed there, so please make certain it was also listed there if your argument is against the ARS. Dream Focus 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas. It eventually ended as keep (which I think was correct) once someone with access to Dutch sources came in, but I spent quite a bit of time after the AfD closed cleaning up after what ARS members had done. —valereee (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  A lot of people edited that article after it was nominated for deletion so I'm not reading through each edit to try to figure out what you are talking about. That was back in 2019 so I don't remember. I only made one edit to add in what commercials she had done and linked to where it list this information at a site that seems creditable. They have someone go and confirm information and put "confirmed" there. They also have pictures of the covers of magazines she's been on, so no reason to doubt this information. Anyway, its good a lot of people participated in the AFD and one found something that convinced you to change your mind about the article's notability. If no one had noticed and gone there and worked on the article or searched for sources, then it would be gone now. Dream Focus 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus and the fact I had to go back and clean up the mess ARS had made adding absolute dreck as sourcing? You asked for an example of bad behavior. I gave it. If you want to see all the work we had to do and how long it took us, here's the diff. —valereee (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll break my self-imposed moratorium from posting at WP:ANI to comment here.
• 1) The idea that any editor who believes in good faith that an article in notable but needs help finding sources to WP:PROVEIT can ask for help is a good thing. Now, the utility of such has decreased with all the wonderful templates in AfDs which have consistently gotten better over the years, but yes, there is still a thought that someone might need help.
• 2) I find it hard to imagine a world in which people can ask for help as in 1), without it also being a de facto invite for rabid inclusionists to jump in and pile on.
• 3) The existence of an ARS-like signal does not guarantee inclusionists glomming on to AfDs, but nor would the lack of existence of such a signal render AfDs immune from such influence.
• 4) Masem's observation, that things aren't as bad as they used to be, is spot on. I attribute this in part to a general realization that WP:BEFORE, reasonably executed and described, makes a nomination stronger.
• 5) As I've understood and practiced article rescue as a self-proclaimed curationist, I've never counted an AfD keep as a 'win'. I've always believed that improving the article was the way the encyclopedia won, and WP:DTQ was an idea whose time was long overdue and should be better recognized. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

These threads are pretty common. Here's a generalized synopsis: there's a good idea in there, surfacing some articles from the big AfD logs that are worth extra attention, and sometimes they do good work improving articles; other times it's a superficial keep club that spends more time attacking nominators and stoking drama than improving anything; there's never been a consensus to shut down the project, and if there wasn't in years past there's not going to be now; if there are problems with specific members, come to ANI with a pile of diffs. There are probably a couple sanctions that are long overdue, but not at the project-level. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: These last are pretty wise and learned responses. At the risk of sounding audacious, I would be impressed by a breakaway pirate/rescue group of editors who improved pages at AFD but pledged not to !vote on those improved page processes. Heck I would join and fully proclaim that group of disinterested at AFD but fully interested page buccaneers/volunteers as the real SRS (Subject Rescue Squadron)! There would STILL be claims of meatpuppetry. I really admire the work of these current rescue artists. No BS. It is certainly easier to come after a group in a generic way than to produce actual diffs, but that doesn't mean diffs couldn't be produced at some point. I fully diffed my protest about Template:Rescue way back in the long-ago. BusterD (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I would support any action killing off ARS. I think it can only serve as a canvassing platform. Some thoughts:

1. Unlike project pages, where editors with an interest or knowledge of a topic can be informed of an AfD to provide informed insight, ARS only serves to inform editors who are interested in voting keep in discussions. The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs. Can you imagine an Article Demolition Squadron?
2. I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS. Apart from being really bad practice, I think it demonstrates that editors know exactly what they are doing when they list articles there (as much as I try to assume good faith). This also allows a parallel conversation (and 'keep' strategizing) about the topic to go on without the input of all AfD participants.
3. The comments against listing are often quite blatant in their canvassing see: could use some reinforcement and support and Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated!. One particular frequent editor (who often speaks like a cryptic crossword clue) just gives quotations, references or puns vaguely related to the article because an explanation of why something is listed here is not needed - after all it is just a canvassing platform. Give your keep vote and move along.
4. There is even canvassing for DRVs on this page. Even the most generous view of ARS surely cannot see this as anything but inappropriate canvassing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The entire premise of the project is singular: for garnering keep votes in AfDs" - that's easy to check by looking to see if the article was improved by any of the members who were in the AfD. The data is open and available. Check systematically ie. most recent 50 cases.
• "I rarely see editors inform others on the AfD that they have listed an article on ARS" - again that's easy to prove by looking at old AfD pages, divide by how many lack a notice and see what the percentage. 50 most recent cases.
• There are so many things wrong with that "canvassing for DRVs" discussion don't know where to start. There's a sub-text to the discussion involving bad faith, name calling and disruptive behavior. And you can find similar sorts of notifications in other mission-oriented boards. -- GreenC 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure the big deal here. I see some good work by editors listed there improving articles. Which is more than I can say for many of those that participate in AFD - and is far less of a problem than those who manage to do 30 delete "votes", in 25 minutes - which is no where near enough time to do any research WP:BEFORE commenting. Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Systematic deletion by editors not engaging in reasonable BEFORE is one reason ARS came into existence. Vladimir joked about a Article Deletion Squadron but you don't need a squadron because one person can create unlimited numbers of AfDs fairly quickly with little oversight as noted by Nfitz. -- GreenC 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Articles do not get deleted just because editors put them up for AfD. AfD is a huge process to ensure oversight from the wider editorship. Routinely AfDs are dispatched with a speedy keep in a matter of hours. On the other hand there is far less systematic oversight on the creation of articles by confirmed users (not that there's anything wrong with that).the Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Huh There's an Article_Rescue_Squadron_Code_of_Conduct that admonishes you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. But that rarely seems to happen. Just sayin'. EEng 04:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW it's 50% tagged in the last 10 AfDs. I might run more to get a better picture but we're closer to the truth then to say it's 'rare', repeated by multiple users here based on conjecture ("seems to") or copycat. I have no comment if 50% is ____ (value judgement), but heads or tails is not rare by definition. -- GreenC 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yet when I did a spot check of the last 20 AfDs at WP:DSBUILDING it was 100%. I wonder what could account for such a vast disparity in an almost identical process. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that there is a clear consensus here that ARS should be killed off, despite the objections of its 3 or 4 most vocal members. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see such consensus here. Given the previous 4 AFDs on the subject, it isn't something that should be taken lightly. Also, I don't think this is the forum for such changes. If there's a desire to have that discussion, I'd think the place is WT:Article Rescue Squadron (and then perhaps a RFC?) I'm not really sure why we are having this discussion here. If there's an issue, it's long-standing. Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  As much as I think that's the right outcome, and the very likely one regardless, an RfC would certainly be needed, though I'm not sure where. But not here. An established Wikiproject can't be killed off in 3 hours at ANI. Iridescent is wise in these matters -- what's the right forum? EEng 05:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:VPR is really the most logical space for such a discussion: this is definitely something that should be weighed by the community at large, and hosting on the project talk page is less likely to accomplish broad involvement and obviously would influence the balance of perspectives, insofar as the question presented is the net value/appropriateness of the project itself. Obviously the project should be notified (and notification of particular users with an ongoing interest in the project should not be regarded as canvassing, imo) and there's no harm in adding a WP:CD listing even if it goes somewhere highly visible, but this is more or less exactly the type of issue that WP:VP is meant to be a forum for. SnowRise 05:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects for Deletion?. EEng 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given this growing consensus (see SNOWBALL) can we wrap up this ANI quicker and move it to an RfC or noticeboard where a proper discussion and vote on deletion can be done. Or do we need to wait for this to close? Seems a bit of a waste for everyone to blow off steam here and then have to rehash the discussion in a week’s time? Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• While I tend to be a deletionist these days, ARS' mission is a noble one and I would oppose shutting down that forum. However, the conduct of some of their members should be scrutinized by the community, perhaps ArbCom, as it violates AGF and other policies, creating useless noise (for example, with votes that routinely cite sources based on Google hits, ignoring WP:SIGCOV and so on). Resucing articles is great, but trying to torpedo AFDs through a thinly veiled violation of WP:AFDNOTAVOTE is much less so (again, to be clear, I don't think most of the members of this project are guilty of such an attitude, but there are some vocal bad apples that need reining in). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn’t matter when the the project is dominated by four very vocal bad apples. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I can only think of one editor there who displays bad jugdgement and battleground behavior again and again. But I think this is a matter for ArbCom, not ANI. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Although I agree that the problem has become too intractable for the community to deal with, or want to deal with, I worry that enough sitting arbs have had tangles with the ARS members in the past and will need to recuse themselves, leaving only ARS-sympathetic arbs left to vote. Reyk _YO! 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Isn’t that just MORE of a reason to torch ARS? And Piotrus, would you mind “naming names” about who you are referring to? Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus I dislike naming names per WP:ASPERSIONS, but I would be willing to provide exhaustive evidence regarding the editor I am concerned with if an ArbCom regarding practices of RS members is accepted. I will also add that the behavior of this editor has been subject to several prior discussions at AN and ANI, all of which led to more or less 'no consensus' as to what can be done; hence I believe ArbCom is the only way forward. I further predict that this discussion here will be closed as 'no consensus' either. If anyone wants to see something done rather than pointless talk, please file a motion at ArbCom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's a bridge to cross when we case is proposed. I don't think that a bit of 'tangling' should bias ArbCom, but we will see. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Compilation of problems with ARS members judgement - The following is largely based off comments I just made on the ARS rescue list (didn't realize this discussion was open): I repeatedly find myself questioning the use of the Article Keep Squadron. Some of the articles listed here are indeed worth being kept, but I get the feeling sometimes that this project tries its best to challenge the notion at WP:ARTN that "no amount of improvements to the Misplaced Pages content will suddenly make the subject notable". Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible is probably one of the worst examples. Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD, see Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2021 October 5#File:Lena Horne with Tuskegee airmen.png. It also stings when one does more research into the sources than the ARS regulars and comes to a very different conclusion, such as at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination), where two ARS members asserted without evidence the subject played a commanding role in a historic battle (still no evidence of that) and a third advocated outright ignoring the notability policy. See Talk:Mac Ross#Birth for questionable research practices of an ARS member trying to acquire confidential birth records over the phone from a county registrar. Here we have an ARS member withdrawing their keep vote in favor of paid promo article (alongside many a sock) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin only because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing consensus, not because they could admit they were wrong. Here we have an ARS member suggesting we use blogs as sources: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis. Here we have an ARS member suggesting sources which do not discuss the topic at hand: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piedmont bioregion. Here we have an ARS member show a complete lack of understanding of the purpose and importance of WP:VERIFY: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller. Even if these are all good faith mistakes (some I have a hard time believing are), I seriously question the judgment of ARS more than I think I should for a project ostensibly dedicated to improving articles, not just retaining them. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Iman Farzin, William Mahlon Davis, and Attack on HMS Invincible had 7&6=thirteen show up and no one else. Piedmont bioregion had Andrew as the only one to show up and vote keep. The ARS was not even notified about File:Lena_Horne_with_Tuskegee_airmen.png. Working on a different article, Lightburst argued about its removal, I noticed this, went there, and commented. Turns out an old photograph from World War 2 was in fact not a copyright violation. Someone referenced it to a book, but obviously the person used a historical photograph. On 21:18, 5 October 2021 you nominated it for deletion and at 06:37, 6 October 2021 you agreed it was fine. Then you state above that "Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD". Ridiculous misrepresentation of what happened. Dream Focus 09:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Couple of things here, DreamFocus. Perhaps its subjective, but I do consider the multiple ARS members acting poorly across different pages connected by the single thread of ARS listing to be an ARS problem. Also, I entirely reject the notion that I misrepresented the Horne photo situation. Lightburst uploaded the photo as a way to shore up the Willie H. Fuller article, which was at AfD at the time. Thus this is an ARS related matter. Lightburst repeatedly lied to assert it was a US Gov photo and wrote in the description "Military promotional photo" (I'm bolding to show I stand by it) despite no sources indicating that. After repeatedly re-adding this licensing template but meeting opposition from myself and Mztourist they changed to a different rationale (see revision history) saying it was PD-US-no notice. They repeated in the file discussion I opened that it was "clearly a military promotional/propaganda photo published freely" (again without evidence) and that it was "published in the United States between 1926 and 1977" despite the only sources they provided showing it being published in the 2010s. It was only after a lot of back and forth that Lighburst found a source which showed it was published in 1945 (and in a newspaper at that, no evidence it was as US Gov photo). The only plausible reason for them not providing it earlier is that they were making assertions about the rights status of the photo without actually knowing what the status of the photo was beforehand. This seems to be a part of ARS' MO of throwing enough shit at the wall in the desperate hope some of it will stick, which is a terrible way to write articles. It's why an ARS-involved deletion discussion like the ones for Attack on the HMS Invincible, William Mahlon Davis, and Willie H. Fuller involves other editors reminding ARS members that blogs and self-published sources (Find-a-Grave) are not reliable sources. ARS seems to only encourage this behavior. I will say for your part, I have found you to be the most responsible of the ARS regulars. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have only had two meaningful interactions with the ARS, here and here (which continued here).

1. Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal, 7&6=thirteen posted an emotive notice on the ARS rescue list and ... Lightburst and Dream Focus arrived to oppose, neither offered any reliable sources or policy based rationale, just opposes. This was the article at the time, aside from the clear unreliability of many of the sources NONE of them even mention the article’s subject, not even in passing. What resulted was hours of wasted editing hours over months (including having to run an absolutely ridiculous RFC).
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta, again 7&6=thirteen posted a notice on the ARS rescue list . Dutifully Lightburst arrived to oppose and what followed was the pair tag teaming to cram as many UGC and SPS as Google would spew forth as well as clear equivocation and non sequitur claims. Finally a non-ARS member presented two RS to the discussion and it was withdrawn. But ... then 7&6 posted again rescue list about attempts to remove the utter garbage from the kept page and within three hours Lightburst reappears and more drama ensues. Again, hours of wasted effort over a month.

Was the ARS founded with noble aims? Yes. Has it been hijacked by a core group who use it to subvert Misplaced Pages’s processes and etiquette? Absolutely. Should it be disbanded? Yes. Cavalryman (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

• I did not attend the Ratonero Murciano de Huerta AfD so no canvassing there again. But just look at the outcome – the nominator withdrew after conceding that the topic was notable. So, the ARS rescue of that topic was correct and was vindicated. The fault there was bringing it to AfD in the first place. See WP:POT again. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• So you tried to delete a perfect valid article, others showed up to argue with you, and you then withdrew your nomination. Elsewhere you insisted without evidence that "mountain dog" only referred to Livestock guardian dog, and that any species with "mountain dog" in its name must be a livestock guardian dog. I'm still uncertain if this is accurate or not, and would like someone with a college textbook or link to a website of a recognized authority on this subject to state. What you link to only shows part of the discussion, most of it was below the section linked to. Dream Focus 11:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion should include Arse's dePRODding behaviour. They routinely and unapolagetically remove PRODs without discussion or explanation because ARSe. This has meant that it is more and more difficult to remove the dross that sometimes appears as an article. I have been obliged to apologise to Good Faith participants at AfD for even bringing some crappy article that needs to vanish from the face of the project. The arrogance of the Gang of Four is exlemplified in this diff, from this very discussion. They're correct of course, I've seen this discussion here quite a few times over the years, and seen the results. Perhaps this'll end with another "+ Sound of Crickets +" close, it wouldn't surprise me.

On the whole, from what I've seen, the Gang of Four seem to edit acceptably in their respective areas, and the ideals of the Project are attractive. When acting on project matters they have corrupted the ideals. I'm not certain that just killing off the project is the answer. A more acceptable answer to this may well be a community imposed lifetime Topic Ban for the Gang of Four from deletion discussion, construed like something incredibly broad, thus removing the opportunity for them to continue this disruptive behaviour, and continue contributing positively. Just a (real) suggestion that I want to run up the flagpole and see how it flies. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have also noticed their dePROD'ing behavior. Mutliple times I have PRODed pages that were clearly non-notable, only for someone (normally Andrew) to dePROD with no good rationale. Generally I abandon my attempt after this because I have neither the time nor experience to bring articles to AfD. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are referring to one guy who people argue about deproding things regularly. I can't recall having deprodded anything except recently an article for the co-creator of a game that sold 30 million copies and had done other notable work in the game industry, and I deprodded an article I created which is now at AFD but others said it should be kept, only the nominator saying to delete it. I did not post to ask for help at the ARS either time, nor did anyone else from there show up to participate. This whole gang of four nonsense needs to stop. The overwhelming majority of edits we do are separate entirely. Dream Focus 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree ARS is a form of canvassing. Listing an article there draws the attention of editors for "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Agree with what was said above by valereee and others - they collaborate to "win" by any means and then disappear without actually improving the article. MB 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In ANI, Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. I am loathe to come into this forum. Regarding the "four very vocal bad apples" that the OP has mentioned... 7&6 is one of the best editors I know, just ask him how many DYKs he has had. Recently I collaborated with him on several articles. El C thinks he is snarly? If being snarly was a disqualifying factor on the project many of you would be out based on this thread alone. And AndrewD keeps the PROD process honest, and pardon me... if I read it right in the OP's opening statement - AD jokey? Really? I am not sure there is anyone who knows more about the history of this project. Dream Focus - to my knowledge has never showed up to an AfD to blindly ivote. DF follows the "Lists" AfDs - and so do I. I like navigation tools. I often collegially follow editors I admire - many more than just these three "bad apples".

I come across many articles that I do not think deserve deletion while deletion sorting - and some with zero WP:BEFORE work like this. I am not sure why some editors marry themselves to the first notion they have. In other words, I have been a part of AfDs where a good editor will withdraw their nomination after we improve the article. Sadly, some noms like MZTourist treat it like a win or lose batter. Cavalryman has done this as well - in one of his own examples above, he eviscerated an article that survived his own AfD nomination - I moved on and it remains a stub because that is what Cavalryman preferred.

I read above where Buster thinks we should have a "Deletion squad"? where in WP:5P is that idea represented? And Indy Beetle...tsk tsk. I once heard a lawyer say someone was a liar, and he was much more diplomatic than you...he said they were "less than truthful". Sadly- the only reason you wanted the photo deleted was because it added notability to Willie H. Fuller - you remain married to the idea that Fuller should be deleted. The photo was a military promotional photo depicting Fuller with a famous singer on her USO tour. Calling me a liar in bold is probably a PA. But no worries, if the PA is about an ARS member there is no such civility expectation. It is however in WP:5P4 for all of the other non-ars editors.

I just returned from a one year absence and found several Tuskegee Airmen nominated for deletion. So maybe my post on ARS was a bit testy. Also...Thanks Piotrus! I know I have been on the other side of a few AfDs with you, so it is big of you to say what you did. In conclusion, four editors cannot make something notable and many of you in this thread are not AGF. FYI: 91 articles were AfDd Saturday, 72 articles Sunday, and 59 already today. Not even including files, templates, prods, modules, and portals. My AfD ivotes may be an inconvenient truth for some of you so I post it here. I am not married to a "keep" ivote as some of you have said.

Spoiler: the two wolves will vote to eat the sheep for dinner - every time. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Lightburst: Can you please provide a source that it was a "military" photo? We're still waiting. The only thing we uncovered is that it was published in newspapers and syndicated by the Associated Press. If you feel I've lodged a personal attack, please open an ANI about my behavior. I'm confident in my actions, and I don't think they need a revolving set of explanations until we find one that coincidentally suits my purposes. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a moot point. Dead horse material now. Anyway your PA is not ANI worthy. I enjoyed collaborating with you on another Tuskegee Airman - I thought we collaberated anyway. You never responded to my post on your TP. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think we worked together smoothly on that one. Sorry about the lack of response, I think something came up in RL when I read it and it shortly thereafter slipped my mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that many people are concerned. Is the concern about canvassing, or is the concern about a Gang of Four editors who are each disliked individually? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are the only two choices? Levivich 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Remember your conjugation. One editor you don't like is "ignoring consensus", a few editors you don't like is "canvassing". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another Example I stumbled on at ARS last year. List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania was put up for AfD. I think the title tells you all you need to know about the article. Of course dreamfocus swoops in with a KEEP using arguments you are told to avoid. Two days later they list the article on ARS asking if anyone has any sources for this topic. From this sequence, it is hard to believe any WP:BEFORE was done before the initial vote on the AfD and if it was done it didn't yield any results. This really tests the limits of assuming good faith. In my opinion this is an issue both with individual editors and with the ARS platform which encourages and supports this kind of behaviour. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  So I posted on the ARS Anyone know of any government reports or other sources giving significant coverage of this problem? for this as well as the same time another request for List of train surfing injuries and deaths saying the exact same thing. We have a lot of articles like this at Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_and_incidents. One article was deleted, the other was not. Different editors then showed up to these two AFD afterwards. This should prove there is no canvassing since you don't see us all "swoop in with a KEEP argument". If they saw one request then they saw the one under it made at the same time, but they didn't show up at both to participate, they looked over the situation and decided for themselves. Dream Focus 00:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  The point is that I can only deduce from this sequence of edits that you either voted keep before you had done a WP:BEFORE or voted keep after you had done a WP:BEFORE that had not turned up any sources. Both are as bad as each other. This isn't about canvassing but about the way the squadron participate in AfDs. The determination to argue for keep is made before any research into the topic is done. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  This should prove there is no canvassing since you don't see us all "swoop in with a KEEP argument". – Even the Article Rescue Squadron knows a lost cause when they see one. EEng 01:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  And yet all of us go alone into AFDs at times where everyone else has posted Delete, and we post Keep if we believe it should be kept, lost cause or not. A regular member post a request, and no one else shows up to participate, that happening quite often. Everyone thinks on their own, don't always agree on things, and never just show up to vote because someone else did. Dream Focus 01:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  You still haven't addressed my concern. Oh well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• The last time I think I ever got involved in or looked at an AFD in depth and felt the decision was wrong, really goes in line with what the user who brought this problem about AFD up. The article was just saved because of so called reliable sources, when those sources they called reliable were really YouTube videos from the subject of the article itself, news site where users registered users have the ability to upload their own article, and a video game blog. Somehow, it seems another AfD only turned the page into a redirect, and the content of the article with its unreliable sourced content has been copied to the redirect page target. I think there should be some form of balance of power added, where a SysOp has the final word on the outcome. I never heard of a SysOp going against rules. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Truth in Labeling

This thread is labeled "Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic". I think that implies that something is new, or that something was different in the past. The Article Rescue Squadron was controversial between 2007 and 2009, as is evidenced by the record of previous attempts to delete it. Has there been a golden age in between when it wasn't problematic? I don't think so. Maybe "WP:ARS is still problematic" is more accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Actions

I see three-and-one-half possible actions at this point. First, there has been discussion, that has made it clear that the ARS has been controversial for at least fourteen years and will continue to be controversial. We can close this thread with no conclusion. Disposition one-and-one-half is that we can continue this discussion for another week or two weeks, and restate what has already been stated, and annoy a few more editors, and then close this thread. Second, a sixth Miscellany for Deletion nomination can be made. My own guess is that it will result in No Consensus, but that is only my guess. Third, this is a dispute that divides the community, and that the community has not resolved in fourteen years. We can ask the ArbCom to open a full case concerning the Article Rescue Squadron, and concerning its proponents and its opponents. My own guess is that such a case will result in a few editors on both "sides" being either warned or sanctioned, and that it will leave the community divided, because the community consists of many different editors with various different philosophies. That might just be another way of closing this dispute with no consensus.

So my recommendation is to close this thread with no conclusion, but other opinions may vary (as they also do in deletion discussions). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I say close this thread, take it to deletion again (the 5th time was me jumping the gun so you should probably ignore it) and if that results in no consensus then take it to ArbCom. We need to stop sweeping this under the rug and shrugging, that’s what’s helped foster the toxic, holier-than-thou attitude the main participants have towards delete voters and deletion in general. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree close the thread, with no opinion about outcome per sensible User:Robert McClenon. If User:Dronebogus wants to be the latest to hunt white whales, more power to them. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• WP:MFD is definitely the wrong venue, as it is for deleting pages and when we shut projects down, we don't delete the pages, we mark them historical. Arbcom isn't going to decide whether or not ARS should continue to exist. They can investigate the conduct of specific users, but they can't decide whether or not we have a specific WikiProject. And even still, I think they'd decline because we have yet to have a "gang of four" ANI (individuals have been brought to ANI, but never the group, AFAIK), so this doesn't clear the "community can't handle it" hurdle yet, until there's at least one community thread about it. The options, in my view, are (1) focus on specific editors with an ANI report seeking TBANs of some sort, or (2) focus on ARS as a whole with an RFC to mark it historical. (I'm not sure which one is better.) Personally I see no reason to rush to close this; let editors discuss so long as they want to discuss. We are still getting new comments from new editors at this time. Levivich 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'd have thought the best action is to sanction individual editors if they are violating guidelines. Looking at the project itself, there's enough non-controversial articles there leading to article improvements. Even if an article is deleted, I don't see trying to improve it first is a terrible thing. Personally I've improved articles during, and then failed to "vote" Keep because it's not there. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• I wasn't going to comment in this thread at all, but I have to note the futility of supposing that anything is going to be done here. I've certainly had my run-ins with members of the ARS (several of them, as I expected beforehand that they would, turned out to oppose in my RFA, with DF saying that "I don't really think this person is a good editor"), and I remember well the bad old days of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/A Nobody and Ikip/Okip and Benjiboi. My impression is that now there are only a few ARS hangers-on who behave problematically at AfDs and that their membership in ARS isn't the real problem. Anyone who repeatedly advances in AfDs "sources" that reflect unexamined, irrelevant Google hits or are otherwise inappropriate for use in the articles themselves, or who repeatedly !vote in AfDs without a justification in policy, should be brought up for sanctions here or in some suitable venue. If we can weed out the bad apples, there's no need to jettison the barrel. Deor (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I see I was not on the project much when your RFA came up. But I always look at article creation and AfD stats. I state my criteria as: Admins exist to protect content and content creators. If you demonstred that with your edits, I would have been a yes. There is one at DRV now where several admins say they do not care who argues a rationale - they will apply their own interpretation. The thread may be as long as this one, and going nowhere. But the thread exists to refute what you said above. I am more concerned with delete ivoters who say "I am not going to look at the article". Bring me the sources and list them here. And The RFA is another perceived slight from 7 years ago. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It escapes me how some DRV "exists to refute" what I said, but I don't expect uniform coherence around these AN venues, as a rule. Deor (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deor: @Deor: (sorry that was not a good link) Forewarn - mind numbing read. Read the XfD and the review to get a a lesson in "doesn't matter what is said by anyone in AfD." Or at least that is my take. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Close attempt

• I've undone a decidedly precipitate close of this thread. While it's clear that resolution of this problem will have to take place elsewhere, right now people are contributing their ideas and opinions here, and there's no reason it shouldn't continue, at least for a while. EEng 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I disagree with the revert. When it's clear that resolution will have to take place elsewhere, discussion should be pushed there as soon as possible. Given that several editors here were calling for a close, I do not think you should have acted unilaterally in reverting it (the most extreme form of challenging a close, compared to commenting beneath it or at my talk). I won't reinstate it myself right now, but if other editors feel that the close is warranted, I think they would be justified to put it back. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • When it's clear that resolution will have to take place elsewhere, discussion should be pushed there as soon as possible
  • several editors here were calling for a close – "Several editors" don't constitute a steering committee.
  • I do not think you should have acted unilaterally – It was you who acted unilaterally. People were still actively commenting, including some calling for action here at ANI against individual editors, and other discussing what the right venue would be.
  • challenging a close – A close is a reasoned evaluation of a discussion that has run its course, not someone deciding for the rest of us that we've discussed enough.
  • commenting beneath it or at my talk – No need to waste time discussing whether others are allowed to discuss. But I've commented at your talk page now, as requested: .
  • I won't reinstate it myself right now – Saved me the trouble of reverting again.
  • if other editors feel that the close is warranted, I think they would be justified to put it back – The bias in a collaborative project is decidedly in favor of continued discussion over squelching.

  EEng 01:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Closing a discussion is not necessary squelching it; in this case, my aim was precisely the opposite—to, as I said in it, help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts. I'd point you to an essay I wrote a while ago, WP:Settle the process first. In this case, keeping the discussion would be an invitation to argue about process and venues rather than the underlying issue. {{u|Sdkb}}  02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's incredible you're still trying to debate this. Your intentions were good but you shouldn't have done it. To be honest you're getting to be a bit more worried about process and rules than maybe is helpful; see User_talk:EEng#Template_editor_right. EEng 05:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, my dear Lord! EEng 18:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some of this might spin down to actions taken against individuals. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am copying the contents of Sdkb's attempt at a close here. Even as this discussion continues, I feel it will be helpful for participants or uninvolved readers to see an assessment of the conversation so far:

Despite being open for only a day or so, this discussion has already drawn substantial input and taken a clear direction, so I am closing it to help facilitate further follow-up resolution efforts.

Participants here have found consensus that the current operation of WP:ARS violates the canvassing guideline, and that the behavior of many of its main participants has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. However, there is no consensus on a particular remedy, with many participants expressing the view that ANI is not a venue in which a decision to deprecate or restructure a WikiProject should be made.

Given this, the next step should be to begin a discussion at a different venue. There was agreement that MfD would not be the appropriate venue but limited discussion about what would be appropriate; as a bartender's close, I would suggest a CENT-listed discussion at WP:VPR as a reasonable neutral venue. Ideas for reform raised here that could be considered, among others, include deprecating the project, enforcing a requirement that editors who bring an AfD/DRV discussion to ARS notify the source discussion of that action, prohibiting ARS members from !voting in AfDs brought to the project (limiting its focus to improving articles), etc.

Some editors here argued that the problems derive more from the current members than intrinsically from the project. ANI is the appropriate venue for discussing behavioral issues about individual editors, and those may be brought up in future individual-focused threads if they continue. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}}  18:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Text above pasted here by Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Great summary as a help to further discussion. Not a good justification for cutting off discussion. EEng 01:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support suggestion that editors coming in from ARS can only improve articles, not vote. That would be huge. Like literally I'd join ARS if that were the rule. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good close attempt, shame it wasn't allowed to stick. As more opinion is apparently wanted, the Robert McClenon analyses looks mostly spot on, though it may be more accurate to say the rescue squad has always been controversial, rather than problematic. For me its the deletion process that is inherently conflict prone. Theres always going to be folk objecting to the destruction of other peoples hard work, dissolving the ARS would not change this. See here for how deletionists have been viewed by journalists New York Times, the Guardian and various other reliable sources. Reyk's correct the ARS is now mostly moribund. Despite retaining several extremely impressive active members, the projects is a pale shadow of the mighty force it was back in the naughties. I see no need for action. But if there is to be an RfC, I'd suggest it should be neutrally framed. I.e a simple "What do about the ARS?" Option B could be to dissolve the project, while option A should be to commend it, or at least the most active members, such as the Colonel (Andrew D), Dream, Lightburst and 7&6=thirteen . Their scholarship, helpfulness, and coolness is most impressive, even in the face of mockery and talk of confronting them at London wikimeets , etc etc. (Yes I did read that 7&6=thirteen added some low quality sources to the Daniella van Graas page back in 2019. So the thing is 7&6 had less than 1,000 edits back then. They've since much improved and fully merit being mentioned alongside editors like Dream & the Colonel.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The fact that you, a member of the Squad, are bringing up articles from over a decade ago to justify your project’s now-increasingly-undeniable purpose as a partisan interest group dedicated to waging war on “deletionists” is a stronger argument for dismantling the ARS than I could ever come up with. Singling out and demonizing an entire group of editors, and maintaining an organization (no matter how moribund) dedicated to WP:HOUNDING them for their perceived “attacks” on the encyclopedia, is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the entire Wikimedia Project. Shameful. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have probably added enough hyperbole to the thread. i would ask you to do actual research instead of assuming facts not in evidence. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting coming from someone who never refuted the accusation that they lied about an image source to strengthen their position. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You do know what military propaganda is? Put Elvis in uniform, take photos. Bring big star (Lena Horne)to the military base, take photos. Rise repeat. Putting the wrong FUR on a photo is not catastrophic anyway, I had no intent to mislead anyone. We regularly change the WP:FUR. The point is it is a public domain photo and those who favored deletion wanted it deleted so it could not portray Willie Fuller in the article. I know that is an inconvenient truth, but that is the timeline. The photo was removed from the Fuller article, but not from the Horne. That should tell you all you need to know. Inconvenient truth. - Not the Al Gore stuff. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Show us the evidence instead of acting like we’re so stupid as to not know what propaganda is. Dronebogus (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:FeydHuxtable 7&6's coolness was totally on display here: . Mztourist (talk)

No, I wanted it deleted because you had failed to demonstrate WP:BURDEN in your upload to prove it was PD. I care about article quality and the integrity of Misplaced Pages. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt many long term editors see it in terms of waging war on deletionists, and sorry if it seemed I was demonising them. Even as an editor with quite hard core inclusionist views, I see quality control and even some content deletion as essential functions. There's always going to be some friction between those performing said functions and those more focused on content retention. I dont see how dissolving the squad will substantially change that, though it would end a long established vehicle for article improvement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish all members of ARS had your humility and clearheadedness. Sorry if I overreacted a little myself. If more squad members behaved like you, perhaps it could be reformed. But right now it just seems like a canvassing club for a small band of smug, superior inclusionists. Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought the close was fine and think this discussion should be moved to where actions can be taken if consensus allows. Can’t see the point in keeping open a discussion where people can air their gripes without action being taken. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I propose to close this thread and open a new ANI against the four most active members of ARS (Andrew, Thirteen, DF, and Lightburst). The project (and its associated problems) is currently centered on them, and if you remove them from the equation it wouldn’t be hard to unceremoniously shut it down and file it as “historical”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps list the past 100 things on the Rescue list, and a chart showing how many of us participated in each one, and the results of the AFD. Or getting stats showing the last AFDs each of us participated in, and what percentage of them were on the Rescue list. Most of the ones I find myself in aren't. If you want to make a case you need evidence. But the evidence will clearly show we do not all regularly show up at the AFDs on the rescue list. You can find random examples here and there from years apart to try to mislead people of course. Dream Focus 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  right? I do not think Dronebogus has done his research. Seems to be interested in demonizing and frantically lobbying. from what I have read above, after you started the fire Dronebogus, you can just sit back and watch your work. A good pyro always watches their work. No more accelerant needed. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Is that all you are capable of? petty insults, agreeing with your ARS buddies, and the Chewbacca Defense? Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wake me up when you are done attacking and disparaging. I am building the encyclopedia.What are you doing? Do some research - everything is available, every edit, every interaction. Lightburst (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Not every editor feels their worth is determined by making as many pages as humanly possible. I’m sorry if adding links, PRODing articles about strip malls and organizing anime and manga related files on commons isn’t glamorous enough for you. In any case your insufferably dismissive, passive-aggressive behavior during this discussion is arguably bad enough for a ANI of its own. Dronebogus (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you two cut it out? jp×g 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

LB did not edit Nov 2020-Aug 2021, but here are some AFDs from the past year in which AD, DF, and 7&6 !voted. I invite editors to pick some at random and see (1) whether they all voted the same way, (2) whether they all voted keep, and (3) whether these were all tagged with the ARS template.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adelita (turtle)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alec Sutherland
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander Skinner (surgeon)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bob Lampert
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chinook Display Team
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ED-209
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George M. Campbell
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gun serial number
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harold John Ellison
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (comics) (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jerry Palmer
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John C. England
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Ely (surgeon)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John T. Eversole
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (4th nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (4th nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people who are left-handed
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on the toilet
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mac Ross
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maurice D. Jester
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Native Plants Journal
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Snoopy's siblings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William B. Ault
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zero waste agriculture

Levivich 00:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The first one listed https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adelita_(turtle) shows Andrew voted Keep, the next day I said Merge, then after others found reliable sources giving it significant coverage I changed my vote to keep. We don't just show up and yell Keep for no reason or always agree with one another. What about the ones from that time period where it was just two of us or only one of us? Seems like a sampling that would project a misleading conclusion. Dream Focus 00:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like it'd be easier to look at their AfD statistics (where this information is all aggregated automatically). Here, for Lightburst for example, we can see that in their last 167 !votes (of 2547 AfD edits in total), they made 118 keeps/speedy keeps, and 49 deletes/speedy deletes/merges/userfies/redirects, which is about a 70% to 30% ratio. Per my analysis of all AfDs since 2005, the historical average is that around 16% of AfDs are kept. If you voted 70/30 completely at random on every AfD, you'd expect to have 11.2% of your keep !votes close keep, 4.8% of your delete !votes close keep, 58.1% of your keep !votes close delete, and 24.9% of your delete !votes close delete: ergo 36.1% of your !votes would align with the final decision. However, Lightburst's match rate is 65%, which is twice that. This implies, at the very least, that they are not just spamming "keep" on everything. Whether or not all of these people form a complete voting bloc is, well... people tend to do that. jp×g 03:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list from the same time period of some AFDs in which only 2 out of 3 participated. Again, see if you kind find any where the two votes are different.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alex M. Diachenko
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American IronHorse
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AqBurkitt
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur V. Ely
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bert C. Edmonds
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Greece
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bolt (fabric)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bunyan Randolph Cooner
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Case study in psychology
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cheese sandwich
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Philadelphia
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Damon M. Cummings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Atkins (Royal Navy officer)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deborah Andollo
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disha Ravi
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dog & Bull
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward C. Daly
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eugene Blair
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fiction based on World War II
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frederick Curtice Davis
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frederick Cushing Cross Jr.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Campbell (1827-1904)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gibraltar in popular culture
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gus George Bebas
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harold Jensen Christopher
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry L. Corl
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heads Up (video game)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heavy equipment modelling
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Herbert A. Calcaterra
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hilan Ebert
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horace A. Bass Jr.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Howard Franklin Clark
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hubert Paul Chatelain
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hybrid roller coaster (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Invitational education
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J. Douglas Blackwood
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jealousy in art
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Drayton Baker
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Joseph Doherty
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John R. Borum
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John R. Craig
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John S. Blue
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kenneth W. Durant
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kristoffer Domeij
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Landspeeder
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of bombs (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of common World War II infantry weapons
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of controversial deaths in the military
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of deaths due to COVID-19
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Easter eggs in Tesla products
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Egyptian inventions and discoveries
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fantasy worlds
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with two entries
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of female supervillains (4th nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films set around Easter
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of international common standards
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of largest nebulae
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of male detective characters
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive and valuable assets
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mountain Dew flavors and varieties
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living state leaders
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of peace activists
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in military fiction
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Augusta, Georgia
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of tallest pyramids
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. flagged cruise ships
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of United States-themed superheroes
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in the American Civil War
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of Ancient Roman governors
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lubi-Lubi
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mango (Saturday Night Live) (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanna Crouter
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Melissa VanFleet
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Milo Evarts
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mr. Game & Watch
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul H. Carr (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Hunn (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pegity
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Performance (textiles)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piedmont bioregion
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Joshi
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reginald V. Smith
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Boyd Brazier
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Brister
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rocket (comics)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russell M. Cox
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Satronia Smith Hunt
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Germans
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Bray
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom's Ice Cream Bowl
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trose Emmett Donaldson
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/W. Mark Lanier (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willard Keith
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Finnic Cates
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William W. Creamer

There are some that are not "keep" !votes (like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of controversial deaths in the military and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive and valuable assets), but I think they're the minority, and I've yet to find one where one person says "keep" and the other says "delete", although there are probably one or two out there like that. Still, I think the overall pattern of block-voting is undeniable. And that's just the past 12 months. If I were to show you 2019 and 2020, it would be much worse (I've looked already). Levivich 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• The first one I clicked on is Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jealousy_in_art and you will notice Andrew said to keep the article, I did not, but instead posted a link to a New York Times article and asked a question about the topic. At Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_controversial_deaths_in_the_military Andrew said Delete, and I said to Draftify. List_of_most_expensive_and_valuable_assets Andrew said to Redirect it, I just asked a question and didn't vote. Dream Focus 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Levivich. Glad we haven't had any negative encounters recently. Question: Doesn't is stand to reason, when an article is selected for rescue, it is because someone thought it was rescuable. Just as when someone chooses to AfD it is because they thought it was hopeless. So I will challenge anyone to renominate any that we saved. I think they are bulletproof - but maybe I am wrong. If any should not be in main space delete them. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I literally only found out about this WikiProject yesterday over at the dinosaur skeleton deletion attempt, and now I found this discussion where deletionists are trying to delete the project? Surreal inside-baseball Misplaced Pages style. The editors who are active on the project seem to have provided a good venue for editors concerned about the assembly line of articles being put up for deletion daily (myself, I try to not venture into AfD more than a couple times a week if that, a depressing place, and taken this odd attempt to silence fellow Wikipedians probably should look at it more often), kind of but not quite like how the fringe-theory people have fashioned themselves a place to serve as a free-speech Misplaced Pages information forum. Only good faith solution is to just edit and let edit, leave the thing standing with no further attempt to cancel culture it, and if there isn't a similar hangout for the deletionists then there certainly should be. The two can hold a summer softball game and picnic, and get along just fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I literally only found out about this WikiProject yesterday and you already know what the Only good faith solution is. I've been at this for three years and I don't know what the solution is. What's your secret? Levivich 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Maybe new eyes on the topic, which see nothing wrong in a group of editors who recognize that way too many interesting, popular, and well sourced pages are put up on AfD. Take the dinosaur skeleton page for example (my Halloween costume problem solved), the topic and article have been expanded and clearly saved, but nope, editors still want it gone, as if it's competing for the last bit of storage space on the server. Often a group of articles from topic trees are under the ax (wanting to cancel many of the Tuskegee airman, for example, falls under the category of WP:"are you kidding me?"). So finding out that a group is around which tries to rescue pages which, even when seemingly rescued, are stilled deemed unworthy, and then the next day finding this discussion which wants to cancel that group? Like I said, new eyes. Letting long-term WikiProjects do what they set out to do is the essence of assuming good faith in fellow editors. Pointing to some potentially savable AfD pages not only doesn't seem like a bad thing, but arguably is an essential part of the greatest existing all-volunteer collaborative check-and-balance system (except for ants, who run a pretty tight ship). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Calling Article Rescue Squad a Wikiproject is an extreme stretch. Literally the only thing it does is serve as a central notification system for articles that it's members want people to vote keep on. It does absolutely nothing other Wikproject do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
        • No, it's quite similar to other projects which focus on articles with a particular status. WP:AFC looks at articles which are drafts; WP:NPP looks at articles which are new; WP:ITN looks at articles which are in the news and so on. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• With regards to the recent stream of tuskegee airmen nominations, the 4 discussions with substantial ARS participation were all closed as keep or no consensus. A 5th one which the participant Lightburst forgot to post on the ARS noticeboard was summarily deleted. The rest were deleted. The 'improvements' by the ARS lot in those 4 were underwhelming in the best of cases, if not an outright farce. Dream Focus would only go through the trouble of driving by each discussion and dropping the first low-effort web source (be it primary or secondary) that appeared on the search screen. Lightburst would promise SIGCOV and instead bring to the table only a roster of names, or some NOTNEWS fluff. There was one in which 7&6=thirteen invented page numbers in a book to claim that the subject had significant coverage.

  Anecdotes aside, the most common features here were (1) Lightburst's mountains of routine coverage, passing mentions, and wikilawyering; (2) the ubiquitous "Keep per ATD and PRESERVE", without any regard for what is actually being preserved; and (3) single-line vote-stacking, such as that of FeydHuxtable here--"Keep, unconvinced by the delete analyses" (not that you'd ever be convinced otherwise, of course). No method, nothing useful, a waste everyone's time. Avilich (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's crazy that inventing pages of a reference out of whole cloth is just being treated as another wacky antic of ARS and not a serious problem in its own right. ApLundell (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion while the idea "that editors coming in from ARS can only improve articles, not vote" sounds appealing I don't see how it would work in practice. How could you tell if someone other than the poster at ARS is coming in from ARS? That won't solve the canvassing concern as an inclusionist will post a page at ARS and then the rest of the gang will vote in the AFD. Better to just shut down ARS, which is described as "moribund" anyway and watch what happens at AFDs. If there are concerns about the behavior of people at AFDs then those can be addressed by individual ANI cases. As can be seen above already, the Gang of Four/Five/Six are throwing out various examples of how they don't all !vote the same. Let's remove the canvassing forum of ARS and take a clean slate view of AFD participation. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Fully Support Let's move this discussion to the appropriate place with some teeth. We don't need this discussion to continue ad nauseam. There seems to be pretty strong consensus that this should be put to bed one way or the other. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support It's clear there is a consensus that action needs to be taken, but also that this isn't the right place to do it. So the discussion should be moved to where it can be resolved instead of continuing here endlessly. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support closing the thread without consensus; this seems increasingly less like an opportunity to reach a conclusion about a difficult issue and more like a trainwreck. BusterD, El_C, valereee, Black Kite, and Levivich seem to be of the opinion that ARS has some serious issues. Dronebogus and Vladimir.copic aggressively posit that ARS should be destroyed; Roxy the dog doesn't seem to have expressed any specific opinion about policy, but has called people "arseholes". Mztourist and Indy beetle, who also support the shutdown of the ARS, both !voted "delete" in several recent high-profile AfDs around which this dispute seems to be vaguely centered. Other participants, on the anti-"shut down ARS" side, include Andrew , 7&6 and Lightburst, who (if I recall correctly) !voted "keep" in those same AfDs. However, Dream Focus, Ritchie333, David Fuchs, Rhododendrites, Masem, Nfitz, GreenC, Piotrus and FeydHuxtable seem to feel that there is not a major issue with the ARS that justifies shutting it down... I have trouble looking at this mess of a thread and seeing consensus on any point other than "it's not going anywhere productive". jp×g 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Definitely add me to the "shut it down" faction. The unquestioning, uncompromising belief that every grain of sand on the beach deserves its own Misplaced Pages article is an embarrassment to the project and a drain on its resources. List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania -- you must be joking. EEng 06:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Awwww, I wanted to join this project as a Editor. Then that would make me an ARSE. Lugnuts 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I'm qualified to comment here -- we might need some sort of an expert on jokes that weren't funny. But I guess it's hard to connect this with what's going on here -- sure, it might be dumb for people to think we need an article about every grain of sand on the beach, but are there currently people refusing to compromise on it? jp×g 07:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say advocacy for keeping List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania is a pretty clear signal that reasonable compromise isn't possible. EEng 02:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• My perception of this whole thing is somewhat informed by a 4-year wiki-break I took while real-world stuff left me with little free time. I have never been in either the inclusionist or deletionist camp, in fact my AFD record is pretty much 50:50 with about 84% accuracy. Those who know me know I rarely tack WP:PERNOM or KEEP per !votes onto the end of discussions that are foregone conclusions. Before my wiki-break I constantly butted heads with ARS members, especially over their appetite for what I called "diplomati-spam" (pure WP:OR articles about bilateral relations between countries with nothing more than incidental interactions like having leaders attend the same dinner one time). One of the creators took refuge under the wing of the ARS and absolutely used it as a mechanism for protecting the articles he "owned". Having the ARS arrive at an AFD discussion had an immediately chilling effect; nominations had an almost zero chance of succeeding once the ARS template had been added to a discussion. Editors need only mention the ARS and then sit back and watch as a flurry of !keep !votes miraculously appeared; testament (of course!) to the critical nature of the article in question. Fast-forward 4 years, and the tables have absolutely turned. Now we have admins protecting deletionists who spam AFD logs with nominations with no hint of WP:BEFORE. We have deletion nominators complaining about !keep !voters who "don't do enough to improve articles", despite that being their job, again per WP:BEFORE. We have admins closing AFDs with statements that would clearly have been better as contributions, but apparently super-voting is now tolerated. And we have admittedly deletion-driven ("spam fighting") guidelines stretched to the point of Dalí-like surrealism so that they can be applied as broadly as possible in a thinly-veiled effort to delete anything that certain cliques don't like. And in other cases guidelines are applied so narrowly as to not allow inclusion of anything (with novel interpretations that include assertions not even mentioned in said guidelines). The more things change, the more they stay the same. Four years ago I probably would have encouraged the neutering of the ARS, but the pendulum has already swung way the other way and I see no value in doing so now. St★lwart 08:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not the job of the nominators to improve articles. Nor is it the job of the keep voters to either. AfD isn't cleanup or whatever. The only reason improving articles has came up in this discussion is because ARS members have repeatedly said that it's what the forum exists for. Despite the overwhelming evidence that it isn't improving anything. Otherwise, I doubt most people would care. Let alone use it as a talking point. I know I wouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn’t about whatever this is, it’s about whether the ARS is a disruptive/unhelpful organization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD is not cleanup because WP:BEFORE presumes that any possible clean-up has happened by the time someone arrives at AFD. AFD is also not clean-up because it shouldn't be used to delete articles about notable things that simply require some work. Again, because WP:BEFORE encourages people to do that work... you know... before. Its absolutely the nominator's job; we couldn't be more clear about that.

And okay, then I don't believe that in the current context of AFD they are disruptive. Certainly not to the extent they were in the "bad old days". And whether or not they are unhelpful is irrelevant. We don't take action against those who are unhelpful, otherwise we'd lose half the admin corps (hell, we don't even take action against those admins that are disruptive).

Ironically, your best chance of having the ARS deleted is to declare them an organisation, claim they fail WP:NCORP, and be done with it. St★lwart 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What you said is an oxymoron. If a "nominator" could do the work to get a clearly notable article up to the notability standards before nominating it, then there wouldn't be reason to bring it to AfD in first place and we wouldn't even know about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there would be no reason to bring it to AFD. That's the point of WP:BEFORE. St★lwart 10:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Doing a WP:BEFORE isn't a magic wand that makes quality sources miraculously materialize. Sometimes (really most of the time) they just don't exist. Which is why people who brow beat nominators about it tend to subsequently provide garbage references as evidence that a WP:BEFORE wasn't done. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a magic wand, no, but it is a requirement. A significant portion of the time, nominations are based on a lack of in-article sources, decade-old tags, or a misunderstanding of a particular SRD. In a small number of cases (very small) its actually a question of sources or source quality and WP:BEFORE isn't an issue. In my experience, WP:BEFORE is most often cited when none has been done and a discussion is on its way to a WP:SNOW close. St★lwart 11:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

So your saying ARS members are acting dishonest and repeatedly providing inadequate sources when they could just find quality ones instead? Weird position since I thought you were defending them, but OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me just correct a misconception here: we've actually had discussions about whether BEFORE is strictly mandatory. Consensus was that, although it's considered good practice, it's not strictly obligatory. The reasons have generally boiled down to BEFORE being too often used to attack nominators, and the impossibility of telling just how thorough a search has been. The AFD I linked above? The crappy sources dumped into that discussion and presented as evidence the nom didn't do their due diligence are the sort of red herrings a conscientious nominator would have found and dismissed as obviously irrelevant. This sort of thing happens all the time and it's why nobody really flogs BEFORE anymore unless the nominator has been genuinely negligent or you want a reason to kick him in the teeth for nominating garbage you want kept but can't otherwise defend. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, as an example: we recently had a slew of seemingly rapid-fire nominations. So rapid-fire, in fact, that mere minutes (literally, 1-2 minutes) had passed between one nomination and the next. It turns out the nominator (a well-known deletionist) was running through a category of articles historically tagged as being of questionable notability. All of them were tagged 10+ years ago. They said so. Most of them were about notable things. Most were WP:SNOW kept. But that editor's idea of category clean-up was to just rapid-fire nominate them for deletion. There wasn't enough time to open Google, let alone do a search; they clearly hadn't done a WP:BEFORE search. In fact, they openly admitted as much. And yet in those discussions we still had the same bloc of deletionists show up and drop off a drive-by WP:PERNOM !votes. And those who pointed out that WP:BEFORE clearly hadn't been done were attacked and ironically told to stop making personal attacks (because apparently pointing out disingenuous and disruptive behaviour is a personal attack if the person doing those things is a popular deletionist). One of those people was blocked by an admin who found the most tenuous of reasons to tie it to something else. Another desperately tried to relist nominations by the same person (despite consensus being clear, and a lack of WP:BEFORE also being clear), presumably in the hope enough drive-by per-noms would provide justification for deletion. St★lwart 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the process worked fine and as intended if the articles were speedy kept. Articles that shouldn't be deleted weren't deleted. So what? I don't really see what the issue there is. Also, a drive-by PERNOM vote that will be ignored by the closer has way less of a negative impact on the project then someone verbally harassing a nominator based on a hunch and then being dishonest about references. They aren't even comparable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that without groups like the ARS, there is a much higher liklihood that disruptive nominations like those will stand, there will be nobody to do the nominator's job for them, the nomination will be supported by a flock of PERNOM deletionists, and the article will be deleted. That nominator has been active for years; if that nominator's recent track-record is anything to go by, plenty of articles that shouldn't have been deleted, have been deleted. Nominating something for deletion, and thereby claiming to have completed WP:BEFORE checks, is also being dishonest about references. St★lwart 12:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I's seriously bizarre how the pro ARS people act like it's existence is the only thing keeping the AfD process from spiraling into deletionist chaos or similar doomsday nonsense. There's plenty of other keep voters out there besides the four ARS members that are currently active and it's not like they can't still participate in AfDs if its depreciated. None of your problems hinge on there being a central forum to canvass people from. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we agree there. St★lwart 13:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is about Boleyn's rash of ill-advised nominations and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's block for calling her a misogynist, I'd argue said block isn't tangential or a stretch at all. Someone making even the most silly and wrongheaded nomination isn't a licence to call them any name you like. And no, I don't believe previous blocks for screaming abuse at people is a tenuous connection. Reyk _YO! 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you know it was a three year campaign, not a "rash". And you know he referred to "systematic misogyny", because a female-led band was nominated for deletion simply because it hadn't been worked on. And you know it changed the make-up of that discussion, to justify relisting rather than closing as SNOW and tacking another onto an already woeful record. Its the same from both "sides", and has been for years. St★lwart 14:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Stalwart clearly has a point. As a fresh example of out-of-control deletionism, here's another nomination of a FA for deletion. I attended another AfD for an FA the other day and so nominating FAs for deletion is now the new normal. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  If all ARS members were blocked or banned, the result would be 0 AfDs of featured articles turning out differently. --JBL (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

True. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Many articles are improved. Sometimes stubs have been turned into much larger articles. Textile performance for example went from this at 4 thousand bytes when nominated for deletoin to 78 thousand bytes now. It then got put on the main page of Misplaced Pages. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#DYK_for_Textile_performance. The edit history shows 7&6=thirteen did a lot of work on it, as did others. There are many examples of that. Probably need to collect them and post them somewhere. If someone had a bot to check file size of an article when it was nominated and when the AFD ended, that'd be useful. I don't remember how many articles worked on by any of us ended up on the front page of Misplaced Pages. Be good to compile a list of that as well. Dream Focus 09:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes articles are improved by ARS. But a higher percentage of the time that's not the case and the whole thing always comes with a ton of unnecessary drama. That said, I do think the project would have value if it didn't focus on AfDs and put it's time purely into "article improvement" instead, but at this point it seems like the main contributors to ARS are just in it to right great wrongs or whatever though. Which doesn't serve anyone. Even if articles are occasionally made better by way of the nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve noticed a lot of the complaints seem to be focused around Lightburst and Thirteen’s recent behavior. DF and Andrew can be obnoxious sometimes but generally they’re a bit better behaved in my experience. Perhaps we should just open an ANI about them and divert this away from a wiki-political brawl about who’s more “evil” this week. Dronebogus (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think that it would be a good idea to focus on the one or two most problematic members. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• As an additional data point, I looked to see what was listed on WT:ARS and came across Laura Hoffmann and my immediate thought was "what makes soccerway.com and worldfootball.net reliable sources?" and "why do we need three citations to cite Laura Hoffmann (born 12 August 1991) is a German footballer who plays as a defender for SpVg Berghoven" and "why shouldn't we create an article on the team first?" The AfD closed as keep, but not a single editor who advocated keeping did any work on the article, so people like me coming to the article fresh get no benefit whatsoever. If this is the best the ARS can manage, I think serious consideration should be given to marking it historical, given its reputation seems to cancel out any theoretical benefit. Ritchie333 09:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  That wasn't put on the rescue list, nor do I see anyone from the article rescue squadron there. With such a large number of articles sent to AFD each day, a lot will be kept for various reasons, you can't just blame every article you don't like on us. Dream Focus 09:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I partly agree with Stalwart's analysis but, like other participants, I question its relevance. AfD culture has changed slightly, and for the better. But what he interprets as favoritism towards deletionism I see as just a just a bit more balance. Not like the bad old days when you'd make a detailed, well thought out argument for deletion and closing admins would flick you aside contemptuously in favour of throwing themselves worshipfully at the feet of any keep voter who wandered by to assert they like the article and that the nominator is an asshat. The personal attacks have been a constant feature of ARS methodology from the beginning. In this discussion for instance we have the ARS calling Dronebogus an arsonist, which sounds uncomfortably like the "nazi book-burning" rhetoric of a decade ago. Elsewhere I have drawn attention to the ARS calling people racists and shills and been dismayed at the effort and persistence it took to get the admin corps to even acknowledge the problem, much less act on it. I don't know if this reticence was the result of favouritism, or just an understandable reluctance to become the targets of a vengeful ARS screech campaign themselves.

Now, regarding the abuse of WP:BEFORE as a cudgel to beat nominators with, we have here an example of an ARS editor dumping a load of bogus sources into the discussion. Inspection showed them to be a lot of bilge- some of them little more than partial text matches to the title. He then goes on to claim you're not allowed to question this dreck unless you've already done WP:BEFORE to his satisfaction (and he'll always decide you haven't). Note the strategy here: dumping garbage non-sources into a discussion is "proof" that the nominator didn't WP:BEFORE, and not having sufficiently grovelled at the holy altar of BEFORE means you're not allowed to scrutinise the garbage non-sources. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it may be entirely irrelevant. But that's kinda the point. This discussion would have been useful 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. But the deletionists now have as much to be sorry for as the comparatively powerless inclusionists. St★lwart 10:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pardon? If you're claiming delete !voters are guilty of misconduct on par with organising voting blocks, falsifying sources, and calling people racists or nazis, I'd like to see some evidence of that. Reyk _YO! 11:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely am. Spend 20 mins at AFD. St★lwart 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I spend plenty of time at AfD and I haven't seen the behaviour you describe. I think you are talking out of your ass. Again, if you're going to make allegations like this, show evidence. Reyk _YO! 11:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely believe you haven't seen it. I can't see a single AFD that you have contributed to which was started by the editor in my example above, since early 2020. If that causes you to believe I'm talking out of my ass, so be it. St★lwart 12:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Stalwart111 Provide diffs to show us what you're referring to. Mztourist (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I provided a detailed account of that editor's 3-year campaign above. St★lwart 22:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If I may jump in, as an irregular AfD contributor and having no particular affiliation to either camp, here are few samples of "rabid deletionist" modus operandi: Škabo (2nd nomination) (2020), Albin Gutman (2020), Zoran Terzić (2017). Granted, neither is particularly new, but from my limited experience the phenomenon is real. I'm not accusing anyone of colusion, but the "deletionist camp" seems to consist of people rather actively monitoring AfDs and WP:PERNOMing without investing a single bit of energy into research. No such user (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to provide a bit of background here, that last one was the result of a user creating thousands and thousands and thousands of badly sourced and often inaccurate articles about mostly living people and then, when the scale of the problem was identified, he used a sock account to give these very crappy articles a seal of approval. All this had to be checked and it was a huge amount of work. A surprisingly small number of those articles ended up, on inspection, being suitable for the Encyclopedia and that seems to have been one of them. This is not a good example of "deletionists" being careless; quite the opposite in fact. I don't think this has much to do with the topic, which was derailed by silly and unconvincing "they're ad bad as each other"-- as though occasionally sloppy nominations or a few perfunctory "delete per nom" votes are as disruptive as screaming "NAZI" at people, or presenting sources at AfD while lying about what's in them. Reyk _YO! 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow it's almost as if limited experience is not enough experience to draw any conclusions about a "deletionist camp"... Levivich 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Who called Dronebogus an "arsonist"? The ARS isn't a living entity. Mention the specific editor you have a problem with. If most of their AFD work is done elsewhere besides what few articles are on the ARS list, then getting rid of the ARS wouldn't change that at all. I see where Dronebogus called me "obnoxious" above, and he has made additional insults for days now. Dream Focus 10:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Lightburst called me an arsonist. Dronebogus (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• The example of Laura Hoffmann is grotesque as that has just about nothing to do with the ARS. To see people arguing and canvassing about women footballers, the projects to visit are Women in Red (Mass deletion nomination of 14 women Footballer) and WikiProject Football (Accusations of deliberate misogyny). Are you going to close down those projects too? The page that actually needs shutting down is ANI – this discussion is a sprawling, uncivil mess and the quality of such evidence is appalling. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

With Accusations of deliberate misogyny the comment was "If anyone can find Dutch language sources the articles can saved from deletion." Whereas, in ARS you asked for "reinforcement and support." Are you seriously going to act like those are the same thing? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I like thematic comments and so, in that cherry-picked case, chose military words to fit the military theme. But my comments vary considerably as I don't like monotony. Looking back at the first of Levivich's examples above, Adelita (turtle), my ARS entry was "This was a US project in the 1990s but my access to US press coverage from that era is not so good. Perhaps a US-based editor could help." So, sometimes I try a thematic hook, sometimes I make a specific suggestion. YMMV. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it was a just a harmless thematic comment to fit military theme...Right...Kind of like "If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team." I guess your a crypto-canvasser. "No, no...I wasn't trying to enlist people to vote in the AfD or saying ARS can save the article. I was just citing a quote from the A-Team song." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"In 2007, a crackpot Misplaced Pages editor unit was sent to ANI by an administrator court for an AfD they didn't start. These men promptly appealed from a maximum indefinite block to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by Arbcom, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the Article Rescue Squadron." Ritchie333 11:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We should explain that the topic in question was B. A. Baracus. The puzzling thing in that case was that just about nobody turned up to the discussion – yet again the canvassing claim is refuted. And there was some weirdness about the nominator that Jclemens handled. "I aint got time for your jibba jabba!" Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I pity the fool who sent that to AfD. Ritchie333 11:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I went there but didn't comment in the AFD. I did add a reference to the article itself that I found after looking around for sources. So no canvassing or vote stacking. Sometimes I improve the article, this time only slightly, without participating in the AFD. Dream Focus 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson, Here is a diff of the article being mentioned on the project page. Ritchie333 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  That was a request on the talk page, asking for access to a particular German language source. What's the problem? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is often on the "opposite" side of the ARS "voting block", I am not particularly concerned about it (or canvassing). As long a the closing editors remember that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, vote stacking one way or another is a minor problem. What matters is the quality of arguments, and their tone. My only recommendation regarding ARS is that it should be obligatory for ARS members to add a delsort notification to the discussion they are participating (saying that 'this discussion has been listed in the ARS deletion list' or such). I am not concerned about 'many votes'. If they are good quality arguments, that's great. If they are low quality, they should be discarded. What I am however concerned is about behavior of individual editors, as I believe at least one prominent ARS member has long ago given up on AGF, and is de facto spamming numerous AFDs with WP:GOOGLEHIT-based keeps, and doing so in a WP:BATTLEFIELD-manner, attacking nominators and so on. But as AN(I) in the past has failed to sanction that editor (who has been reported here several times, with a rough 'no consensus' ending each time), I believe nothing short of an ArbCom will have any chance of ameliorating the problem. Again, I repeat: the problem is not ARS, which is a noble initiative providing a useful level of scrutiny, the problem is the radicalization of its members, or perhaps just one vocal individual, who believe(s) that time-wasting google hit laundry lists, mixed with bad faith commentary about evil deletionists, is the way to 'save' articles. I will also add that this type of problematic behavior is often displayed on articles which are not listed at ARS, nor do they attract the attention of more than a single ARS member, but on the off chance I am wrong I believe ArbCom which would analyze the behavior of most active ARS members would be in order - but that ArbCom should not focus on CANVASS concerns, but on AGF/BATTLEGROUND/POINTless voting with GOOGLEHIT-like results, and judge whether some ARS members should not be topic banned from commenting in AfDs/PRODs/etc. If ARS would go, it would be simply unfair, as I think 'deletionists' can still monitor various DELSORT lists - but we would be taking away the main DELSORT list that 'inclusionists' have. Let them organize, just enforce that they behave like responsible members of the projects, not warriors for the holy cause. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Complaining about Google is utterly absurd because every AfD contains search links to Google and the participants are expected to use them; especially the nominator. Per WP:CONRED, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The problem is that, in many cases, it appears that such a thorough search is not done but nominators are rarely sanctioned for this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  The converse is also true though. e.g. at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Wikimedia_movement you pasted the titles of 12 sources. After putting in the effort to get access to the first 6 (some were rather obscure to access so I'm not sure even you had accessed them) it turned out 4 didn't even contain the phrase, and some didn't even contain 'movement'. The other two were written by WMF staffers. The next 6 seemed equally dubious, but I didn't spend time going through those. You didn't respond to defend your listing of any of these sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• When searching, it's best not to require exact hits on precise phrases because a concept may often be described in different ways using different words. That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary, as explained by WP:DICDEF: "In Misplaced Pages, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." The Wikimedia movement is a rather fuzzy cloud of projects and people using many languages and those sources seemed relevant to this concept. And this issue is not what's meant by WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is the use of search counts rather than specific sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  So are you saying that you've checked that in each of those 12 titles you listed, the concept of a Wikimedia movement is defined such that the source is relevant to the AfD, but in different words (not using 'movement')? Such that if I asked you to list out the pages of each source where that's done, at the time, you would've been able to do so? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut in fiction Andrew built his argument on a source he called "detailed", that after closer examination proved to be a) in Chinese and b) off topic. That's not "googlehits" - it was a single "hit" one of the lowest possible denominator. What excuse for this "argument" can be found here? I'd love to hear it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wow. Just had a read through that AfD. Seeing things like that really test the limits of asssuming good faith and unfortunately lead me to suspect WP:NOTHERE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• As explained by Conrad and countless others, "It’s only those who do nothing that make no mistakes". Busy editors cannot therefore be expected to have a 100% record. Piotrus nominates numerous articles for deletion, claiming that they are not notable. Naturally, they are occasionally mistaken – see Toto (Oz) for an egregious example. If editors are not able to challenge and contest such assertions, then these errors will slip through. The process requires both sides of the argument to be presented and thrashed out. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Let's avoid straw mans. Nobody is saying deletion nominations cannot be challenged. But challenges - just like nominations themselves - should follow a bare minimum standard. That includes a BEFORE that should go beyond google hits. If you list a source, you should verify yourself it contains a relevant discussion that passes SIGCOV and such, or otherwise preface such a comment with a disclaimer (i.e. saying that you were not able to or had no time to access the full text or such). Please do tell us what led you call an off-topic, Chinese paper a "detailed source" in the Fomalhaut discussion? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a nice picture of Toto (Oz) with a straw man (right). Naturally, editors prefer to cherry-pick examples which make them look good but so it goes. See WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like every other ARS-related thread that makes it to a noticeboard: a mishmash of problems with ARS, problems framed as being about ARS that are actually about individuals, debates over canvassing, examples of lousy !votes, examples of lousy nominations, examples of terrible articles, examples of good articles... it doesn't go anywhere. You might say "ArbCom is the next step for a long-term intractable problem" but here's the thing: there isn't evidence it's intractable. These threads so often close with "propose sanctions about individuals" but where have those threads been tried? I vaguely remember some threads about individual members, but focused on e.g. personal attacks, hounding, etc. which isn't always a good fit. Where are the "X is a net negative in deletion discussions. here are a bunch of diffs. I propose a topic ban on pages related to deletion, which includes ARS" threads? If successful, we can see what ARS can do without that person. If it fails, then at least we can say it's been tried (and been tried recently -- I'm sure there are a couple of those deep in the archives). — Rhododendrites \\ 13:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the examples here of 'over-canvassing' are exaggerated. It does happen, but simply asking for help finding a foreign language source isn't canvassing. Yes, there's issues with ARS. But there's also some value. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO The canvassing could largely be dealt with if there was a requirement that Template:Rescue list be posted at the AfDs that they are involved in. Changing the wording in their guide to "improving" things instead of "saving" them would probably help. In the meantime it's pretty clear that particular members should be dealt with at ArbCom or something. Outside of that I don't think a few bad apples should lead to getting rid of the project unless they aren't dealt with, but I assume ARS and AfDs would be fine without their participation if ArbCom sanctions them. I'd probably join ARS myself if there wasn't the seedier influences. I bet a lot of other people would. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Seedier!? As it happens, that takes us to the latest entry at WP:RESCUE: Seed-counting machine. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I guess it's a bit of a jumble because the canvassing issues really do have their locus at ARS but the other problems-- the decade-long history of falsifying sources and trolling deletion nominators-- are probably concerns with individuals. I'd hope the Arbitration Committee would be able to look past this obfuscation though. Reyk _YO! 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• The length of this thread is a little mind-boggling in a tl;dr sorta way, but based on my experiences as an NPP/AfC reviewer, I tend to support saving articles (unless they're purely promotional or paid editing/blatant business promotion). WP cannot be the sum of all knowledge if we're deleting articles that actually are notable, even though they may not be extensively covered in mainstream media. I invite the confused to take an NPP training course. We need help with the backlog! Oh, and of special note, WP is supposed to be the sum of all knowledge, so I'll leave this little tidbit and run for cover. . Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 04:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• COMMENT: "Information is not knowledge" - Frank Zappa.

Based on the above discussion, it appears to me that a structural problem exists on the English Misplaced Pages, and that this is a serious matter which the community is unable to resolve. The matter therefore needs to be escalated to WP:ARBCOM for adjudication. William Harris (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• • No, I think it’s largely just a poorly conceived and semi-disruptive but mostly just annoying project, two disruptive/uncivil users, and a couple of others who need to be slapped with a trout for being smug and/or writing moderately dumb and confusing A-Team references. Dronebogus (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Break

• I’d also like to state that my view of ARS has softened slightly upon seeing recent nominations focus on more reasonable topics like “seed counting machine” and the featured “armament of Iowa-class battleships”, instead of just “here’s a WP:RUN OF THE MILL soldier, here’s a pointless trivia list, here’s fancruft, TO ARMS AND MOLON LABE” Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That's only because they're under the microscope. Once the heat's off it'll be about a week and a half before it's back to asserting nominators are morons and/or bigots and dropping in google hits to books where two out of three words in the article title can be found somewhere in the text. Reyk _YO! 15:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Just look through all past activity in the past year or so. I haven't changed how I do things at all. If you have a problem with specific editors, then list them and stop grouping everyone together. As I said, most of the AFDs each of us participate in, are not part of the Rescue squardon. Do they behave differently in the ARS then they do elsewhere? Dream Focus 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      • most of the AFDs each of us participate in, are not part of the Rescue squardon I don't think thats true. At least since September when LB came back, most of the AfDs you participate in are also participated in by at least one other ARS regular. If I'm wrong, let's see the list of AFDs you've participated in since Sep in which no other ARS member participated in. (I think this is true before Sep, too, but there are so many AFDs that I don't have time to run it down.) Levivich 16:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
        • A quick look through my contributions and searching for the word deletion shows things. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Inverness Athletic F.C. Seasons I voted delete in. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_works_by_Edward_Robert_Hughes, an article I created was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of video games featuring Mario, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pregnancy novels I cast no vote in since I wasn't certain of this sort of thing just made a comment, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of water parks in the Americas, and many others. That's just a quick glance. You could probably count how many AFDs I've been in, and its far higher than how many articles were tagged for help at the Rescue list. Dream Focus 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I didn't say tagged for help at the Rescue list. I said in which no other ARS member participated in. No moving goalposts please. You participate in the same AFDs even when they're not tagged. In fact I think it was shown above that only half are tagged. I've posted lists above where two or three of you have participated. Let's see a list where only you participated without the others. Just over the last 60 days, there aren't that many. But the ones in which you are alone are a distinct minority compared with the ones where at least one other member of the canvassing club is there. "Tagged" is a red herring because ARS doesn't always tag them. (Also, I still am waiting for even one example of an AfD where one of you voted keep and another delete. Not redirect or draftify or merge, just straight keep/delete disagreement. I believe this has never happened with the Gang of Four in the last three years, since I've been here. If it has, maybe only once or twice out of hundreds of block-voted AFDs. Prove me wrong.) Also make your examples from before this thread was opened. Showing me examples from while this thread has been running is a joke (as your links were above), and not the funny kind. Levivich 16:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
            • I checked before posting those, the others not in them, just me. Dream Focus 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Come on DF. Here's what you posted just now:

1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Inverness Athletic F.C. Seasons - this AfD was launched today. After this ANI thread. When you're all on your best behavior of course.
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of works by Edward Robert Hughes - started after this thread
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory - two ARS regulars (DF and GreenC) both voting keep
4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of video games featuring Mario - ok that's one
5. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pregnancy novels - no ARS members voted on this one, though you commented (not sure what that proves since there are no votes from ARS)
6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of water parks in the Americas - two ARS regulars (DF and LB) both voted keep

So yeah that's one in which you voted that no other ARS members voted. One. Levivich 17:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well whatever. I didn't look closely enough. Don't really care. You got bots apparently already to search for names. Just search for one name, then count that compared to the ones you found with more than one name. Dream Focus 17:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  That... that's what I did. I'm not saying you're intentionally lying, but when you say that you vote on AFDs alone, that just isn't true. If that's your perception of things, it's a misperception. Go ahead and look through your own AfD votes just since Sep 2021 when LB returned and you'll see that in almost all of them there are at least two of you. That's why everyone says you block vote. Don't deny it, because the records are easy to check. Just stop doing it. Levivich 17:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Show evidence and stop making baseless accusations here. I know I was editing for years before LB joined Misplaced Pages. Many of us follow the list Wikiproject. If you could search for all AFD I've been in that aren't list, and then somehow check for others, then you'd be able to determine what the truth is here. Otherwise you just seem to be saying what you want to believe is true. I remember for years I'd was very active in the articles for manga and Anime, following that Wikiproject's list of things at AFD, and don't recall ever seeing any of the others there. I exported articles with their entire history over to the manga fandom to save threatened ones quite often. Dream Focus 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Meh, DF and I both follow Lists delsort. We all edit and follow our interests. The guy is allowed to ivote wherever he decides. This thread is a mishmash of grievances, some of them have no merit. ARS has no membership, it has no affiliations. It exists to feritt out one - maybe two articles in a week. The rest of the time we edit in our areas of interest. Just like you do, and everyone else. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Some of them do indeed have no merit, but quite a lot of them do. "ARS has no membership" - do you take the community for idiots? Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  He never noticed Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members and never signed it. But having your name on a list doesn't matter, people show up regardless. Dream Focus 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks DF - cool that people made statements when they signed up - I read yours too. For clarity I should probably put my name in there. I see User:Ritchie333 joined in 2012 and said this: Semi-regular dumpster diver saving articles from deletion via CSD or AfD with numerous resulting DYK credits, particular expertise on geography and bands. And I especially like what USER:DGG said when he joined in 2007: The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP. I am going to sign up and say this:

  The first rule of ARS is you do not talk about ARS. The second rule is you do not talk about ARS.

  Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

While it's true I did sign up to the ARS early in my serious wiki-career (2012 onwards), I did also quickly disengage from the project in June 2012 when I realised it was counter-productive and could happily rescue articles without being an active part of it. Ritchie333 19:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 I have always considered you to be a fair arbiter on the project. The record will show that I trust your judgement. I almost always agree with you on RFA also. I was a bit shocked to see your comments in this thread above, but I gave them appropriate weight based on my opinion of your body of work. I was chuckling about the A-Team pop-culture ref. Not ass-kissing but keeping it real. I still see value in the ARS project, I sometime disagree with things posted there, and many times I post a stinker up there and nobody shows to help. This long thread is an example of long memories and perceived slights. AfD naturally brings drama based on the fact that someone's creation is thought to be unworthy of main space. I understand that. Too many nominators are married to the thesis in their nomination. For an example of a nominator that is not married to the thesis - see Seed-counting machine the nominator is presently adding to the article. It is how things should work. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

For me, I think the point at which I thought the ARS jumped the shark was at or around Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese when Milowent yelled at someone, calling them a "pizza cheese jihadist" and later "I'm done with you pizza cheese heathens. I can't argue for 7 days non-stop about whether pizza cheese is independently notable as shown by myriad sources. Famous Evil Deletionist Tarc actually !voted to keep above, so I don't think I can say any more". That's just ... bonkers. Ritchie333 20:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: bahahaha. Donny Osmond comes to mind. and Pizza- Do the right thing. put some extra moozarella on that MF and Sh*& Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Show evidence and stop making baseless accusations here. Are you kidding me? Scroll up, I posted two lists of AFDs. Levivich 17:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich You're wasting your time. There has never been, even in years past where a number of members were blocked and banned for disruption, any admission from the core ARS members that anything they do many possibly be wrong. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• If the articles they or anyone tries to improve are improvable to the point of being acceptable they will be kept; if not, they will be deleted. Anyone who thinks we should be more deletionist in an area can influence decisions just as much as anyone in the ARS. . If people show up at AfDs and make no substantial statement about how the article meets (or doesn't meet) policy, their !votes will not be taken into serious consideration. Anyone participating in that project will soon learn what is worth working on. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, some are saved; some are deleted, some are merged--just as would be expected.

The main area of contention at the moment is the individual Tuskegee Airmen--results at AfD seem to be variable , and it would be good to have a discussion somewhere in order to get consensus on the standards to be used.

looking to see who else in the project !voted is meaningless--there are a great many members, most of who are listed to indicate their general support, but, like me, never look at their lists. As background, in 2006-7 there was very great variation in AfDs, much more than at presen; we all were still trying to find practical interpretations of the written criteria. There were at the time some editors repeatedly listing articlews for deletion until they by chance got deleted, and there was a need to encourage each other to opppose them. Most members signed up around that time. -- DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks DGG - I do respect your measured response, and loved your statement in there. From what I see many of the AfDs suffer from lack of participation. When I participated in FOOTY AfDs I realized there was a core that made their own local consensus on every one and ivoted without regard for the guideline. it was a loser so I stopped. I experience the same underwhelming participation in GEO articles. Usually three guys turn up and they have like minds. They are not wrong on GEO, but lately I have disagreed about notability of cemeteries. Sadly there is not a guideline for them. Many things should be deleted and I get that. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If people show up at AfDs and make no substantial statement about how the article meets (or doesn't meet) policy, their !votes will not be taken into serious consideration. We like to think that, we like to say it, but in reality it doesn't happen. And when it does happen (discounting of votes leading to a close against the majority), that gets DRV'd, and those DRVs also get ARS'd, eg Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21. Levivich 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah… that isn’t exactly how !vote works. Because, y’know, who gets to decide one argument is more valid than the other in that case? A self-appointed closer? It’s based off consensus, which very much correlates with the numbers. Often you can sway the numbers with a convincing argument (given large enough participation), but in small sample sizes, eh… e: Although I agree that there are times you’ll see a closer who is willing to defy the numbers substantially, when warranted. Sometimes it’s allowed to stick. But such closers aren’t necessarily common ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviiously, what counts as policy-based argument can be a matter of dispute. In contested AfDs, usually we do accept a bald statement of a reason unless its part of a group of identical statements. This does give some weight to the number of people, and the dependence of afd -- and WP decisions generally-- upon the self-selection of whoever chooses to !vote is one of the weaknesses of the system, but it is difficult to think of an alternative. However, any close that says it is based upon pure vote counting where the result is clearly contrary to policy should be appealed to del rev. -- Del Rev should be getting considerably more business. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be some stress here on looking editor's history of keep versus delete versus keep votes. Depending on how one tackles AFD, that's not going to tell much. Personally (and unlike many here), I oppose anyone voting one way or another without a good series of Internet searches - 5 minutes minimum, perhaps a lot longer; I think AGF requires that much study into any AFD. There seems to be to many people who'll vote Delete, without much thought. And too many AFDs to ever look at. If I've got time to start looking at AFDs, and at first blush I think it's a delete, I'm not bothering to do enough to cast a vote. If I start researching deeper, and it's likely going to end a delete, I stop. It's only if I take a really deep dive, and conclude it's a delete, that I cast a Delete vote (more often or not, it's only iffy, and then I don't vote, or only comment). It's only when I suspect that there's something really fishy (like people who never actually existed, etc.), that I bother to research enough to do a delete. I don't find deleting a lot of stubs helps the project much. So I focus on what I think should be kept. There's no doubt then that my votes are definitely skewed keep. As I've said before - those that manage to do 30 delete votes in 20 minutes without researching them are a bigger issue. I think this has gone far enough, and should be closed. With no prejudice against future ANI discussions about individual editors (though to me, a lot of the claims above seem cherry-picked and trumped up - like minded people who follow the same lists, might well look like they are block voting - that doesn't mean they are block voting). I don't see how this is anywhere close to being ArbCom worthy at this point.Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with multiple editors above, one editor's actions are far more egregious than the other three listed (despite some minor disagreements I have a lot of respect one of their number), I think a detailed review of the most egregious member's conduct is warranted, either here or at a higher more structured venue. But ... this comment sums up the ARS approach, Afds are all about who shows up, and as has been shown repeatedly above canvassing undoubtedly occurs on the ARS rescue list, and then the core ARS membership frequently swamp a discussion with votes (not WP:!VOTEs). I too think this has repeatedly proven too hard for the community to resolve so ARBCOM is now likely the appropriate venue. Cavalryman (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

And further, as the core ARS membership have never admitted any fault in any of their actions they should welcome this. Cavalryman (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC).

Possible solution proposal: Should a SysOp be the one to give the final word?

With what is being discussed and the fact that currently all of the final decisions and the outcome's actions are done by an Admin, I think it is time to place some form of higher balance of power into those to discussion boards. I propose that a SysOp should now become the one to give the final word, and do the final action, as I never have heard of a SysOp breaking the rules or being unjust. Although they are a type of Admin, they at least are more cautious of their actions when compared to other admins. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Admins to not have the authority to supervote in the manner you are suggesting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery:If not then where should this proposal discussion be? Or are you referring to something else when you say "supervote"? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• You stated: "I never have heard of a SysOp breaking the rules or being unjust." I can't tell if you are joking or not. Dream Focus 02:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I am not joking. Even if there were such incidents, then it must be a lot less often than that of admins breaking rules or being unjust. This is because the process for being a SysOp is much harder, and SysOp applicants are more scrutinized than that of Admin applicants. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A SysOP is an administrator. Misplaced Pages:Administrators reads at sentence one: Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Misplaced Pages editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Misplaced Pages. Dream Focus 02:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Well then, still although they are administrators, those with the title of SysOp usually do act with more caution then regular admins. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you link to someone with that title? Are you thinking of Arbcom? Dream Focus 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, and addition of OR and SYNTH by Coinissuer

• Coinissuer (talk · contribs)

Coinissuer has been adding, re-adding, and edit warring about a section in the obscure article Phanes (coin issuer). Basically, they are adding wp:OR and wp:SYNTH arguing that this pre-Christian coin is a prophecy about Jesus. See the following diffs:

Additionally, he has been very nasty and uncivil on the article talk page:

1. When you read User:Caeciliusinhorto's comment, you realize that she starts lying from her first sentense.
2. You have to be completely ignorant to question them, so there is no point in talking to you.
3. Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is impossible ? If not, then you are a vandal

When asked not to perform personal attacks, they have claimed that others are performing personal attacks against them:

Additionally, the material they are adding and expanding on apparently was originally put there by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see their contributions here. It was subsequently removed by ian.tompson ian.thomson, readded by another sock, and then deleted again.

I believe that this user is wp:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

edit The user has also been edit warring at Sappho, see , , in addition to adding the rather absurd form "Pphsappho" to the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets start from the end. ian.tompson tagged as sockpuppet at 2019 a user that stopped talking in 2013 !!!! This is a preview of the quality of the arguments of Ermenrich Coinissuer (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in this story, lets talk about it in the talk page of the article Talk:Phanes_(coin_issuer). Coinissuer (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Minor correction to start with: ian.thomson (an admin in good standing) was the one who first noticed the weird editing on Phanes; ian.tompson is confusingly similarly named, but is the sockpuppet of an indeffed user.

As for the issue in question: I believe Ermenrich basically sums it up accurately. The nitpicking about minor typos in this very thread is indicative of how Coinissuer has behaved throughout this dispute, quibbling about minor things while refusing to engage with the actual core of the points being made (e.g. here), and using these minor mistakes as a pretext to attack the users they are in dispute with, rather than deal with the substance of the issue: on talk:Phanes (coin issuer) repeatedly calling me a vandal because I disagreed with them (, . Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am calling you a vandal because you delete a whole section, without providing reliable sources. Coinissuer (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As has been said to you repeatedly, the wp:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources (i.e., not Homer, various ancient theological treatises in Greek, and some completely unrelated scholarship) to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and discuss about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I, and others, have discussed it with you on the article's talk page. You, however, are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and provide your reliable sources that state that the wealty merchant is the only possible interpretation for the coin's inscription. Could you please stop vandalizing a whole article section? Coinissuer (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Coinissuer basically admits to WP:SYNTH: " I have reliable sources that associate this coin to Phanes, and reliable sources that associate Phanes with holy trinity ". Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stopping disturbing the admins and talk about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the article, this is about your behavior. I agree with Ermenrich that there are serious concerns about your contributions and behavior. Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in my behavior more than of contributing in the creation of a correct article? This is a sign of your behavior Coinissuer (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits show an unfamiliarity with verifiability and reliable sourcing, and your comments on the article's talk page demonstrate an unwillingness to listen to other editors who are trying to explain the issues with your edits. Both of those can be overcome with effort on your part, but unless you demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn and to adapt your editing to Misplaced Pages's policies, you won't be able to contribute productively. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

An IP intervened in support of Coinissuer, who first agreed with them and then argued with them. I asked if they'd forgotten to log in to their account, but they didn't respond. NebY (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Coinissuer has continued to edit war over the inclusion of the section while this discussion has been ongoing, see , .--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Only one way to deal with such behaviour, while getting the individual's attention. Apply a block. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 24h for edit warring.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

My forecast tells me, longer blocks will eventually be required. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If the behaviour continues, they may be blocked for longer periods of time. Hopefully, it will not be needed.--Berig (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this up while Berig was blocking; hopefully this now makes it irrelevant but I'm going to put it here anyway in case things resume when the block expires. As Ermenrich has now brought up the editing on Sappho, I thought I might as well weigh in on that too. I would argue that none of their edits there are productive, but Ermenrich particularly noticed their weird editing around the Greek spelling of Sappho's name here and here. It's once again indicative of problems with editing. Not to get too deep into content territory on ANI, but they add the spelling "Πφσαπφώ", and cite it to the inscription on the Sappho Painter's kalpis. Aside from the fact that there's no need to include every idiosyncratic spelling of Sappho's name in the lead (of which there are many!) they are misreading the inscription, which says "Φσαφο": note the two missing π's, and the fact that the final vowel is an ο rather than a ω. It's yet another case of misusing a primary source, and making a claim which is not supported by the citation given. (Aside from that, it's pretty odd that after having registered in January and apparently edited consistently on Phanes and not much else since then, they suddenly decided today, after I started the talkpage discussion which led to this dispute, to start editing Sappho, a topic on which they have shown no prior interest and yet is my most-edited page.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He might be a sock-master or a sock. Is exhibiting WP:CIR issues, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, to have both articles 'semi-protected'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Berig (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• His first actions after coming off the block: resuming his edit warring , .--Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also further personal attacks Obviously the member who are reverting the article belong to the same religious gang..--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Partial blocked from article 30 days for the edit warring. Wondering if that needs escalated to a siteblock, and maybe an indefinite one. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User confirmed it for me via two edits here at ANI. Indefinite sitewide block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict, as I was adding a proposal for indefinite site block. I see no signs that Coinissuer has any interest in becoming a productive Misplaced Pages editor. WP:CIR and Coinissuer is WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

External channels

What does external channels mean in the following:

But if you two don't respond after many days or the discussion fails, then I will have to take this issue to further external channels. Kind regards. Nvtuil (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report intimidation and bullying from User:Tgeorgescu

The User:Tgeorgescu has made it very clear that they don't like my edits. But instead of discussing it civilly on the article's talk page.

He instead resorts to sending me a large wall of strawman arguments to my personal Talk page. That is trolling and why I had deleted it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1051654658

I never once claimed evolution was fake or the other large number of strawman arguments thrown at me. So I deleted it as I won't tolerate any trolling of this nature and magnitude. He owes me an apology for the aggressive trolling via a large wall of strawman attacks. I warned him yet he aggressively says he doesn't care if I report him, and that I am the one trolling him by accusing him of being a troll.

Then he escalates the issue by going to this noticeboard and trying to cherrypick and twist my words by questioning what I meant by "external channels" TO ANOTHER EDITOR (that doesn't even concern him).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1051658364

Except it means precisely only that - if talk page discussion fails then I will go to external routes like (third opinion), (noticeboards), etc That is normal that when editors are unable to reach any kind of agreement on the content issue in question on the Talk page - a user can request outside input on-wiki by following the advice at

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help.

I honestly wasn't even planning to report him at first. Except his later rude replies on my talk page and his obvious motives in trying to get me kicked out because he doesn't like my edits. I see a repeating pattern of what will likely happen if I continue to "displease" and that is just classic bullying. And I do not wish to tolerate that.

.....

P. S - For context - below are some of my earlier edits on the article in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1051642037

I added in a 2012 systematic review that showed solid evidence that on treatment of pain conditions, research shows it is more than a Placebo effect. My Edit is backed by many sources.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146

I also updated an outdated systematic review from 2005 and replaced it with a newer systematic review from 2012.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1051647473

Both edits were reverted quickly without decent reasoning. Instead of edit warring, I went to Talk and made a new discussion on Why systematic reviews should have more weight than a cherrypicked individual.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Talk:Acupuncture#Bias_towards_David_Gorski Nvtuil (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Explaining your WP:RULES like WP:QUACKS and WP:GOODBIAS is not trolling. Spurious accusations of trolling are trolling, as I had already told you upon your own talk page. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Those are not external channels !!! -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you two even allowed to comment here? If we are allowed to talk here then I will give a reply.

• Reply @Roxy the sceptical dog.You should refrain from seeing other editors in bad faith. Especially when you don't know the facts. I wrote it with politeness and bid the user kind regards and was referring to outside routes of Talk Page to resolve the issue. The external accepted routes to resolve a dispute, was obviously what I was referring to. What else could I had meant, without you two clutching to weak and excessively wild speculating? Did I say that I was going to do something illegal? Or did you just assume that based on very little??https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help You two are trying so hard to get rid of me that now you cherrypick innocent words and exploit its moderate ambiguousness. That is bullying..Also @tgeorgescu, You can explain that without resorting to giving me so many fallacious strawman arguments on my talk page. If you have issues with my edits on Talk page - instead of threatening me of kicking me out for voicing my take or sending me a large wall of fallacious strawman arguments to me. Just address my arguments on the article talk page directly without using ANY strawman arguments. My issue was specifically your use of so many strawman arguments thrown at me. And a Large wall of them is practically trolling. Nvtuil (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:GOODBIAS is an essay in good standing, and highly valued by experienced editors. The Misplaced Pages Community does not regard it as trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Next time, give an essay that isn't composed of a wall of soapboxing and heavily 99% strawman arguments. I never disagreed with any of them except one argument. And all those strawman arguments are unnecessary to send to me and incredibly patronising too.Nvtuil (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't claim that Gorski is infallible, but he is certainly one of our luminaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The opening of this thread by tgeorgescu makes no sense as an ANI report; if he wanted to know what Nvtuil meant, tgeorgescu should have asked Nvtuil. The subsection by Nvtuil seems to be related to discussions at Talk:Acupuncture. Tgeorgescu posted the entirety of User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. on Nvtuil's talk page; a brief summary and link would have sufficed. @Nvtuil:, you are permitted to request that tgeorgescu not post on your talk page except for mandated notices. Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd. I would request it if he continues. Nvtuil (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and Roxy the dog: The therein recommended action is to copy/paste the essay upon talk pages of users who push WP:PROFRINGE POVs. But Nvtuil's particular manner of pushing such POV does remind me of a banned user, so I have opened a WP:SPI. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Buenos Aires music genre warrior

• 170.51.104.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Partition (song)
• Find Your Love

Someone from the metro region of Buenos Aires has been using multiple IPs to engage in genre warring at music articles. They know they are causing trouble and have taunted a block: "Well, if you dare to block me ... do it if you can ...!"

A few months ago, the person was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/200.123.117.19. The problem was genre warring and personal attacks such as "Fuck You" and more. The two IP ranges made the same genre-warring edit at American Oxygen and they are from the same geographic area. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the /25 from article space for a week - they are able to create accounts through it (for now), so if you see any new editors popping up... ~TheresNoTime 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and the heads-up warning; I'll keep my eyes peeled. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Last straw - Jonnyspeed20 / 86.14.189.55

• 86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs)
• Jonnyspeed20 (talk · contribs)

Please see the previous ANI reports regarding this user (, , and ), the last of which was left unactioned.

A SPI may also be appropriate (as previously suggested by GoodDay).

Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55 has returned. In this edit summary (), he wrote "PlatinumClipper96 is a complete retard. The twat will continue deleting boroughs and inserting historic counties for years. Gammon wanker. You're welcome". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary alone, deserves the IP being blocked & yes, an SPI should be begun. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jonnyspeed20 for their personal attacks/harassment - the IP is them, based solely on this admission. You may wish to open a SPI, but please note a CheckUser will not link the IP to the account on a technical evidence basis (but, given the above admission, this is hardly needed) ~TheresNoTime 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Constant unruly reversions at multiple pages regarding alternative names in lead

Inclusion of frequently used, common and historically relevant foreign names in multiple pages, in accordance with WP:NCGN are systematically being prevented by two editors, Khirurg and Therealscorp1an who ignore calls for discussion at the talk page, refuse to abide by the guidelines and instead revert with invalid reasons or none in Lesbos, Chios and Samos:

, ,

, ,

Talk on Lesbos

Talk on Chios

Talk on Samos

WP:NCGN states: ″The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1). Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.″

It should be noted that the Turkish names that were being added are both historically relevant and are the sole contemporary names for the locations used by the "group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place".

While the alternative names are briefly and singularly mentioned in the bodies, the prevension of the inclusion of the alternative names in the lead contradict the rest of the guideline, which states:

″Alternatively, all alternative names can be listed and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; it is recommended to have such a section if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Where there is such a section, the article's first line should have only a link to the section, phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two."

DriedGrape (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This user is edit-warring pretty intensely across these articles , having already reached 3 reverts at two of them. He is trying to ram through by brute force the Turkish name in the first line of the lede. I've explained my reasoning at the respective talkpages. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. As an aside, he is already topic banned from anything related to WP:ARBAA2, doubtless for this kind of behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have actually not reached 3 reverts in any of the articles. We both attain the same amount, two for each. You have not responded to one talk page, which you were pinged in, and instead kept reverting with no proper explanation. In the only two talk pages you have contributed in, you have given the exact same invalid excuse and accused me of edit warring and forcing POV instead. I do not see how my topic ban is related to this subject but please refrain from WP:PA DriedGrape (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg's reasoning includes the fact that it is a Greek island, this is the English Misplaced Pages (and no one in English uses the Turkish name i.e. WP:COMMONNAME) and there is no significant Turkish population on the island. And please do not say that we are refusing to contribute on talk pages because that is completely untrue and you can see our contributions. Quite frankly, I only reverted one round of DriedGrape's edits and to try and report me immediately for it seems a bit unfair. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, common and frequently used relevant foreign names are included in the lead in many cases. There doesn't need to be any current significant Turkish population on the island. The names being the sole contemporary ones used by a population that has inhabited that region in the recent past suffices. DriedGrape (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@DriedGrape: This isn't the first time someone tried to add the Turkish names to the ledes of these articles, so technically even your first addition is a revert. So yes, 3 reverts on both. Khirurg (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not how 3RR works. Refer to WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule DriedGrape (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice to reviewing administrator(s): it seems that one of the users reported, Therealscorp1an, has been autoblocked just now. User_talk:Therealscorp1an#Block_2 DriedGrape (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef ban for DriedGrape

This isn't the first time DriedGrape edit-wars with different users. They've been already topic banned from AA (broadly construed) for the same reasons and more . FYI, DriedGrape, the ONUS is on you to reach consensus as you're the one introducing content to the article , (not even with any sources). Yet you didn't shy away from edit-warring (again like in AA previously) with 2 different editors without having consensus for your additions , . I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate here, given also the fact that DriedGrape breached their AA broadly tban multiple times in the span of 24hrs:

• Removing Armenian highlands from the lead of Turkish Van . This may constitute as a re-revert (of me) as a new account also tried to do practically the same yesterday . Keep in mind, this is the first edit of DriedGrape in that page.
• Reverting me again, now in an article that directly falls under AA area, , .
• Editing in another article that falls under AA, , .

Considering their recent edit-wars with multiple editors and repeated breaches of their broadly tban, per WP:BOOMERANG, I propose an indef ban on DriedGrape. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of these edits are breachments of my topic ban. We have had this conversation with another admin on a separate report who also supported the notion that one can contribute to articles falling under arbitration without touching the topic they were sanctioned from. And again, if you were to check my actual edits, making a better specification of the origins on a cat species, just re-adding the Eastern Anatolia Region back to the lead in Lake Van and re-ordering alternative languages in the lead of Mount Ararat in accordance with WP:NCGN, it's absurd to classify these as breachments of sanctions. Also are you accusing me of meat puppeteering with the new account stuff? Also, the reason for my report in the first place was the other participants unwillingness to attain consensus. DriedGrape (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For someone with 183 edits, you know alot about guidelines and policies. You should also know what WP:BROADLY means, and you aren't just "editing" in AA, you're reverting and re-reverting. Just like you do with other editors, but only now, jumping in Turkey/Turks related articles (surprise). That's the definition of a WP:BROADLY breach. Summing up, not only you're reverting and re-reverting in AA where you're tbanned from, you're now doing the same in related topic area of Turkey/Turks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait on the administrators decisions. I'd rather not keep arguing the same points. DriedGrape (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep re-reverting in Lake Van with absolutely no valid reason. Not only reverting a revert with inadequate reason constitutes as an edit-war, but the article directly falls under WikiProject Armenia, which I btw showed above already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello? My edit was the re-insertion of relevant information I have achieved consensus on much earlier , not even arguable to be within AA, that you have removed with zero explanation just recently. Are you WP:GAMING to create the appearance of disruption? Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? Without even trying to discuss? Getting in to an edit war, ironic.DriedGrape (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you're new here? This isn't the first time editors noticed the strange knowledge of guidelines by a below 200edit account. "Reinstating an edit" isn't a valid reason for re-reverting and edit-warring, you gotta be kidding me, right? Conesnsuses do change and if you have a problem with my edit(s), show how exactly instead of edit-warring. But again, you are in fact tbanned from AA area, broadly construed, and the article falls under your tban. Why on god's earth you're doing the same old edit-wars again and breaching your tban? Is your WP:COI so high that you can't abstain from editing reverting and re-reverting in AA articles with no valid reason?

Edit: this is getting ridiculous. You are actually mass reverting my edits without proper explanations now? – Lol, are you being serious? All the articles I reverted you are articles that I previously edited , , . Keep in mind, that in Mount Ararat and Turkish Van, you didn't even have any prior edits, only your reverts of today of ... me. If someone is WP:HOUNDING here, it's you. And I did in fact explain my edits. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse me of anything without any proof, go ahead. "wlink" is a valid reason to disrupt a stable lead? The burden of attaining consensus on removing stable information from the first sentence of a stable article is on you. Can you actually not see, or even taste the irony here? DriedGrape (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

oh, so you're aware of WP:BURDEN as well. And btw, please read what WP:BURDEN is. I didn't add anything to the article, and I explained my edit reason both in talk and in edit descriptions , . You on the other hand, can't abstain from AA area, which you're broadly tbanned from. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see a double WP:BOOMERANG, accusing one of it but then being effected themselves. You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. DriedGrape (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have shown the attempt at discussion only just now, after I created a section specifically pinging you. – are you sure you understand how talk pages work? For someone that knowledge about guidelines, you surely have to. I'm engaging with you currently and replying to your every comment, not just "after you pinged me" lol. And what does that even mean, what do you think pings are for?

Your attitude here is quite undesirable and unproductive, as such I won't be continuing this. – classic withdrawal from a discussion, and some personal commentary on top. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support : I think the topic ban violations are enough to warrant a long term block by themselves, with tendentious edit warring on multiple article added to it I'm sure he needs a indeff vacation, he feels like a possible SP throwaway account as well. The editor has too much knowledge to be a true new editor and thus I'm sure they know how BROAD the sanction is - Kevo (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging El C as original sanctioning admin. 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've imposed a 48-hour AE block on DriedGrape (direct link), mystery editor. El_C 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Czello canvassing

Czello explicitly canvassed Erzan to 'take his place' in the on-going edit war. After I initiated a dispute resolution to finally settle an issue, he then conveniently "conceded" the dispute which led to the dispute being closed and no decision actually reached (Then began editing the page again afterwards, clearly showing his "concession" was not genuine). This seems like fairly clear WP:GAMING.

Secondly, Czello then filed a dishonest ANI, grossly misrepresented the situation. Unfortunately, the admin just took them at their word without looking into it, and immediately blocked just minutes after the request was made (As an aside, I seriously hope this was just an honest mistake from an admin rather than evidence of a systemic "first-one-to-submit-an-ANI-wins" problem). I had made 2 of the same edits (removing a word), followed by significant discussion on the talk page, leading to a proposed brand new edit that added additional explanation complete with a source which I believed was balanced and reached an appropriate middle-ground. The second edit to this new proposal was made after the other user appeared to accept the revision, but apparently was just confused by what the edit was to begin with and did not actually mean to accept it. This seemed perfectly reasonable and it doesn't appear to violate any Wiki rules. Czello filed a blatantly incorrect ANI shortly after I admonished his behaviour and insisted that they stick to the subject and merits of the actual edit rather than engage in WP:LAWYERING. Perhaps they took this personally.

I thought about whether the optics of filing this ANI could be viewed as petty retribution, but Czello seems to be active in the community and this toxic behaviour shouldn't simply be swept under the rug. And at the end of the day, motivation doesn't really seem to matter. --Twozerooz (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz sure looks like an SPA only here to edit-war for their own idiosyncratic opinions on what social democracy is. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz really needs to stop beating a dead horse with this, as it's gone nowhere in the past and now I feel they're forum shopping. This is a retaliatory report, despite what they say (which is why they waited almost two months to make it, and only did so after they were blocked for a second time - perhaps they took this personally).

To be clear, after Twozerooz was blocked the first time (for canvassing and WP:GAMING, no less!) they returned to the social democracy page with a deceptive edit summary, labelling something as vandalism when it was not. Consequently I reverted them and pinged an editor who was also involved in the content dispute, believing this was a deliberate act of disruptiveness on Twozerooz's part. As I mentioned at the DRN, I believed this was in line with WP:APPNOTE. However, when it was pointed out to me that I might have misread APPNOTE, I unreseverdly apologised. Once again, if I have misunderstood it, I apologise. However, given that the user I pinged, Erzan, was close to the content dispute and clearly monitors the page, I really don't think there's much of an issue here: realistically, if I didn't revert Twozerooz then he would have. It's rather tenuous to suggest I "explicitly canvased him to take my place". However, while we're on this, I agree with 力 above -- Twozerooz is a SPA who has been blocked twice for edit warring on the same page. They clearly have an agenda or an axe to grind: forcing a certain political view into the lead of that article. They also misread the last EWN that was filed: they clearly violated 3RR, as they have done several times in their wikicareer; I wouldn't mention this, but they brought it up. — Czello 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. But yes, I was blocked for canvassing - despite being a new user and being completely oblivious to the rule. It is difficult to imagine someone being active here for more than a decade having the same excuse. --Twozerooz (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM is about unblock requests (as you were directed to it lately, I assumed you knew this?), it doesn't mean that you can't be called into question. It would also apply if I hadn't addressed your accusation, which I did. — Czello 15:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal blocked — could I have a block review?

I have blocked BilledMammal for 48 hours for abuse of process. The reason is that Nableezy has been dragged to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with vexatious complaints about minor matters twice in the past couple of weeks, first by Free1Soul and then by BilledMammal, who was clearly aware of the first occasion. Such attempts to take out a perceived opponent from a contentious area are unacceptable IMO. A (comparatively) minor problem is that it wastes admins' time; the major problem is that it's bound to deplete the targeted user's time, energy, and enthusiasm. For the readers' convenience, here are links to both the complaints: Nableezy I, Nableezy II. For quick summaries, see the uninvolved admins' sections called "Result concerning Nableezy", which come right at the end of each report. See also my block notice here. I wanted to do something stronger than the milk-and-water warning by Euryalus here, but wasn't sure what, as it's a bit unusual to sanction for abuse of process. Taking BilledMammal himself to WP:AE? Opening a thread about it here on ANI? Placing a block myself? I went with the third, but I'd like to know what other people think about it, and will abide by any consensus that forms here. Thank you. PS, I considered sanctioning User:Free1Soul as well, as their report was in some ways worse, but it seemed a bit late for that. Bishonen | tålk 06:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

Fine by me. Could probably have done without the "milk-and-water" insult for having a different approach, but whatever. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never thought you'd take that an insult, Euryalus - mainly, I suppose, because I thought of us as on friendly terms with banter allowed. I'm so sorry it bombed. Bishonen | tålk 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

No worries, chalk it up to me not grasping the tone (hard to do in text). Anyway, its a good block. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I had similar thoughts about Free1Soul, especially given their, ahem, "interesting" edit history. Anything that makes editors think twice about trying to weaponise AE against their ideological opponents, especially when they have little or no convincing rationale, is a good start on fixing that prticular problem. Black Kite (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the block, as could be predicted from my grumpy comment at the second AE report. It is unusual, but simple actions like this (a short block without debating for a month first) are needed if a reasonable standard is to be maintained at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I was on the fence about giving a similar block. AE is not for removing people from a dispute that are inconvenient. I only stayed my hand because they withdrew, however this withdrawal only came after it was clear it would not succeed. It has always been important from day one that AE not be allowed to be used in this way, we are representing arbcom there and we need to hold the place to a high standard. HighInBC 08:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised Free1Soul is still editing given the loud quacking emanating from their account. Filing vexatious AE requests against Nableezy is a red flag that should probably draw more attention to certain other accounts too, given recent events. Number 57 08:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be probably in minority but I think its important to say that block should be WP:PREVENTIVE what does 48h block will prevent?The user understood his mistake and withdrew the complaint and I don't think they will file any WP:AE complaint soon. Also it was user first complaint so he may not fully understood what he is doing we usually warn at first offence. Also if anything the more reasonable approach would be a short topic ban from WP:AE if someone think that disruption may continue Shrike (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike - Considering the misuse history of AE board in general, I believe the approach veteran administrators ultimately have chosen is appropriate. Their action is aimed at preventing further abuse of the board. In these unique circumstances, blocks not topic bans deliver a more powerful message. I'm %100 behind their action. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont really think this was all that necessary, and though I appreciate that people dont want to see some sort of toll from repeated vexatious complaints, but it isnt repeated by this user, and I think for a user's first time ever filing an AE one can forgive them for not quite knowing what is and what isnt appropriate to complain about. AGF and all that jazz. If this is the user's first account, and again AGF unless and until an SPI is filed, then I really dont think more than a logged warning to not file low quality complaints against others is necessary. Ive filed AE complaints that resulted in no action before, never been blocked for it. No they werent vexatious, but still its their first rodeo. nableezy - 12:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy - I disagree, sorry. I believe these added measures were required due to the most recent events. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Im not going to assume every single person who doesnt like me is Icewhiz and act on that basis. I dont see how the recent drama has anything to do with this. nableezy - 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I view this as a message to everyone not this particular editor. I would even suggest adding topic bans from AE to blocks if this continue. Sorry if my view sounds radical but I truly think these steps are necessary. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal received a warning ("BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions.") at the close of the AE, and then a short while later received a block. Was there behavior between the warning and the block, or is this block intended to supersede the AE warning? It seems a bit unfair to get blocked for something you just got warned for if you didn't do anything after the warning. I doubt many admins will second guess Bishonen, but on process grounds this seems to be a modification to the AE close, which I didn't think admins could do unilaterally. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And the more I look at this, the more I think the block was the abuse of process. AE closes with no action but an admin unilaterally blocks anyways - does anyone remember WP:ARBAE? It centered around that exact same scenario and contains the following principle: "Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action." Bishonen, please undo your block as out of process. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Gosh. To think that I even linked Euryalus's warning to BilledMammal, the warning BilledMammal actually did receive, on their page, in my block notice and also in my original post above. Perhaps I'd better quote it, too, since Mr Ernie quotes Euryalus's AE close. That warning was couched as a thankyou: "Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones." That's what they received. Thank you for the tendentious commenting, Mr Ernie. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

I know you saw the warning, which is why I thought it was out of process to ignore it and issue your own block. ArbCom made it perfectly clear that closures, regardless of the outcomes, are enforcement actions. Can you address that aspect instead of attacking me? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It very much was not an abuse of process, and that argument is just silly. BM was a. never brought to AE, b. this was not an AE block, and c. no action was overturned. Not blocking the filer of an AE report is not an AE action. nableezy - 15:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The close was a warning to BM, who happened to be the filer. The warning of the filer is thus the AE action. The principle I quoted says that the closures of AE requests are enforcement actions, even if they are not blocks or topic bans. The AE was closed with a warning, and Bishonen unilaterally upgraded it to a block. This goes against the principles outlined by ArbCom. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And moot anyway since the closer agrees. And no, the warning of the filer is not an AE action cus AE actions are logged in the enforcement log. So no x3 or x4 or x5 or however many wrong things youve written here. nableezy - 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Are dismissals of requests logged in the enforcement log? No, and that's why ArbCom thought it was important enough to create a principle saying that a closure of an AE is an enforcement action. Admins are not allowed to unilaterally alter AE actions, regardless who agrees. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that dismissal of a complaint is the same as not sanctioning the complainant is, as I said earlier, silly. And, again, moot since the closing admin has already agreed. nableezy - 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's not something that I just made up. It was a principle that came out of a very contentious arb case. You can read it for yourself right here. Bishonen blocked before she had gotten the consent of the closing admin, so that's not a moot point either, but a key one. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The dismissal of an AE complaint against me is not an enforcement action against the complainant. And yes, moot. As in right now not applicable. Jfc. nableezy - 17:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is an enforcement action against the complainant. Complaints boomerang all the time and the filing instructions explicitly warn filers they can be sanctioned as well. The request closed with a very clear warning to the filer - "BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions." A few hours after Euryalus closed the request and informed BM, Bishonen unilaterally blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a general consensus against that position. And the case you keep linking to is about blocking the complainee after a complaint is closed. You keep doing this, arguing about the process as though thats the part that matters. Which I guess would be ok if you were right more often than you are, but it just makes people dismiss the actually important part (should this user be blocked) by focusing on the truly unimportant part (did Euralys agree to this before or after Bishonen made the block if that even matters, but it somehow to the people arguing about this isnt moot because Euralys has in fact agreed to it anyway). nableezy - 20:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Vexatious AE complaints are a real problem, and all they do is drive away editors. We need to keep all the high quality editors we can. — Shibbolethink 15:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block I haven't been following the underlying issue but, on looking at the AE report against Nableezy (not BM!), I see that several admins have commented on the need for action against frivolous AE complaints of this sort. Blocking, with an ask for a review, was absolutely the right thing to do. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Nableezy. While your point is cogent, (a) BM's report came after a blitz of AE filings against several editors, in which socking was prominent (b)after this reality emerged , was verified and was dealt with summarily, with at least 2 reports thrown out as frivolous (c) BM, who followed these proceedings, failed to grasp the point and indeed put their own status at risk by, well not 'indulging in' but repeating what disreputable socking did. (d) it showed a remarkable failure to grasp the context, and looked somewhat (unlike the editor's usual tone) belligerent. Indeed,(e) The report came immediately after a huge thread found BM in a minority of 1 against 3 arguing without any visible policy basis against the force of 13 mainstream academic sources (i.e. reargard POV pushing against the evidence. If anyone can grasp what policy-based reasoning lies behind BM's insistent argufying here I'll hand out a barnstar. That thread was the first time I'd observed BM adopting a wildly subjective ultramontane rejection to solid sourcing). I commended the move because, as a long term serial abuser who has racked up (until I woke up several years ago) a notable number of serious sanctions (from perma to 3 months), two days was amenably light, fair, and not really punitive but measured to the fact this was a first time offense. Even practiced oldtimers still need wake up calls, and if I for one am whacked for loose language out of the blue by an admin watching an I/P page, with a day or two's suspension, it would be to the good. No argument, not lengthy threads, just pull the finger out while briefly in porridge, and, lesson learnt, back to work. It would solve admins and ourselves a lot of time if this were done. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• BM asked for my advice on Oct 4 and I said, "... your options, in my opinion, are: ... take it to AE where there is a strong risk of boomerang". I thought a block would be the outcome of an AE report, so I'm hard pressed to say "bad block" now. However, when Bish wrote ... nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours..., that's pretty much an admission that Bish found the AE result inadequate and thus decided to impose a different result. That's out of process; I agree with Ernie that Arbcom was pretty clear that no single admin can overrule consensus of admins at AE. We can't have a situation where an AE is closed and then afterwards an admin comes along and decides to impose a stronger sanction than the one imposed (or not imposed) at AE because they don't agree with the AE result (and dismissal, unlogged milk-and-water warnings, logged fire-and-brimstone warnings, sanctions, etc., are all examples of results/dispositions/adjudications/actions/resolutions/outcome/whatever-word-you-want-to-use, they all "count", as it were). If we're going to do that, let's just mark AE historical, because what is the point of having the very formal process and discussion if the result can be ignored by any admin acting unilaterally after the close? Also, I don't think blocking someone from editing the encyclopedia for 48 hours will prevent the filing of vexatious AE reports. Finally, like Nab, I just don't agree with blocking someone for making one bad report. A warning is sufficient for a first offense; block for the second one, if needed. I very much appreciate Bish bringing this up for review, but I think the block should be undone. Levivich 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the question of "what should I have done?" Changing a warning to a block is a modification of a sanction. So, you should have first either got explicit permission from the admin who imposed the warning to change it to a block. Or you could take it to AE, AN, or ARCA. In this case the first option would have probably worked best. To make it simple, if an admin has made a decision regarding some actions, then any further admin actions/decisions regarding those actions has to go through AC/DS sanction modification process. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• AE procedure aside, personally, I've had just about enough of the recent influx of vexatious AE filings (with or without Iced Cream). Time for lessons (real or imagined) to be learned the hard way. Also, Got milk? El_C 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am looking at the page MrErnie linked and it discusses sanctions (or lack thereof) against the reported user being modified. Here, it is the case of a boomerang. The filer was warned in the closing summary but, whether it was an AE close warning, or an FYI for the filer, I guess the closer will have to clarify. If it counts as the result of the report, there seems to be precedent saying Bishonen should not have blocked without asking the closer. If it was just an FYI, the closer can say so and it gets out of AE-land, I think. The closer also says that sockpuppet claims are best raised at SPI. I am pretty sure that is not AE action. So, I don't think everything AE closers write become AE actions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing re clarifying. The close of the thread was an AE action: The OP had withdrawn it and there was zero support for the complaint from responding admins. The warning could have been an AE action because the AE instructions in the box at the top make specific mention of vexatious or groundless complaints, but I decided just to leave it as a regular boomerang rather than anything formally logged. The reasoning: it remains in the record along with every other edit and will be pretty evident if BilledMammal does it again soon. The suggestion re SPI is just a suggestion and not an enforcement action.

In my view Bishonen's block of the editor is a regular admin action under something like WP:DAPE and not an AE outcome. This is because the AE complaint was already closed with a different result. It does change my previous regular admin action (the warning) so perhaps it might have been discussed with me first: but meh, I trust Bishonen to make a good call even if it's different to the one I made. I considered a tougher sanction in closing the thread, but am more soft-hearted I guess. :)

Either way, the real issue isn't so much this minutiae but stopping AE being used as an ARBPIA weapon to drive away opposing editors. There's been a spate of groundless complaints in ARBPIA, partly (but not only) driven by Icewhiz socks. Many of these complaints get dismissed pretty fast, but their point is clearly just to weary people into stopping editing in this area. That can't all be laid at BilledMammal's door, but they and others do need to understand that AE filings need to be done properly or not at all-- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. This kind of behaviour has to be sanctioned.--Berig (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Really? Levivich 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Eh - not great, not terrible. My view generally aligns with that of Levivich above. It's not great to have admins second-guessing decisions of ARBCOM and deciding a particular result was not harsh enough. Would we consider it okay for an admin to say, "I think that decision was too harsh", and unilaterally unblock? I suspect not. Under the circumstances, shortening it to 24 hours might be a good balance between, "I felt I needed to act" and "ARBCOM have already acted". I dunno. I think the blocking admin meant well, but overstepped slightly. St★lwart 11:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have to give a dissenting opinion here. AE is to decide if action is to be taken as arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement has its own standards and a lack of action under those standards is not binding to the lesser standards of regular admin actions. The rules of arbitration enforcement were setup to avoid admins unilaterally preventing arbcom decisions from being enforced. They were not setup so that so that a lack of arbitration enforcement could prevent regular admin actions under regular admin rules.

The key point here is that as a regular admin block any admin could just undo it and that would stick unless there was a consensus that it should be reinstated, per the way our wheel warring policy favors the second actor. This is in contrast to an AE action which gives favor to the first actor requiring a consensus to reverse. If this block was really that problematic another admin would have reversed it and we would be having a different conversation here with a different standard to the outcome. It would be required that there be a consensus that the unblock was wrong to reinstate the block, vs needing a consensus that the block was wrong to reverse it. HighInBC 05:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You expect during a block review that some admin will undo the block unilaterally if it was a bad block? Without waiting for the block review to come to that conclusion first? I don't think that's logical. That doesn't mean this was a bad block but I don't think we can argue that if this block was really that problematic another admin would have reversed it, not when there's a self-requested block review going on. Levivich 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the difference in standards between regular admin actions and arbitration enforcement actions. To answer your question no I don't expect that, though I have seen just that done on many occasions when admins feel strongly about blocks. HighInBC 12:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this agrees with WP: AC/DS Sanctions.fresh, and dismissing an arbitration request at WP: ARBAE. Once something is resolved at AE it follows AE procedure. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A guy is speeding and gets pulled over. The officer says since it's a first offense she's going to let him off with a warning. Five minutes later the guy, who isn't speeding anymore, gets pulled over again by a second officer, who says the warning was inadequate, and writes out a ticket. Five minutes after that, the guy--still not speeding anymore--gets pulled over by a third officer who says neither the warning nor the ticket was enough because we really need to crack down on speeding, and promptly arrests the driver. In court, the judge upholds the arrest, telling the driver that if the arrest were really that problematic, some officer would have come by and released him from jail by now. :-) I know this is not a court, but this is how the logic of your comment reads to me. Levivich 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I do get your point, but Bishonen explicitly said they didn't find the AE result "adequate." This is all moot now as the block has expired, but it would have been great if Bishonen had been more active in this thread they started, and addressed the concerns about modifying an AE result. But here we are, just another block and time served in the books. Regarding "They were not setup so that so that a lack of arbitration enforcement could prevent regular admin actions under regular admin rules" - how can you separate the 2 in this case? Like in the ARB case I linked earlier, the "regular admin action" here was directly related to the AE close, and an uninvolved admin didn't agree with the AE close. It would be different if BM had been edit warring at another article and was blocked for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Christianity Side-boxes

‎Softwarestatistik is making signficant edits to Christianity sidebars. Some other editors consider these less than progress and have attempted to discuss at ] and ]. This user has reverted the roll back agreed by conensus twice. I make no comment on the edits themselves but the lack of communication, rejection of consensus and the near edit warring isn't moving this forward. Probably time for an administrator to mitigate this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have recently been involved at Template:Christianity sidebar as well, and at their talk page, trying to get their attention. Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs) is a new user coming up on their one-month anniversary. Last I looked, they have zero edits to any Talk space despite repeated requests to respond. I'm conscious of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and wondering if that may be part of what's going on. I don't doubt Softwarestatistik's good faith, but WP:COMMUNICATION is required, and their activity at the sidebar is WP:DISRUPTIVE, as is their pattern of not responding to anything. I'm open to other solutions, but if a block is the only way to wake them up and get them to discuss, then I'm for it. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a note, as far as I can see their contributions are not tagged with one of the mobile tags, which suggests they edit via the desktop (and therefore get the orange bar of doom) -- Asartea 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

He's ignoring everyone? Block'em for 24 hrs & see if that gets his attention. GoodDay (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning for ‎Softwarestatistik (talk · contribs). I'm planning an indefinite block (until they respond) if they continue. If I miss any future problems, please let me know (a ping from here would be fine). Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

gaming of EC status by User:Petruccio Salema

This seems extra obvious, but nearly all of Petruccio Salema (talk · contribs) first 500 edits were the removal of a blank space (eg , ) and all the edits since then have been in an extended confirmed protected topic area. Should EC status be revoked (at least), and can we have some sort of process for dealing with this. I dont think the 500 edits/30 day rule was meant to have people making bs pretend edits just to gain admission to the topic they clearly want to edit in. I havent yet had any reason to take issue with the user's edits, but this just seems to be particularly blatant gaming. nableezy - 17:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal. I filed several WP:AE about that in the past. The more general question is to ARCA IMO. Shrike (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also support revoking the status and there needs to be a process for dealing with this.VR _talk 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, extra obvious. What sort of process other than this one (post at ANI for admin to revoke/whatever)? Maybe an edit filter for this kind of thing, that would automatically alert someone if these types of edits are being made? Levivich 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• EC flag has been revoked, without judging the motives of the editor. Will let Petruccio Salema know on their talk that it is simply due to "trivial" edits, and that they are welcome to ask at WP:PERM after they have made 500 new non-cosmetic edits from now. — xaosflux 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like User:Girth Summit already handled it, so deferring to them; however I suggest the restoration process I was outlining above be used. — xaosflux 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe restore autoconfirmed though? nableezy - 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: their autoconfirmed was not revoked. — xaosflux 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ok ty, just saw permissions changed to (none) in the log. nableezy - 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Auto/confirmed rights are the clunkiest. You often can't tell what's happening with em, and even when you can, it does not display right. El_C 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of comms - I was in the middle of dealing with this when the phone rang. Agree that the edits are either gaming or, at the very least, inadequate to gain the necessary experience to work in that topic area; I've told them they can ask for it to be restored at WP:PERM. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Only one apology per day, Girth, please! ←New favourite angrily emoticon, btw. El_C 21:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologise early, apologise often! Girth Summit _(blether) 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

This account needs an indef as an obvious sockpuppet of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון. Behaviourally it's an exact match, 500 useless edits removing blank lines from articles to game extendedconfirmed, followed by jumping straight into the Israel/Palestine topic area. @Girth Summit: perhaps you'd like to take a look using those fancy new checkuser tools? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And who you might be? Shrike (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: I'm just a very long term IP editor, I've been here for years. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it will be possible to get a CU hit, but it is indeed an exact behavioural match. Blocked and tagged. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf

Orbit Wharf (talk · contribs) has behaviour and other problem. I think we should address those, hence i am reporting.

Month ago the user got blocked because of copyright violation, where i tried to add an helpful advice but the user reverted my comment with edit summary "Go away!". Even before that, the user did similar thing on bnwiki, where the user removed my comment with edit summary "muri kha" (English equivalent would be go eat some popcorn). Yesterday i give the user a standard afd notice but but the user reverted my notice with edit summary "Crazy humans!". These aren't constructive edit summary. It looks like the user intentionally disrespecting. No just with me, with other wikipedian too. E.g. User:Joseph2302 and User:Lugnuts banned the user from their talk page because they felt the user harassing them.

The user also has other problem. They selectively remove comment to hide their past. E.g. , , etc. I know editors are allowed to remove most notices from their talk page, but the user selectively remove notices they don't like/negative while keeps other and don't even bother to archive those removed notices. The user even tried to removed comment from other's user page too. The user also published some personal info of other user (If i remember correctly).

The user probably has anger issue. When a school article created by the user got deleted, the user nominated bunch of school article without doing WP:before. Later User:Worldbruce warned the user. See also this. It also seems the user only contributing to get advanced permission. See , . We should address these behaviour problem of User:Orbit Wharf.

(courtesy ping User:Joseph2302, User:Lugnuts, User:Worldbruce, User:Moneytrees, User:Rosguill) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on their contributions for a week or so now after I grew concerned about hat-collecting, poor communication skills, a lack of awareness of their own shortcomings, and what appeared to be a global rename request to avoid scrutiny of a block they received under their previous username, User:Tajwar.thesuperman. Admittedly, in this time I didn't come across any smoking gun behavior that would have moved me to block unilaterally or start a thread here myself, but my perspective is nevertheless that they're one straw away from breaking the camel's back of wasting other editors' time. _signed, Rosguill 18:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I echo what Rosguill has posted. OW made this nonsensical post on my talkpage. I wasn't aware of their username prior to this, but a bit of digging found they'd changed their username recently. However, they had a block-log under the old name, which I flagged up with the blocking admin incase anything was amiss. Which OW throws back as harrassment.... Lugnuts 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw that Lugnuts had banned them from their talkpage, and yet they still continued to post there. As they'd clearly being annoying towards Lugnuts, I banned from my talkpage because I didn't want to get involved in whatever the drama was, but apparently they can't follow simple instructions. And their talkpage/talkpage archive seems to just be a block, lots of deletion/moved to draft notices about articles they created, some complaints that they've moved other people's articles to draftspace, and whatever they've deleted from talkpage (which seems to be more complaints about their conduct). All of this means that I have serious questions about their competency to edit/engage in a positive manner. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a very odd mix of WP:CIR issues, coupled with edits that I'd expect from a more experienced user, as they've only been here since July. A recent scan of their contributions shows they seem to know their way around Twinkle, reporting usernames for admin attention, work on speedy deletions, article/draft creation and so on. Two complete opposites of the (editing) spectrum. Lugnuts 19:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the two possibilities are a) young and overeager or b) sleeper account for future UPE/black hat editing that does not have the skills to pull it off. _signed, Rosguill 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I first encountered this user while assessing a CCI request, which was opened as Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20210925. I then partially blocked them for six months to prevent further copyright violations. The resulting discussion can be seen at User talk:Orbit Wharf#September 2021, blocked. I unblocked them from draftspace after some discussion, and after a discussion on my talk, I decided to unblock them from mainsapce, although I added that "I recommend being very careful in making edits to article space, and sticking to article creations in Draft space, so other editors can review your work ". A several points other than these, I have advised this user on what to do and giving them advice, which can be seen at User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 21#Unblocking and User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 21#Request for unblocking. They've continued disruptive behavior despite my advice, and that behavior resulted in this discussion on my talk; they've not edited since I gave the advice I gave there. I recognize I might be acting too lenient here, but I would like to see a response before deciding on possible sanctions/ a block. I don't think they changed their username to evade scrutiny, although I could be wrong on that. @Rosguill I am convinced this user is the first example. I believe they are here in good faith, the problem is that they are rushing to create articles and they have been selective in what advice they listen to, although I know there's a bit of a language barrier here. Moneytrees🏝️ 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead of explaining/addressing above issue, (after observing some of user's conversation) i am quite sure the user will pull out "i'm new here" card. It seems the user don't listen others. Another example: on user's bnwiki talk page, a wikipedian warned the user not to use any other account. But recently the user created User:Orbit a Different Wharf. Yes you can create another account if you have valid reason but i don't see any valid reason anywhere. The user also have another account called user:তাজোয়ার রহমান without any alternative account tag. If the user have language barrier, why can't they try to contribute on their native language wiki! --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please, I've so wikistress. So I can't control me. Please give me one more chance. I need some break. After break, if I do again then block me. Please. _regards, Orbit Wharf  03:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. My previous name was 'Tajwar.thesuperman'. The word, Tajwar, is my name. So I changed my username to hide my name.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  03:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

After listening the warning of Moneytrees, I understood about what is harrasment. Again please give me one more chance! After a short break, I'll correct me. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbit a Different Wharf (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not a proper answer. It would be great if you explains/addresses all of above issue/concern first. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

First, the issue of Lugnuts and Joseph2302, Lugnuts and me have a fight. So I want to clear it and tell him sorry. I did. But he reverting it again and again. Then Joseph2302 warned me. Then I told him to his talkpage why I was telling lugnuts sorry. Then they again revert this and warned me. Then I did nothing else. And the issue of Rossguill, I've told see above. Yes, I'm very young. But I can't tell how much older I'm. I read in a school. And I'm working in speedy deletion, AfD, move to draft, requesting user for block by admin. Did I doing any wrong thing? And in speedy deletion, about all of my nominated articles are deleting. Thank you @Moneytrees: for your excellent behaviour. A kind and true admin! If a chance be given, I hope that I'll correct me. Yeah. I know that I'm not very expert at English. But I don't want to improve Bengali Misplaced Pages because of my personal wish. And I want to be expert at English and contribute to Misplaced Pages. And @আফতাবুজ্জামান:, I've told 'crazy humans!' in a edit summary because I'm surviving a wikistress. Yeah I've so angry issue. And now I'm contributing with my alternative account. Thanks. Hope I could answer.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I asked you nicely not to post on my talkpage, or contact me in any form, but you continued to do so. And now you have "wikistress" which for some reason means creating a second account to use in this very thread! Lugnuts 07:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No. I didn't make the second account to use in this very thread. I made the second account very earlier than the thread. You can see the contributions of the account. And Please give proof why you're thinking so. And I've made a mistake that I thought that I can contact you for any help or any question about Misplaced Pages. I asked you a question. But I didn't understand that you're telling not to contact in any form! Sorry for the mistake. But after you gave another warning then I didn't contact you in any form.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  08:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And, really! I've wikistress. I'm feeling very stress!  _regards, Orbit Wharf  08:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orbit Wharf: I think the big issue here is that you're trying to do everything at once, you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say. You have less than 5,000 edits, and in that time you've tried to learn how to write articles, how to do new page patrolling, how to start deletion discussions, how to do vandal fighting, how to draftify articles, how to use speedy deletion, how to do copyright clean-up, how to do username patrolling, etc etc etc, and you're trying to do all of them at the same time. I think that you're not really 100% understanding all these things, and so you're ending up in trouble because you keep making mistakes. Because you're doing so many things you're running into a lot of admins and editors in different areas, each one of which sees you turn up, have a go at doing something (often not 100% correctly) then disappear to do something else - this isn't a good look. In my opinion you should focus on doing one thing at a time - get really good at writing articles, make sure you understand notability guidelines and get to the point where basically no-one is trying to send your articles for deletion, then look for something else to get involved with.

You've had a decent go at writing some articles, but why have you left them in a half-finished state? looking at one of your recent articles, Lost (2022 film), shows it has an empty section and multiple sections containing only a single sentence, and a clean-up tag that you added to it. You shouldn't be leaving new articles in a state where you know they have issues.

No one here wants to see you banned and no one wants to see you in trouble, but you need to start listening to the feedback people leave you on your talk page rather than just deleting it. When people criticise your work respond to their concerns instead of deleting it and insulting the people messaging you. People are going to send your articles to AFD and people are going to undo your edits, don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point or try to get revenge, listen to why they're doing these things and treat them as an opportunity to learn. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you need to temper it a bit and slow down. I would recommend uninstalling Twinkle, redwawn, your copyright fighting scripts as I don't think you have the experience to be using them, and focusing exclusively on writing articles for the foreseeable future. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

More nonsense from this editor. Is this "wikistress" too? Lugnuts 11:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Why this is nonsense? After doing this I would add the runs. But you edit it before. Is this is prohibited? Can anyone tell me?  _regards, Orbit Wharf  12:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You didn't update the score, which would have been the only useful reason to make an update. No need to do half an update, and then another one straight after with the score. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

At best, this user is displaying good-faith incompetence, which is still disruptive, and in my view worthy of a WP:CIR block. At worst, they're deliberately trying to see how much they can annoy people, though I don't think this is the case. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Four requests to change username in five days fits the mould of good-faith incompetence. It also shows WP:IDHT for the final two requests. Making 1084 (>21%) of your 5048 edits to your own user page doesn't seem productive. When did Misplaced Pages become a child-minding service? A block wouldn't be a loss to the community. Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Orbit%20Wharf

When did Misplaced Pages become a child-minding service? Maybe we need to add that to Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not ;) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read through the responses here, I think that a medium-long term CIR block (1 or 2 years) is what is needed here. Without denying OW's genuine enthusiasm or distress, their responses show that they will continue to be a drain on editor time for the foreseeable future, and even appear to be treating enWiki as an English learning exercise, which is not what we are here for (. But I don't want to improve Bengali Misplaced Pages because of my personal wish. And I want to be expert at English and contribute to Misplaced Pages). A long but time-limited block will give them an opportunity to mature and improve their English skills elsewhere, without creating the mutual time sink of an indefinite block that will be appealed and revisited. The number one cure for wikistress is time spent not editing Misplaced Pages. _signed, Rosguill 16:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, insted of indefinite block, a medium-long term CIR block (1 or 2 years) is fine with me. Here is another example of disrupt editing, a message i received from the user 6 hours ago, a message without any content(!). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Please, I'm again wanting a chance! There is night in my country. Please give me one more day. I'll make good edits to Misplaced Pages and I'll improve.  _regards, Orbit Wharf  15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Orbit Wharf, No matter what, you can't insult people. You did two days ago, you did one month ago. I think that's intentional. Making couple of good edit won't take away how did you behaved in the past. It is not like you will violate copyright rule, then insult people, disrupt Misplaced Pages and nothing will happen and you will get free pass every time. You have to realise we are also volunteering. You didn't answer why you selectively removed comment/standard notice/warning from your talk page (e.g. to hide?) and even didn't bother to archive. You also didn't answer why you created another account without any valid reason (even after someone warned you not to do that). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I want to delete the second account, আফতাবুজ্জামান. _regards, Orbit Wharf  17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

قيس الهوازني

قيس الهوازني (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually all of this new users edits have been WP:TENDENTIOUS and been reverted. Some examples;

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Etc etc.. all this done in this very month. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked قيس الهوازني as WP:NOTHERE ~TheresNoTime 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh

Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I closed an "AFD" filed by Neel.arunabh because he wants help in formatting a table. This is after edit-warring to inappropriately remove the content, and after discussing the topic with 4 people on the talk page. He also requested help at WP:Village pump (proposals) for this issue. His talk page has a mile of warnings, and he was recently blocked for edit warning. I think administrative action may be needed to address WP:CIR issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I was contemplating opening a discussion here myself. Neel.arunabh has taken to blanket reverting articles, sometimes to quite old revisions. In addition to the AFD'd article, Tesla Model S, examples: Proton, Pluto, Comparison of American and British English, Speed limits by country. Apparently the reason for this is that the current versions of these articles aren't formatted well when viewed on an iPad. I'm not sure that a block is necessary, but somebody needs to find a way to communicate that this isn't collaborative behavior. - MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will resolve this very soon. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

力, but I have thanked you for closing my useless AfD. Next time, when there is any technical issue, I will neither make a blanket revvert, nor will I bring it to AfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I still can't get around my mind how the Tesla Model S was brought to "Article for Deletion" tho, despite the title "Article for Deletion" conveys what it means. — DaxServer (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh does have a bit CIR issues, perhaps a great reluctancy is a better phrase, but that was back in June when resubmitted a Move Review because he disagreed with the outcome . I don't see any further disruption of this kind in his contribs, but the reluctance seems prevalent, looking at the edit warring and blocking last month. — DaxServer (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (Updated with link 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC))

I am facing similar technical issues in List of prime ministers of India too. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: I don't see anything out of the ordinary on that table, which tells me the issue is with your configuration. Expect many eyes to be on you as you proceed with getting assistance with this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:David_Gerard

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

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

David Gerard's recent edit history seems to be exclusively and extensively an effort to remove conservative non-traditional media sources as unreliable sources. Targets include sources I would personally consider unreliable but also those I would not. I'm not a very active editor anymore but figured this behavior should be reviewed by an admin. I don't plan on crusading against the user or complaining any further. Jpers36 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a reliable source that was removed? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See . Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's just a history of the OP's user page, which hasn't been edited since 2016. It tells us nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

First example: I don't consider The American Thinker to be RS as a whole, but I think its opinions can be somewhat representative of a certain voting bloc. This revision removes them as a representative example of a conservative reaction to the Super Bowl LIV halftime show. It's taking time getting past the American Thinker removals in the edit history since I agree that they are not RS, but this one stood out. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there are very few places where AT should be cited for anything, even attributed opinion, and that particular removal was a good call. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So this user is following policy by removing non-RS sources, but is doing it wrong somehow? Should he promise to make sure he removes an equal number of crap sources from each part of the political spectrum? Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's a mix of RS and non-RS being removed. Working to find examples. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure not any RS removals, except by accidental typo. The sources are somewhere between definitely unreliable and probably deprecatable if anyone cared, e.g. American Thinker, whose last discussion, detailing its white nationalism, birther conspiracy theories, etc; I confidently predict American Thinker would be explicitly deprecated in short order if there was actually a need to push for it.

Some are likely not deprecatable in their entirety, but are absolutely not RSes for the purposes they're being used for, and tick all the boxes on WP:QUESTIONABLE. The term "non-traditional" in the user's complaint is a giveaway here.

Some editors have issues distinguishing "not explicitly deprecated" from "a great source I should totally use". This is incorrect. I feel confident in stating that anyone who thinks American Thinker is a useful or even usable source for Misplaced Pages has greatly misunderstood Misplaced Pages sourcing.

As usual, all my edits are by hand one at a time, and up for discussion.

In my efforts to make our sourcing suck a bit less, I tend to go a few sources at a time. As a well-meaning suburban liberal of hopelessly centrist and incoherent ideology, I wasn't going for a political theme. Deprecated and even questionable leftist sources tend to get removed from the wiki very quickly, but there's still quite the queue for CounterPunch, if nobody gets to it before I do - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My biggest disagreement so far would be PJ/Pajamas Media, especially pre-Trump. For example, the removal of an opinion piece by a notable person that happened to be published there in 2012. Or a review of Snakes on a Plane from 2006. Or a statement from 2011 regarding Newt Gingrich's support of a bill. PJ Media may have fallen off a reliability cliff in 2016 -- I don't know, as I try to avoid political websites nowadays -- but I disagree with the idea that they were fringe or unreliable before that. Again, I don't plan to crusade on this; if the admins disagree I'm fine with that. Jpers36 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember PJ Media's 2011 article claiming that the hashtags - literally meant to be the Twitter hashtag - displayed on clothing at Occupy movement sit-ins was actually a stand-in for a swastika. "Bizarre neo-swastika reminiscent of "The Great Dictator" used as power symbol by OWS leaders". I thought at the time "this is the absolute stupidest thing I've seen all week, and I'm from the Internet." I do not believe that it would be the least bit difficult to find similarly clearly unhinged material in the PJ Media archives from before Trump - David Gerard (talk)

This is the edit that grabbed my attention -- Victor Davis Hanson's op-ed piece criticizing Pat Buchanan as a pseudo-historian was removed because it happened to be published in PJ Media. Jpers36 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I did look at the original of the dead link in question in the archive, and editorially it struck me as "so what?" material that adds no useful opinionation to the article. YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will also note clearly that I think PJMedia is a source that is the sort of thing we deprecate. Not because of its politics - we have plenty of right-wing RSes that somehow aren't put up for deprecation - but because of its fondness for conspiracy theories (most recently on COVID and election counts), weird nonsense through its existence (as above) and that it hardly even bothers with pretending to be a NEWSORG, instead concerning itself explicitly with culture wars and owning the libs. But it hasn't come up much at RSN as an issue in active question - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This removed an attributed view of Benny Morris. Now I know I have a minority view on "deprecated sources", but the idea that Benny Morris should be removed from Palestinian right of return because what he wrote was in the American Thinker or if he wrote it on a napkin to me is incorrect. Also Mr Morris views very much do not mirror my own, if anybody thinks that is a POV issue. nableezy - 20:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument in its favour, though I'd question why a holder of noteworthy opinions specifically chose an absolutely toilet-tier outlet to say it in, rather than one that wasn't absolutely toilet-tier - if he had confidence in this opinion, surely there are non-sewers to express it in - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the same problem as CounterPunch, which I think you re-closed. It ignores that actual experts also choose to publish there, and it has resulted in actual experts being removed wholesale across a range of articles. American Thinker might host a bunch of dogshit. It also hosts actual world leading experts. And you keep trying to throw those out instead of just throwing out the dogshit. nableezy - 21:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I had no particular knowledge or opinions on CounterPunch, and seconded the previous deprecation close because it was clearly the consensus of the deprecation discussion. You could take it back for a de-deprecation if you like, but I would say that you would need some pretty convincing arguments that would overcome the existing ones - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We are already awash in people's opinions, especially in these political articles. Including something because a notable person said it without exercising editorial judgment (which includes weighing the value of the outlet) is just opening up the floodgates. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That isnt some notable person, that is among the five most cited experts on the topic of that article. nableezy - 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, its inclusion is absolutely an editorially arguable point. Why did he choose to put it in a sewer, though? - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly he doesnt have the opinion that you do. Does that make him uncitable? I saw people arguing that if some person had chosen to publish something in CounterPunch, which in the topic I spend the most time in has ranged in opinions from Alan Dershowitz to Norm Finkelstein (literal polar opposites), that they should not be cited at all, much less that they shouldnt be cited in CP. That is, to me at least, an abjectly bad idea. That he chose to publish it there means that we should keep it cited as an attributed view and not a fact, but does it mean we should be removing expert's attributed views? I dont think so at least. nableezy - 21:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly he doesnt have the opinion that you do I have no idea what his opinion is, and I don't care. Why on earth are you presuming I do? - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The opinion in question is that the outlet he chose to publish his view in is a sewer. nableezy - 21:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am quite confident in stating that American Thinker is indeed a sewer, and no reasonable Misplaced Pages editor who understood Misplaced Pages sourcing would argue it wasn't. Indeed, anyone looking for somewhere to place an opinion should reasonably realise it is a sewer.

More broadly: you seem to now be talking about CounterPunch, which I closed the deprecation discussion on. Are you arguing that that was a bad close? And moreover, that it was such a bad close that it's a matter in need of immediate administrator intervention, which is what ANI is for? - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Youre right, forget CP. As far as sewer, Im a reasonable Misplaced Pages editor who understands Misplaced Pages sourcing policy, and I understand that when one of the foremost authorities on the causes of the Palestinian refugee crisis in the world writes something that it is perfectly reasonable to include his or her position at the very least as an attributed view if he is expressing opinion. Regardless of how you feel about where he published that opinion. Even if it were on MySpace. nableezy - 21:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is often seen by those who run fringe sites as a way to gain domain authority through being linked to from Misplaced Pages. Regardless of political orientation their news reports and especially opinion pieces are skewed, incomplete, and misleading, if not downright false. They like to present themselves as publishing news that mainstream journalism dare not print or is somehow covering up. If a source for a statement in Wikivoice cannot be found in a reliable journal of high standards, then we might ask why. Is the statement credible, truthful, accurate? Conversely, if we can find sourcing in multiple outlets, then we should use those that have the higher standards. If we are covering a topic that is notable, then there will be multiple sources to select from.

If we are transferring domain authority and credibility to other sites simply because we have worked hard over the years to become a trusted information source and Google ranks us highly, then I prefer that we shine that reflected glory on those who deserve it, rather than those peddling partisan poo. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. To use the Benny Morris/Palestinian right of return example from above, if there is anything WP:DUE for inclusion in that article, it'll be published somewhere other than American Thinker. If it's only published in a non-RS like American Thinker, then it's not DUE for inclusion, no matter who wrote it. So if American Thinker is the only one conveying Morris's opinion, it should stay out. But of course they're not, and we don't need to use American Thinker for Morris's view, because we have other, better sources, such as "The Israeli Historian Benny Morris and the Changing Politics of the Palestinian Refugee Debate" published in Australian Quarterly. Levivich 23:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That might be what you wished our policies said, but it isnt what they actually say. nableezy - 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've seen David on my watchlist making these edits on various pages and found them to be fine on inspection. While specific ones may be worth discussing, that's a content issue for article talk pages. I recommend that this be closed with no action unless someone points out something that needs urgent administrator attention. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually do disagree with the types of removals discussed in this section, generally speaking. Attributed quotations, even those attributable to "sewer" quality publications, still pass the sniff test. Is somebody trying to argue that X author did not write a blog post or opinion piece (or whatever the case may be) in Y publication? Why do we care what the quality of the publication is if the author and the author's opinion are the salient matter? This is obviously to be distinguished from statements made in Misplaced Pages's voice that lean on Y publication; I don't take issue with removals such as those. AlexEng 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the piece by Benny Morris was a response to an earlier article in the American Thinker by Efraim Karsh critical of Morris. As such, it was not only appropriate but necessary that Morris should write in the same outlet. I agree with the editors who have described AT as a sewer, and my opinion of Morris is probably close to Nableezy's - but in this case, I do not think that it is correct to criticise him for his decision to write there. RolandR (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content issue at this point. Somebody else please put this thread out of its misery? Whatever the issue here, it clearly is one where reasonable editors could disagree and one which should more importantly be discussed on the relevant article talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Webbe & Socialist Campaign Group & User:Alssa1

There are several claims made about membership of the Socialist Campaign Group, there is no known reliable source for membership, none has been provided only the self-nomination of members. Given the lack of proper citation, I have qualified some of the claims only to have these reverted with no improved citation.Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC) The User who keeps reinstating these uncited claims is User:Alssa1 and continues to reinstate despite lack of valid citation and incorrectly cites Wikiepdia policy to justify their bullying. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I see we've both made an ANI for each other. I do find it odd that you're accusing me of "bullying" you. Alssa1 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential WP:BOOMERANG candidate. Check Talk:Claudia_Webbe#Socialist Campaign Group for context. I did not notice any conduct violations on the part of Alssa1 except for three reverts in a row on the Claudia Webbe page.

Bad faith by Kitchen Knife:

Alssa1 reminds Kitchen Knife on talk page of BRD and AGF, Kitchen Knife reverts calling Alssa1 a "bully":

Kitchen Knife "talk page banning":

MarshallKe (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Resinsating unsourced claims is a violation of Misplaced Pages standards. Doing so on the bio of a Living person is also a no no. They were asked multiple times to cite a reliable source and did not do so, if they had cited a reliable source then it could stay but they did not. This is fundamental to Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. There was a discussion going on elsewhere there was no need for him to come onto my talk page. I did not call his reverts bullying I called his preemptive citing of Misplaced Pages rules and claims that not behaving he wanted could lead to banning. The claims he reinstated were and are unsubstantiated. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As best I can tell, you are the one making unsourced statements. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by stating that on the article talk page instead of here, but now that you've decided to bring that here and misrepresent your sourcing disagreement with Alssa1, here we are. You were having a sourcing disagreement, which is a natural part of Misplaced Pages and it doesn't belong on this page. MarshallKe (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting my position at all, you are the one doing that. What evidence there is, which is the full title of the group, is that the group is reserved for Labour MPs, she is no longer a Labour MP there going by the one thing the group have published about membership criteria it is unclear if she remains a member. Alssa1 has also claimed the someone who is no longer an MP is also a member. While it would not be the first time a groups name has not reflected the membership of a group, the change in status of the subject is well known and verified. I do not think that OR covers this as effectly it is starting what is already known that the MPs status has changed and this makes her status within Labour affiliated groups at best ambiguous.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kitchen Knife: since you posted the above before I responded below I'm not sure if you're still confused but in case you are, do note as I said below that you're mistaken. What you're describing classic WP:Synthesis. If you're going to continue to edit BLPs then please better familiarise yourself with our OR policy rather than just "thinking" what it covers. If you believe information is outdated for some reason, it is up to you to find reliable sources which provide this new information. You cannot decide based on your own analysis what the situation is like now and update the article. At best, if you cannot find sources, perhaps the outdated but sourced information could be removed. But this is rarely the solution so needs to be done with care. If you cannot find sources perhaps it's because no one has noticed, perhaps it's because no one really cares about the change or perhaps it's because your OR is wrong. If it's the case no one cares, then generally we don't either. Depending on the specifics it's often perfectly possible to provide info on the older situation without making it sound like the situation must be still the same or mentioning some change which may be true but no one thinks matters so no one has mentioned. If your OR is wrong and so you're providing misleading information that's one reason OR is so harmful. As I said below, it's very difficult for you to make the claim the sources are simply outdated anyway since we have a source from after her suspension still mentioning her membership. It's in the early days I don't know what the situation is like now, again ultimately we need sources not editor's speculations. P.S. To be clear, my comment is direct exclusively at what you did in the Claudia Webbe article. How to handle the list is more complicated and not something I want to touch on. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife

Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kitchen Knife and I are having a discussion about the the MP Claudia Webbe and her affiliation to the Socialist Campaign Group (referred to as SCG from now on); particularly given her suspension from the Labour party. Kitchen Knife appears convinced that membership of the SCG is dependent entirely upon membership of the Labour Party, he is yet to provide a source that demonstrates this claim.

To summarise the situation.

This discussion has taken more or less civilly on the talkpage. However today the discussion took a very different turn. It began with this edit which though I can accept 'robust language' without difficulty, I do on reflection find it somewhat of a precursor to later interactions. I responded to that particular edit with: this edit. In the next edit I added some sources that would at least demonstrate that she is widely reported to be a member of the SCG despite her suspension.

After a continuing to disagree robustly, Kitchen Knife makes this edit which I think is in breach of WP:AGF.

He then makes an edit which I then revert and leave a message on his page highlighting the need to build consensus, think about WP:BRD and engage in good faith. I also make a similar remark on the article talkpage.

He then reverts my message on his talkpage and calls me "a bully", a confusing statement and also in breach of WP:AGF.

He also leaves a message on my talkpage titled "DO not comment on my page again" and calling "very rude and pompous".

He reinstates his edit again (with a bit of WP:AGF), which I then revert and leave a disruptive editing notice on his page. Which he then reverts.

Now I'm sure neither side of our disagreement has behaved perfectly, but I do find the way he's behaved to be somewhat unnecessary. Alssa1 (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT, in addition to the above there seems to a bit of pattern with his behaviour when challenged; as you can see from his archive. When challenged he does seem to go on the full-attack mode for some reason. Despite the archived instance being from almost 10 years ago, I do think it's relevant given his recent behaviour. Alssa1 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT2, further to my previous comment, the pattern is reflected again here on relatively recent disagreement Kitchen Knife had with Mark83. It's the same thing, Kitchen Knife has an editing dispute with someone and as a result he engages in abusive behaviour (calling people "pompous" among other things), and then engaging in talk page banning. What is the best method of dealing with someone who has a long pattern of unpleasant behaviour of this nature? Alssa1 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Alssa1 had already been reported by myself, for reinstment of unsupported claims. THis is an example of this user malicous nature.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you reported someone first doesn't automatically mean you're right and doesn't serve as an example of this user malicous nature.. Even on ANI, you should remain CIVIL and avoid casting ASPERSIONS. AlexEng 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed it did make me right but well done on making stuff up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To summarise the situation accurately this user has been asked multiple times to provide citations that back up the entries on the Claudia Webbe Page as no citation was forthcoming that met the Misplaced Pages standard the claims were qualified to indicate they were claims made by the subject. The membership list used is that of a Twitter group and the full title of the group would exclude non-members. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also my edit said " she is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs, it is unclear if this remains true whilst she is suspended from the PLP." stating quite clearly that the situation with the suspension made the membership status unclear.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's weird you're complaining about another editor not providing citations when you seem to be engaging in WP:OR yourself. The source says "She is one of 34 members of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs alongside Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell.". No where does it say "She has stated" let alone "it is unclear if this remains true whilst she is suspended from the PLP". And it's a source from after (albeit very early) in the suspension so it's not even the case that it's a severely outdate source not that this would excuse adding OR. I don't know if this really needs to be here at ANI, probably WP:BLP/N would be better unless you really keep at it despite multiple editors telling you to stop. However it does seem to be that you have made a BLP violation by introducing something not mentioned by the citation provided. Indeed doing so in a way that may mislead editors into thinking it was supported. So please don't do that again, Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We had two largely overlapping threads. Seems this thread was created before Alssa1 noticed the other one, unfortunate but happens. Best solution now is to merge this as a subthread of the other which I have done. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t got into the detail of the dispute itself, but this user is far too quick to pull the ANI trigger and accuse people of bullying etc. The ANI thread here against me didn’t go their way so they completely ignored the advice given by others: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070. Seems they are refreshed after a Misplaced Pages break and ready to cause more disruption that could be avoided by a bit of self awareness. If you’re continually in disputes, at some point you have to reflect on your own approach. Mark83 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

CIR issue from a month ago

• 919499sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See this archived thread for context. The above editor's edits are indicative they do not have the "ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively". Many of their edits also keep introducing reports of "no problem reported" rail accidents (something which has been pointed out as not particularly enlightening...). I'm not sure keeping this unchecked will have any productive outcome, beyond people having to go take a look at it again and clean-up more of this editor's edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

919499sp (talk · contribs) has made a total of three edits to their talk:

• 21:36, 11 October 2021 "Sorry i dont know how to edit it"
• 23:27, 11 October 2021 (change a word in someone else's comment)
• 23:37, 11 October 2021 (blank the page)

Apart from the above, 919499sp has only edited articles. I plan to indefinitely block them in 24 hours unless there is a useful response or an alternative suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Given the very simple way they write and their obsession with trains, maybe it's possible that they're just on the younger side? They might just need a block for a year or so and they'll have a better grasp of the English language by then. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've issued a WP:PBLOCK on the two most recent lists of rail accidents, and advised 919499sp to treat it as a de facto block for other similar lists. Talk pages remain available to suggest edits. Let's see if we can avoid an indeff here. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

User:OccasionalEditor30

OccasionalEditor30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bizarre vandalism edits that are reverted by the user or by others. On White Men Can't Jump, Changing the infobox title to "White Flowers Smell Great" and article title to "Peeing on the Floor". In Super Monkey Ball Banana Mania, Adding "It's a game so difficult it makes your body temperature rise extremely high and makes your blood pressure spike to high heavens. Therefore, unless someone gives me $100 in tips, I'm not appreciating you or listening to any of your dumb requests while playing this game!" In Richardson Island, adding "and the fact that it was named for disgraced Jeopardy executive producer Mike Richards"—The article has nothing to do with Mike Richards (television personality). In Grundy County, Tennessee, adding WP:OPINION about "perceived radical beliefs". AldezD (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked that editor for all that nonsense. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

IP user continually failing to use talk page when their edits have been contested

Could someone please intervene with this issue. The new user, 86.185.171.71, has made a series of edits, with the best source being a primary source, at All You Need Is Love. I've reverted them several times, as has another editor – Zmbro – and I've referred them to WP:BRD twice in my reverts. I've warned them on their talk page. I'm not hiding the fact that in my reverts each time, I'm also edit warring, possibly 3R-ing. The user seems unfamiliar with requirements for sourcing, especially regarding OR and synth, but there's no way to communicate the problem when they won't engage in a discussion away from comments with their edits. JG66 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring by this address has indeed been going on although they only have been warned about it today it seems. Then they finally posted at the talk page yet to immediately restore the content again without consensus (I see multiple editors object there)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflexa9

Basically, the problem is that Reflexa9 is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to promote and defend terrorism.

• They've made repeated attempts to remove the word criminal from the Mumtaz Qadri article, on this attempt with a long summary.
• They're also attempting to defend another terrorist, Aafia Siddiqui (edit).

PepperBeast (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflexa9 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the conduct, but @Reflexa9:, please be more careful with your replies. You added your reply within Pepperbeast's statement above. Also, don't forget to indent your replies and sign your posts. Jauerback/_dude. 15:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To state the facts that are “actually true” is called encyclopedia. I do not write with biased views of media or unjust laws. I write with the right to write for what’s correct. You are the one who supports terrorism if you call innocent people Terrorist for false charges. I repeat “false charges” Misplaced Pages needs to uphold their free to edit and have “true views”not media based views. and what’s the difference between Misplaced Pages and a paid news biased channel? State the “truth” Looking forward for a sensible reply and action

Reflexa9 /

What reliable sources do you have that demonstrates that the laws in question are "unjust", the media is "biased" and that the individual in question was "innocent" and that they were a victim of "false charges"? You can't make controversial edits like that without having reliable sources to back it up. Your justifications sound very much like a campaign... Alssa1 (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Reflexa9! You may have missed some of our most important rules for editing our encyclopedia. The main one, that applies to all of us here, is that we seek verifiability, not The Truth. We know you know The Truth, as you see it, but we're not interested in your view as to what The Truth is, any more than we're interested in anybody else's view when they're editing here. It's not what we're for. We report what others have said in reliable sources. Those are the only thing we can go on if this isn't to be a battleground. I'm sorry if you misunderstood what we're trying to achieve here. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reflexa9, I get that you don't want the articles on these subjects to be biased. But your edits aren't trying to remove existing bias, you're attempting to add bias in the other direction. For instance, when you edited Aafia Siddiqui you added the word "unjustly". This adds bias to a sentence that didn't have it before; the sentence was only a statement of fact. If you want to productively edit, you can add information on the opposing point of view with good referencing. For instance, you tried to add information that there is a movement seeking to free Aafia Siddiqui. Here is a reliable source on that movement: If you want, you can add neutrally worded information about that movement and their goals in the "reactions" section. You can also change the lede to mention that the Pakistani government continues to actively push for Siddiqui's release and possibly include information on domestic American reactions to Siddiqui's case.

The goal of this website isn't to tell readers what to believe, it's to give readers the information that they need and allow them to make the determination for themselves. This is how we deal with almost all disputes over who's right and who isn't; we simply do not take a position as an encyclopedia. That's what WP:NPOV means. Refusing to accept that is going to result in you getting banned from the subject area. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TREY MATURIN & Alssa1 Let me try to keep it simple. I’m sure most of you will be in favor- 1. Yes! I do have reliable sources.

I’m sure you will ask for a news channel that states so!

• https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2010/10/17/injustice-in-the-age-of-obama

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/21/us-pakistan-protests-release-neuroscientist-aafia-siddiqui

This is by well known “al-jazeera”

• also search for “Aafia siddiqi case on YouTube” and visit the TRT case study for more clear information

I want each one of you to read the case study about her case. And ask your heart and do research about it. You’ll find that media lies. We all know it.

Also to mention it’s not “my views” If would be if I were the only one who said it. It’s been said by millions over the world. And should be well heard. The points you mention as to what can be done to keep what I said please do make the edits accordingly. Well also we do not tell the readers what to believe but rather we tell them facts and they decide what’s correct. For example- Australia is a continent. Yes. But it’s also a country. Having stated both the “correct statements” now people can decide for what they believe. Similarly- with the Aafia’s case. Only one part is written which is biased! Worst it’s wrong! We need to state the truth no matter what the world says. And after the truth is stated. Then let the people decide who they stand for or believe

Reflexa9 /

That first Al-Jazeera link is an opinion piece. The second one reports that there were protests in Pakistan, which is already in the article. You still don't seem to have absorbed the idea of WP:NPOV PepperBeast (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! We're starting to get somewhere by working together rather than against each other. Those sources are useful and important, so your next job is to take them to the talk page of the article you want to change. Suggest some wording that reflects accurately what the source says (we can't draw conclusions from our sources, we can only report exactly what they said), provide the sources and see what your other editors think. If any of them are biased, it will show up there and will be seen, and then we'll all know about it and can act accordingly. There will be some too-and-fro as other editors try to improve on your wording, but that's fine too: all writing is improved with the input from others, even as it really hurts to see our own words being smashed about! Then, when it's all settled, the new wording can go in and an improved article will be the result. It still won't reflect the truth as you see it, because there are 8 billion people on this planet with 8 billion different opinions of what the truth is, but you'll get something that's better than what's there now. Keep on talking, keep calm, keep compromising: if you really have the truth on your side, it will come out in the end (we've got no deadline here). You can make a big difference! — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In their reply above, pepperbeast rightly reveals something else, Reflexa9, that you're not going to like but I'm afraid is just part of how things work here: we can't fit everything into the lede (opening paragraph) of our articles. We need to give our readers a very quick overview of each subject of an article in the first paragraph. After that we can expand on the subject and include a very wide range of views. But the first paragraph has to sum things up quickly and simply. Why is this person/event notable? After that, there's more to be said. But that first paragraph can't be used to argue or debate or reflect all points of view. It need to state the facts and answer the simple question "why is this notable?". You may need to compromise on having the truth as you see it being mentioned further down the article. This hurts - it's really annoying! - but we have to think of our readers first, and they want a simple introductory paragraph. Sorry. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Concerning is that the very first edit in 2020 suggested a mission that seems consistent with the more recent edits. Yes, inappropriate information in WP:BLP articles, including that unsupported by WP:BLPRS may be removed. This must be done in accordance with policy, however (others have already commented about WP:V). The suggestion that mainstream news must necessarily be paid advocacy against some people is also strange (if I interpret "paid news" correctly). —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed. I think the odds of this user reforming and contributing in a neutral, non-partisan manner, are not good. Ritchie333 22:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by Dorierosie

Dorierosie (talk · contribs) has been editing the article about herself for nearly a decade. She was cautioned in Feb 2020 & has continued to edit it despite the conflict of interest. I imposed a partial block to ensure future compliance and pointed her to the WP:ERW (ticket:2021102510012533 email #2). She has responded with legal threats (email #3 & Special:Diff/1051963924) & has not been willing to retract them despite repeated requests to do so. I request a WP:NLT block. Cabayi (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I gotta say, I have no conflict of interest with myself is peak irony. clpo13_(talk) 16:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Their latest email to ticket:2021102510012533 seems to suggest they are willing to remove the legal threat? ~TheresNoTime 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They have now said that they are going to get their publicist and entertainment lawyer to edit the article: . Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither of whom will have any WP:COI, obvs... Narky Blert (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This person is clearly upset and unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages PAGs. Maybe some of their concerns are legitimate; maybe some aren't. Either way, I think kindness and patience is the right approach here. See also WP:DOLT. AlexEng 18:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

They're not unfamiliar with the PAG they were told about WP:COI in February last year and decided to ignore it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Them being told about it and them (a) reading it and (b) understanding it are different things. We need to proceed with caution and understanding when it comes to the subjects of our articles, even if they are completely in the wrong. We're a human-edited encyclopedia, emphasis on the human. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, blocking for the blatant attempt at chilling discussion with legal threats. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I respect our admins and the community but this seems extremely punitive, especially since she never made a direct threat. She didn't chill any discussion because there never was a discussion on the article talk page because she didn't even know how to get there. We are human beings after all. She made a comment on her own talk page out of frustration. She is clearly not a Wikipedian and I don't know if she has a desire to be one but, in my opinion, this action has chilled discussion more than anything she has said so far. --ARoseWolf 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 "Legal threat" blocks (for things which often aren't anything like a legal threat) are a very popular opportunity for people to play sheriff. (Not speaking of this particular case when I say that, BTW.) EEng 21:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

She revealed private information about a VRT contributor on her talk page, after being asked not to. Her talk page history is full of oversight strikes - to be honest, I'm surprised she still has the ability to edit that talk page, let alone anywhere else. I'm all for showing respect and compassion to the subjects of our articles when they have issues, but we also need to consider the well-being of our contributors. She is not free to impugne them as she has been doing, or to reveal private information about them when they have the good grace to respond to her emails. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I never understood why blocking for legal threats wasn't a job for WMF Legal. If there's a legal reason to block for legal threats (like a liability reason or because the law requires it) then let the paid lawyers deal with it instead of us volunteers. For us volunteers, we should just process "legal threats" under our ordinary civility policies. I don't understand why we treat legal threats the same way we treat things like hate speech or outing (that is: with extreme prejudice). That said, in this particular case, there appears to me to be ample reason to block, not for NLT, but for other policy violations (detailed by GS above). Levivich 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is due to the chilling effect that legal threats have. No one would edit here if they feared that they would be sued. It's no different than hate speech in that it creates a poor editing environment. We don't need to be lawyers to protect the editing environment. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There’s no “legal” reason to block legal threats. It’s not particularly a WMF issue. It’s just the “chilling” effect - a subset of WP:CIVIL in many ways. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• And now they're spamming their talk with what are basically requests for proxy edits ("THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD READ EVEN THOUGH IM BLOCKED"); which also brings concern about them being able to understand the issues with their edits, which is as much, if usually less urgent of a problem, than the legal threats they've now been blocked for. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah I removed the spam the first time saying it was unneeded and got a reply which some could suggest was a bit uncivil (asking if i was Paid and worked for Misplaced Pages) and have removed it a second time and said it comes across as spam and possibly nothere, we shall see how they respond. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from their talk page that they have retracted their legal threat. As such I believe the legal threat block should be lifted, or replaced with a block referring to her other behavior. I think the block from her article should stand if they are unblocked and she should be encouraged to post on the article talk page. I also think without mentoring they are unlikely to remain unblocked. Clearly their anger level is high and I am concerned that they may make it impossible to work with the productively.

The issues they are complaining about should be looked into. It appears their concern about the wrong middle name has already been addressed. HighInBC 01:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll let another admin handle it, but I'd also want an assurance that this user will refrain from posting personal information on Misplaced Pages, given that's been a recurring problem. The refusal to get the point and read basic instructions isn't helping her case, her talkpage is making my eyes bleed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but unblocking (while leaving the block from their article, with the already explained issue) at this time might be a valid use of WP:ROPE, and is likely to look better (i.e. make them less angry) than if we arbitrarily "re-block" them now for a different issue. If they continue despite further instructions, WP:NOTHERE and CIR are both valid reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't volunteer to officially mentor, but also think a little rope would be good considering it was the first block (there are two log entries but the same day, one to update the other)... I left a message about the importance of using the article's talk page. A NOTHERE block is indeed close, but why not a second chance... —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back here. Dorierosie has only signed up to Misplaced Pages because she's fed up of reading things about her that are untrue, possibly libellous, and actively harming their career. It's what I'd call a "distress purchase editor" who is only here to clear their name, with no interest whatsoever in learning policies and guidelines that are irrelevant to their goals. "I’m a 52-year-old woman and a working actress - I don’t have time for this." says everything you need to know. It's kind of like lecturing me on pipework and plumbing after I've got a leak which is flooding the kitchen - I don't care about specifics, I just want the damn thing fixed. Furthermore, as it hasn't been mentioned here, Dorierosie is using the mobile editor, which is well-known to have a poor and ineffective user interface, making a block appeal even harder (paging Suffusion of Yellow). Can you type in {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on a mobile app, even when you know exactly what you're doing - without looking up the template documentation? (After all, the odds that Dorierosie knows or even cares about that are approximately zero).

The only sane thing to do here is ensure that anything not compliant with WP:BLPSOURCES gets expunged from the article. I can see that Dorierosie wants her role in The Trial of the Chicago 7 documented, but it's not in that article and that's a reasonably well-written one, so I'm slightly curious as to how her role stacks up to, say Sacha Baron Cohen. Ritchie333 12:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a passing thought: Are we sure that there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources out there to sustain an article that complies with WP:BLP? The sources currently in there are an announcement, a brief mention in the blurb of a PR video, a credits listing, a tweet, a self-published blog post and a brief interview; I didn't find all that much in a quick google search either. I didn't spend much time on it though, and pop culture articles are pretty far away from my editing comfort zone, so that's not to say that there isn't any good sourcing out there, but I think it's important to ascertain whether that's the case. If the sourcing doesn't exist, it will be pretty much impossible to write an article that both complies with Misplaced Pages sourcing standards, and does the subject justice. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't help that trying to find sources brings back more false positives for Kate Miller-Heidke. Ritchie333 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm just for trying to have a little compassion. She obviously doesn't intend to continue to edit here and she doesn't really care about policy because she doesn't intend to edit multiple articles. She seems to be okay with the block of her from editing the article on her. She just wants someone to help her. I'm kind of leaning the direction I see Ritchie going in. Is there even enough sourcing in the article to have an article in the first place? Having nothing might be better than having the wrong information. That may be a discussion for AfD but not here. She has already expressed the desire to have this article removed from her feed because it has apparently injured herself in some way or another. That's something we can't know the chilling affect from but we can try to understand and relate to as much as we can. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

An AfD would likely draw more attention to the article and the subject of the article, right in the middle of her feeling hurt and angry and confused by us. What we need is a rouge admin willing to speedy it out of process, then take the flak at DR, which is a much less public and painful forum for the subject, but hell on Earth for the heroic admin who volunteers to take one for the team. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Destructive sock

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

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

This is likely a sock of User:Dragonrap2...AKA:

• User:104.243.160.113
• User:WXA53
• User:Futurewiki
• User:104.243.169.127
• User:104.243.167.109
• User:Futuristic21
• User:Futurewiki2
• User:Mega256
• User:Futurewiki The Third
• User:Mega257
• User:Mega258
• User:Futurew
• User:104.243.166.108
• User:104.243.170.125
• User:Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues
• User:104.243.163.15

Past cleanups have been large. Is a rangeblock possible? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

104.243.160.0/20 covers those listed and has been blocked before, most recently in January. I've gone ahead and blocked the range again. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive re-insertion of archived material

Tempes1 has been causing disruption on the saturated fat talk-page and the water fluoridation ‎talk-page. This user in one of their earlier comments on the saturated fat talk-page said they do not want any of their material archived but finished conservations over 90 days old can be manually archived or a bot can do it so it is not against policy to do it. Old discussions from over 100 days were archived but this user has since restored this content quite a few times. Tempes1 who has no consensus for any of their edits has reverted archived material twice on the water fluoridation article example and 3 times on the saturated fat talk-page but these old conversations had ended back in July and the consensus was that their suggested edits were not supported by policy. The discussions were not active. Now to re-activate the discussions this user is leaving trollish comments claiming to have won a Nobel prize and claiming that a single feeding trial is a "high quality study" that should be put onto the article even though this goes against WP:MEDRS. This user has been told many times already by four different users why primary sources are not used for controversial biomedical claims but they ignore such advice.

The same user also has a history of adding dispute templates to articles where no dispute exists such as on the water fluoridation which was reverted several times and on the saturated fat article without any consensus. User Hipal has warned this user about some of their edits on their talk-page but in response Tempes1 added the courtesy notice template to their talk-page. That may not be the worst thing and maybe you could put it down to just being angry but from what I have seen this user is not acting in good-faith they are causing trouble. In conclusion I believe this account which has no productive edits in the main-space and ignores consensus and any advice from other users is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. To be going on with, I have blocked the user for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC).

User:Kingoflettuce

I would like to request ANI for User:Kingoflettuce. I have pointed out that edits made by this user are undue weight for opinions, non-independent sources, and are bordering on advocacy, but my edits - including NPOV article and section tags were all reverted on the basis of "vandalism" and no attempt was made to reply to these, even when an uninvolved editor explained that edits from IP address can be in good faith and are not necessarily vandalism. User:Kingoflettuce then proceeded to launch personal attacks on my talk page and the WikiProject Singapore talk page , instead of discussing the topic at hand. While we may have our differences in opinions in editing articles, I believe it's obvious who the disruptive editor launching personal attacks and uninterested in Misplaced Pages policies and discussion is. Edit: Now, most recently, User:Kingoflettuce has breached the three revert rule with this latest edit too. --121.7.1.169 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act was fully protected by Clpo13, and the version before the IP's edits was restored because the article at the time was a DYK on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Range block requested

• 2603:9000:F402:19EC:55A1:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range is the same person who was mentioned in this ANI report about a month ago: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#"Happy Tree Friends" LTA (as well as older ANI threads in March 2021 and April 2021).

They're currently evading several blocks, including Special:Contributions/173.168.252.137, Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50, Special:Contributions/144.178.6.34, etc., etc.

Usual nonsensical edits from this IP range about Happy Tree Friends and the band Nirvana: , , .

Can someone please block the /64 range? Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F402:19EC:55A1:0:0:0/64.

Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Why wouldn't you just semi-protect the relevant page(s)? That's a pretty wide range, and I see two unrelated IPv4 addresses in your list of block evasions. AlexEng 03:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

How on earth is a /64 a wide range for IPv6? It's almost the equivalent of a single IPv4 address. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to Special:Contributions/2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 there seem to be a lot of different pages involved but I'd note a /50 is not necessarily a wide range for IPv6 anyway. E.g. a /48 is commonly the minimum assigned to a site which means even a small business or in some cases a home user may receive a /48. This seem to be reflected in the lack of any edits from that range until the sock got involved. Nil Einne (talk)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Nil Einne. AlexEng, I apologize if I wasn't clear as I moved this report hastily from AIV. The only IP range I am requesting to be blocked is 2603:9000:f402:19ec::/64. The other IPs I listed are already blocked and I only noted them to demonstrate active block evasion (they were referenced in the last ANI report I linked above). The list of contributions under 2603:9000:f402:19ec::/64 does not show any obvious collateral damage—all thirty edits over the last couple of months are by the LTA. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEng - IPv6 can be somewhat confusing for those only used to IPv4. I'd recommend this little guide to how IPv6 blocks should be handled. firefly ( t · c ) 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: – thank you for blocking. This thread can be closed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

disruptive editing

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

71.11.52.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits articles related to actors and films, always using the edit summary "added content", or occasionally "fixed typo". There TP is filled with warnings about adding unsourced content. Many/most of their edits have been reverted - a lot of it is trivia that even if sourced would likely be removed. I went through all their edits in 2021 and don't see any that are vandalism, but it is still not desirable behavior. All the edits are tagged mobile, so they probably haven't seen the TP messages. They might be a helpful editor with some coaching. A block to get their attention? MB 04:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 09:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Jan12shamil and WP:CIR

Jan12shamil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From practically blanking a talk page, conducting disruptive page moves at Andronikos V Palaiologos, blanking the AfD for this bizarre article they created, removing BLP source tags, removing the infobox on Harold Godwinson, and whatever this is; this is a clear case of a user with a lack of competence who is almost exclusively disruptively editing. Curbon7 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I know this is serious stuff, but the sheer bizarreness of some of those edits made me laugh. Needs to end, obviously. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The fact is these edits, idiosyncratic as they may be, are indistinguishable from defacement outright. El_C 09:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe also block the other accounts Jan12shamil claims to have:

• Sammy0112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samuel0112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shamil's club 112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and this one, that Jan12shamil created:

• Jukbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I do wonder what bizarre autotranslate error resulted in "dinner of pages", at User:Jan12shamil and User:Shamil's club 112. --bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor continues posting copyright violations after warning

A few days agoI warned User talk:Carpx3 not to post copyvio in contravention of the rules WP:CWW. They have been posting (bad) translations of articles from other language wikis, without crediting the source. After I posted the warning, they created another article Alexander Planinski which is another uncredited, poor translation from Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Since the licensing restrictions are not complied with, it is a copyright violation. (t · c) buidhe 12:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the problem that the translations are "bad"? That they are "machine translations"? Or is it just about attribution? Because if so, that isn't what you told this user. You told them that they needed permission from the copyright holder. Please clarify. El_C 12:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The most serious issue is that they are copying within[REDACTED] without following the licensing agreement, which is a copyright violation. I guess I should have linked WP:CWW in the comment on their talk page, but I did try to explain the issue there in the comment I left. As far as I know there is no template message for failures to follow WP:CWW, which is why I used the generic copyvio warning. So far, User:Carpx3 hasn't responded on their talk page or to this discussion. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Incivility, disruptive editing and constant neglection of advise by other editor from user Çerçok

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

Hello, the user Çerçok has been aggressive since the beginning of the discussion in the Greek war of Independence making inappropriate comments for the ethnicity of other editors, using aggressive language and ignoring the advise of 3 editors regarding the way to talk in WP. I have tried to help him and explain the code of conduct for WP however, he seems that he does not really want to learn from his latest comment here . Can anyone have a look at this case? Othon I (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week for egregious personal attacks (diff) coupled with a bizarre unawareness that that is what they are (diff). El_C 12:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive reversions

Hello, I don't know if this belongs here (I'm not familiar with the exact process here), but the article Vasili III of Russia is currently subject to an edit war that reeks (to me) of vandalism, as my attempt to delete a statement from the article lede that has no basis in historical research and that seems to originate from jokey articles on some random websites is constantly reverted. The user has made no attempt to provide better sources, and at this point, I don't know what to do.

Perhaps someone could look into that. Thank you. 2003:C0:8F28:2E00:4180:E06D:AF55:81E5 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

IP, what do you mean Still no source? The source is right there, and it says "Vasili the Adequate" (I checked). El_C 13:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, now I see. Sorry about that. El_C 13:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Utopyada

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

• Utopyada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Changed "Iranian" into "Azerbaijani" on the Bahmanyar article and removed the existing WP:RS. No edit summary/explanation.
2. Changed "Persia" into "Azerbaijan" at the Kars article in spite of the given source. No edit summary/explanation.
3. Removed a massive amount of WP:RS content from the Safavid Iran article that mentioned a Kurdish origin, and changed it into "Turkic origin". No edit summary/explanation.
4. Removed heaps of sourced content from the Lavash article that mentioned Armenia and Iran, and swapped it with unsourced pro-Azerbaijani content. No edit summary/explanation.
5. Swapped "Armenian and Azeri" into "Azerbaijani an Armenian" at the Shusha article. No edit summary/explanation.
6. Removed the Persian etymology at Joshpara. No edit summary/explanation.
7. Removed the Armenian origins at Karabakh carpet. No edit summary/explanation.
8. Removed sourced information at 2020 Ganja missile attacks, edit summary: "False information!".
9. Added "Safavids" to the list of Turkic dynasties listed at Persian vocabulary. No edit summary, source, or explanation.
10. Has received numerous warnings, to which he never replied.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Usual ethno-national fare. El_C 13:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yoruba disruption (still)

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081 § Ppdallo & West Africa issues

I would really like to see this closed properly. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Next time propose a sanction. Saying "all I know is that something needs to change here" and not proposing any changes is going to make it difficult for an admin to close. I believe this is the plot of a "Yes, Minister" episode about the Politician's syllogism where we all end up agreeing that something must be done yet the bureaucracy of the situation results in the "something" being referred to further study until we all just forget about the issue and nothing happens. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@MJL, Chess does make an excellent point. I’ve made the same error over and over again, wherein I report an incident without proposing a sanction, thus making the report hard to officially close by sysops, I believe the onus is on us to initiate a proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Chess: Alright, I have re-notified Ppdallo about this issue. Let's talk WP:TBAN. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed T-BAN

Per the evidence laid out in the last report, and seeing that Ppdallo has failed to listen to any advice given on the matter since its opening, I would like to formally proposed that Ppdallo receive a T-BAN for the topic of West Africa ethnic groups, broadly construed. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have nowhere near the context that most of the participants in this discussion will have had, plus I'm not an admin, so I won't !vote, but at this point I draw your attention to the latest discussion, which I have found quite perplexing, at Talk:Yoruba people#Etymology Dispute and consensus, initiated by Ppdallo just over a day ago. After a bit, this appeared: That was why opened this new section and as soon as the protection on Yoruba People page is lifted i will go ahead and enforce (WP:ONUS) by reverting the Etymology section to just before you illegally made drastic edit on it, pending our resolution of the dispute in this new section. I read this not as "I will bring the article into compliance with any resolution that is reached" but somewhat closer to "I'll wait till the page is no longer protected and then I'll undo your work and return it to my version." Certainly nothing about taking into account other people's opinions as to which onus has or has not been met by any participant. Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly? That reads a bit WP:NOTHERE to me. If they are openly saying they are going to revert to their version as soon as they are allowed to, I fully Support a topic ban for them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hehpillt28 making highly abusive comments

Hehpillt28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting blatantly transphobic (here) and homophobic (here) abuse to talk and user talk pages. I am not sure what is going on with this user because they have made some other contributions that seem much more like normal constructive editing in the past. Maybe there are two people operating this account or maybe it is one person prone to vicious outbursts on certain topics or occasions. Also they explicitly request being banned here. Given that they call for a named living person to be hanged in that edit, I see very little reason to deny this, admittedly rather bizarre, request and indefinitely block, if maybe not actually ban, them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for their attacks. I didn't go for indefinite immediately only because they've made positive contributions in the past. I'm open to extending it, however. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've extended the block to indefinite. Like I said, past contributions seem mostly positive, but this outburst may suggest a compromised account. clpo13_(talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Uhhh, wow. This is among the most "not here-ist" cases of "not here" I have seen in a while. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• That crap they wrote is absolutely horrible and should be oversighted into oblivion, let’s get that out of the way. Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comparing these recent edits to much earlier ones and this screams "compromised account" almost as loudly as other vivid slurs. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've revdel'd the edits. I was going to say the same thing as Reyk here, this is clearly a compromised account it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems plausible to me and I'd far rather believe it than the alternative, that a previously constructive editor has been "redpilled" to the point of posting those screeds. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? Because at a glance at their contribs, it doesn't seem all that out of character. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it really matter if they’ve been indefinitely blocked? I feel like this is just arguing semantics, especially considering this was an sporadically active editor with less than 500 contributions under their (or as they/their hijacker would probably prefer “his/her”) belt. Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If they decide to make a new account and disclose their connection to the previous account or otherwise appeal this block; the interpretation of this ANI thread is probably what'll decide whether or not they will be able to edit Misplaced Pages. Someone who was obviously compromised is going to get more room than someone who wasn't. So it is relevant to discuss this and establish the purpose of this block. Keep in mind that the purported consensus on why 8chan wasn't linked was because they had issues (to put it mildly) with child pornography; not because of a consensus that 8chan hosted "hate speech". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:BWRAEFWC

History of unsourced/disruptive changes (see talk page warnings) and personal attacks, see 1, 2. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards