Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [Tuskegee] 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. [1]. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature film series with two entries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popes by age and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of water parks in the Americas and Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's article quality.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 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? [2] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia is that they believe that pretty much anything, regardless of whether it advances Wikipedia'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. [3] 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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia: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 [4] 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 [5] 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 ^talk \\ 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 ^{let's rap} 05:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable". Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis. Here we have an ARS member suggesting sources which do not discuss the topic at hand: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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 [6] and ... Lightburst [7] and Dream Focus [8] 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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta, again 7&6=thirteen posted a notice on the ARS rescue list [9]. Dutifully Lightburst arrived to oppose [10] 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 [11] about attempts to remove the utter garbage from the kept page and within three hours Lightburst reappears [12] 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 Wikipedia’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 ArbConm has the final word on the outcome. I never heard of a SysOp ArbCom going against rules. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Truth in Labeling

This thread is labeled "Wikipedia: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)

This. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t know how far back it went at the time, I just used that title because it was as tactful as possible but less trite than “we need to talk about ARS”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 1 November 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. Wikipedia: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. [13] 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}} ^talk 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: [14].
  • 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}} ^talk 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! [15] 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}} ^talk 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: [16]. 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 Wikipedia. -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.

List of AFDs w/3

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

Levivich 00:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The first one listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

List of AFDs w/2

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

There are some that are not "keep" !votes (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial deaths in the military and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Fire Walk with Me} 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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 [17] at 4 thousand bytes when nominated for deletoin to 78 thousand bytes now. It then got put on the main page of Wikipedia. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#DYK_for_Textile_performance. The edit history [18] 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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★lwart¹¹¹ 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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. [19] 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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)

Dorothy and Toto meet a straw man

• 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 ^talk \\ 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 Wikipedia, 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)

  That is your perception, and you are very entitled to bear it. That is not what would be presented to ARBCOM for resolution. William Harris (talk) 07:38, 28 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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Inverness Athletic F.C. Seasons I voted delete in. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_works_by_Edward_Robert_Hughes, an article I created was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games featuring Mario, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by Edward Robert Hughes - started after this thread
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory - two ARS regulars (DF and GreenC) both voting keep
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games featuring Mario - ok that's one
5. Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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).

  Afds are all about who shows up aren't they? I just demonstrated that in Footy and GEO. If you think one, two or four guys can disrupt the project you have not followed AfD. I deletion sort so I see all the AfDs that come through. My point in saying that was clear by a full reading of the AfD. Tendentious - bludgeoning, by me too probably. And I was finally saying that was enough of our back and forth: Maybe do not cherry pick the one line, it deserves context. Your argument is nonsense if anyone reads the page

  It is all about who shows up and who cares enough to research beyond- the refs are weak...delete. This kind of "yes it is..no it's not" back and forth is mind numbing ...As I said above, you and I are at loggerheads. We cannot agree to apply policy instead of an essay. And we need to wait to see who shows. That is all that matters.

  Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• In 2019 a few editors (including myself) suggested changes to address canvassing concerns: RFC about proposed guideline amendment, Editor conduct, Inappropriate entries, Suggested template revisions. These proposals were met with personal attacks, defensiveness and a refusal to address the concerns of editors who were not ARS participants so I've tried to steer clear of the project since then. To their credit the more recent entries have been written as requests for article improvement rather than explicit requests for Keep !votes, but this discussion makes it clear that the battleground mentality is still there and legitimate concerns are still being dismissed as nonsense. Although a good idea in theory, ARS functions as a meeting place for editors who bring unnecessary drama to AfD and create work for others who must deal with their fallacious arguments and bad sourcing. Shutting down ARS would allow members to do their article improvement work without all the drama, which seems like a win-win. Editor behavior should also be addressed on an individual basis. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• All this project seems to do is impart its participants with an attitude of superiority (e.g. framing deletion !voters as "destroying the encyclopedia") and an often-successful pathway to garnering a numerical advantage in keep !votes (refbombing either the discussion or the article itself). The latter is especially problematic as it muddies the perception of sourcing for later AfD participants and forces someone else to review all the new refs for quality and coverage, which are often decidedly not met. While both these behaviors can and would happen without ARS, I think the existence of the group only encourages behavior that, to many new editors and the outside media, would appear to be officially sanctioned by wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Possible solution proposal: Should a SysOp ArbCom 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 ArbCom should now become the one to give the final word, and do the final action, as I never have heard of a SysOp ArbCom 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. Wikipedia:Administrators reads at sentence one: Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. 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)

@Dream Focus: You were right, my bad, 🤦‍♂️. I mixed up a lot of user levels and privileges. Came back to Wikipedia editing after almost a year. I mixed up SysOp with CheckUser, and thought CheckUser was a different level. But yes, you got what I was looking for, ArbCom. Fixed the title of this sub-section as well. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is Wikipedia:General_sanctions. In this case either ArbCom or the community could authorize discretionary sanctions that would allow admins to act fairly unilaterally. In that case, an admin could restrict ARS participants from !voting in AFDs, etc., crack down on continued disruptive beahvior, etc.

For what it's worth, there is a multi-pronged aspect that makes this difficult when summarizing this ANI post:

1. First, members of ARS have had serious behavior problems individually, usually hallmark tendentiousness that wastes community time. That's where the focus on individual behavior comments come in over focusing on the group.
2. The ARS group is also serving as a focusing point for that behavior, so the group itself is part of the disruptive behavior. In many ways, it is easier for the community to place restrictions on the group as a whole because of that because of how intertwined that has become.
3. Others like BusterD have mentioned how the group is very different than other Wikiprojects in that it has a stated goal of "rescuing" articles that in practice can often be at odds with policy as it isn't really a disinterested party like a noticeboard might be. Good at times, but also easily abused as we've seen in practice with includes things like votestacking, canvassing, and refbombing AFDs as I've seen described here and witnessed myself too often. There is definitely something inherent to the group that can quickly turn disruptive if not managed carefully, almost to a similar parallel to how we treat WP:COI.

That's why at this point, it does seem like it would reduce disruption for the community by enacting restrictions related to the group as a whole, which the community can do since 1 above so far hasn't been addressed very well by community discussions. Here's the options we seem to have left:

1. Delete the project through WP:MFD. There is guidance specific to Wikiprojects there, so it would be the correct venue. Part of that guidance says It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted . . . That does not say must, and WP:NOTBUREAU is the overriding policy. If there is consensus on the community that the project has become a net negative sink for the community and deletion is best, then it can simply be done. If consensus is that it's a problem, but the project should be made inactive without posts allowed (essentially perma page protection), that too can be done. This would be the sixth MFD though. It could be worth a shot, but the history means the remaining choices would be valid.
2. Community imposed discretionary sanctions on ARS participants. As mentioned above, the community could hand this to admins to impose specific editing restrictions, more easily enforce blocks, bans, etc. like we do in other areas where people are expected to be on better behavior rather than doubling down. We could also just directly authorize a narrow editing restriction here that participants of the project must not !vote at AfDs, etc. There's been some discussion on that already, so someone better versed in that than me is free to directly propose a broad vs. narrow sanction in a new section that could bring this ANI to a natural close.
3. ArbCom. They can either impose discretionary sanctions themselves, propose specific remedies, or both. Considering MFD has been tried multiple times, and dealing with problematic projects is not something the community can easily do, this would be a valid time for ArbCom to take it up. Someone could try MFD one more time independently of all this, but if someone proposes a community authorized sanction and it fails at this ANI, then ArbCom would be the only choice left.

That's enough text from me, but this section does bring up the point that we're practically at the point the discretionary sanctions are the only way to handle it unless the MfD route bears some fruit after a sixth nom. KoA (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions helps with volume. There is no volume problem here, there's just no consensus of what solution to go for, and perhaps not even consensus that there's a problem. Someone needs to clearly lay out the problem from the massive wall of text above, and from there a solution can be devised. It could be that there is no problem here, it could be that the project is fundamentally flawed and needs to be disbanded, or it could be that certain participants are the problem and require individual sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions helps with volume. There is no volume problem here the recurrent issues at AFDs say otherwise, especially with the under the radar sniping, etc. (though often not really under the radar honestly), canvassing, etc. At this point though, no one should really be arguing there isn't consensus there are serious problems within the group. That's well documented already. The issue is what remedy is needed or really feasible at this point. As already described above, it's not an either or issue. There are issues with the group as a whole and issues with individuals within. Neither can be ignored at this point. KoA (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:The problem the OP raised, is a problem that has diverse points of views that sometimes are conflicting with others point of view of the problem, and that is the main problem. One person may view the problem as specific users are only causing the problem, while another person may view the problem as systemic in the AfD noticeboard itself. The only people known to be able to fix and rectify problems like these are ArbCom. However, as it was stated at multiple points in the wall of text above, this problem had been found multiple times in the past and were fixed. Nevertheless, it seems the problem just keeps coming back. Thus the only fix as I stated in the begining of this sub-section, is for ArbCom members to be the final ones to give the decisions on discussions on AfD and ARS, and also to be the ones to carry out the task decided by that final decision. This makes it unlikely for the problem to come back up again. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We need sanctions against at least one member of the project who is disrupting deletions in a WP:POINTy way, and ArbCom is the way to do it. I don't think the community at AN(I) is able to review the evidence of disruption, plus ArbCom's evidence page is a better place to present said evidence. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well ... look. We are now seeing proposals to tban the most egregious ARS offenders from the deletion process. And that's not only the right thing to do, it's the only method of producing concrete improvements to the situation. Because whatever some of us think about ARS -- and trust me, I think no better of them than the most militant of you do -- "banning" the group is not only the wrong thing to do, it's a futile thing to do.

In the first instance, to remove ARS is to tacitly claim that every single member of it is disruptive and acting in bad faith. No one has proven anything of the sort, and that's a tough charge to sustain. I would want to see some vast evidence for it.

In the second instance, as others have said, it just won't work. The group can go underground or off-wiki, and no one could do a thing about that. Or they can simply pop up again with a shiny new acronym, and no one could do a thing about that either. Some ARS members are talking about a witchhunt. The best way to scotch that charge is not to have one. Ravenswing 21:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This thread is more than long enough without pointless side conversations. --JBL (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
COMMENT: On what basis do editors believe that ARS is a WikiProject? William Harris (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC) They do call themselves the very first line on their front page. Welcome to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). It differs from most in that proper Wikiprojects are dedicated to improving articles in one subject area, and the ARS are neither focused on a precise subject nor on article improvement: a dedication to "keepkeepkeepkeepkeep" at all costs isn't about improvement. Reyk YO! 08:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Despite how they might badge and categorise themselves, they do not appear to be listed. William Harris (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC) A WikiProject is, really, just a group of editors with a certain shared purpose (usually the development of articles relating to a certain subject matter, but not necessarily). Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation is a WikiProject, as such. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC) @William Harris: Just asking, is that a valid source to find a list of WikiProjects? The webpage does not seem to be from the Wikipedia domain name. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject#Finding a project, the Bambot option. Just because a page in mainspace is tagged with the category "WikiProject" does not make it a WikiProject - I can do that on my User page. William Harris (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Whether or not a bot picked up the project, they most definitely are one. Check the manual list. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) It's also listed on the automatic list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/All. Levivich 19:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Those two are listings are based on the category tag "WikiProject" - I can place that on my User page and have it included on those lists as well. William Harris (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Example of how it should be done

Seed-counting machine was nominated for deletion, and marked for help at the Rescue Squadron by Andrew. I, Lightburst, and 7&6=thirteen went and helped him work on it. The article's nominator, Platonk, also did some work on it. Discussions in the AFD happened on how to make improvements, no one just showing up to spam delete because of its condition at the time. The nominator then withdrew the nomination praising the "wonderful effort and a great result" of the work done on the article in the past 24 hours. I wish I had a list of how many times we've done things like this, but alas, never thought to make one. For years now this has happened. If anyone sees other examples of this, please post them here. Dream Focus 20:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "How it should be done" versus "how it's often actually done" is kind of the problem here, and how that balances in terms of disrupting the community. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that examples from after this ANI and the scrutiny started are completely irrelevant. My guess is that it will be either crickets when it comes to examples from before the ANI, or if they do materialize, they will be extremely cherry picked and completely miss-characterized. Also it's a little weird that you want examples of "how it should be done" when no one from ARS thinks there's an issue with it in the first place. Including you. If that's the case wouldn't every example be of "how it should be done"? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• As has been said repeatedly, it all depends on whoever shows up. If you have an opinion about an article, go and say something policy-based. If those who are unhappy do not even bother to appear, I do not see how they can complain about the consensus of the editors who do.

And if you see bad articles and think they won't be deleted, try to improve them. Until you've tried, how can you be certain that they're bad? The strongest arguement for deletion , is that "I tried to fix it by looking at the appropriate sources and rewriting the pifle, and I found it couldn't be done." Of course, you may encounter someone who tried harder. Either way, you'll learn how to improve articles. The people I've learned from here have been my opponents. -- DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)``

And what you're bringing up as being said repeatedly is woefully inappropriate. When editors or a group are disruptive and a timesink for the community, editors are not told to spend even more time holding them at bay while trying to deal with bludgeoning, canvassing, or battleground behavior. That is what sanctions are for so the community doesn't have to constantly show up for repeated disruption.

The whole point of this ANI is that community processes are being disrupted, and to instead paint a caricature of unhappy people not bothering to appear at AfDs is pretty insulting to those that have tried to deal with this problem. KoA (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To which I'd add: while it's generally true that AFDs are decided by whoever shows up, if the problem is a group of editors showing up and disrupting the AFDs (e.g., non-policy-based arguments, poor sources, incivility, bludgeoning), one way to solve that problem is to have more editors show up and make policy-based arguments, as DGG suggests. This increases the amount of editor time required per AFD. Another way to solve the problem is to remove the disruption in the first place, which decreases the amount of editor time required per AFD. I think the latter is better. Levivich 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, its like editors who take an article that ended in Keep, and renominated it for deletion less than a day after the previous AFD closed. [20] Lot of time wasted because of things like that. Dream Focus 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I wrote this somewhere else in the wall of text, but I am going to be concise here referencing it again. There was an AfD discussion that ended up in keep, even though the article was backed by very poor sources. These sources were YouTube videos made by the subject of the article, a newspaper article from a website where users are able to make article by making an account, and a gaming news blog website. What you are saying is that all decisions at AfD should be full and final and no one should put up a very poorly sourced article again in AfD relatively soon. What I just described is similar to the problems which are being described here. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Note this also an example of an article nominated for deletion 38 minutes after it was created [21] then massively expanded and improved upon by members of the Article Rescue Squadron[22]. The original nominator withdrew their nomination based on the improvements made. The article was then mentioned on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 March 2020 Dream Focus 23:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination), and Template:Did you know nominations/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, are good examples of how ARS is used to push WP:PROMO. There are others like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown Bagelry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Trevena (lawyer). But those are old now. Levivich 23:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes AfD is a perfect example of why ARS and it's members are problematic and should be dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This comment is classic red herring fallacy. ARS isn't at ANI for when it has done good, but the problems it is causing. KoA (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• My main problem here is that ARS seems immune to admitting where they were wrong about something, and deciding to not repeat it again. Most if not all ARS members have been here for years and should know better than using Find-A-Grave or blogs as sources (as one example) or should also be sure to check that the source they list (and page numbers) actually discusses the topic at hand. Even if it only happens to 1/3 of the articles they rescue, they should know better. And it seems all we're met with is WP:IDHT. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The OP's claim and complaint was that the ARS is all about canvassing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts is described above as the "perfect example". But notice that, even though there were back-to-back AfDs, that I didn't attend either of them. When are the complainers going to admit that they were wrong about something?

  What's actually going on is that there is a fairly small pool of AfDs – about 100/day – and a similar small pool of editors who regularly attend them. Naturally, you often see the same editors again and again. For example, yesterday I took my wife to the hospital for a test. The nurse exclaimed that they had the same birthday but this is a very common coincidence. See the birthday paradox.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I said its a perfect example of why ARS and its members are an issue. A basic reading through this ANI complaint makes it clear that canvasing isn't the only problem. Or am I wrong about that? On the "you often see the same editors again and again" thing, no you don't. Even if you did though, there's a big difference between your wife and the nurse being the same room randomly and having same birthday, versus say them being in the same place with the same birthdate because you put an add on Craiglist inviting everyone with the same birthdate as her to her birthday party. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one of those scenarios is relevant to the voting habits of ARS members and which isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that canvassing is a part of the issue but I don't think deleting the forum where canvassing takes place is ultimately going to be very effective: I'm quite sure that LB is capable of checking in on Andrew's contributions or scanning the list of recent AfDs or whatever, and so are the rest of them. In my opinion, it would probably be more effective to restrict the most problematic 1 or 2 ARS members (most aggressive canvasser, but more most NPA violations / highest hostility levels) from deletion entirely (via either a TBan or a block). I mean, there's no reason it has to be either-or instead of both-and, but it would be nice not to let the other (more?) serious issue go untreated. --JBL (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. As I said before, I don't consider canvassing to be an issue here, but " NPA violations / highest hostility levels" are a major problem. Everyone and their dog should be allowed to participate in AfDs - as long as their comments are constructive, not WP:BATTLEGROUND-encouraging, toxic and/or pure noise (keep because googlehits, etc.). I'll also add that IMHO it's just a tiny number of editors who have fallen to those abusive behaviors, and it is sad to see them dragging this otherwise noble project down and giving it a bad name. Cleaning up the house is in everyone's best interest here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Frankly, there was never anything "noble" about ARS. It was created back in the "inclusionists vs deletionists" days, when people hated each other based on the (perceived) views of what belonged on the Wiki. ARS was very much in the extreme inclusionist camp from the start, arguing to keep everything added to the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  "when people hated each other based on the (perceived) views of what belonged on the Wiki", after reading the massive wall of text in this discussion, I don't think that has changed at all, except for the fact that ARS appears to have fewer supporters from the wider community in the present. Haleth (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or just people see a massive wall of text and ignore it. Or that the supporters got mad with all the stuff they liked getting deleted over the years, and just edit wikia/fandom now. Most of those complaining are familiar names seen arguing with us in AFDs far too often over the years. Dream Focus 20:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: Spot on! There are many examples of Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Unblockables#What_to_expect, Wikipedia:Fan_analysis, and Wikipedia:Political_dispute, occurring in AfD articles, or the article talk pages. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with people contributing fan articles that don't belong here to other projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• When the ARS are working constructively they can be a real force for good, but when certain members decide not be be constructive (and I do not count all four in this), they can display WP:NOTHERE tendencies. Examples have been shown above of them cite bombing articles with utterly junk “sources” then edit warring them back in when attempts are made to remove them. Or refusing to actually discuss said “sources” when attempts are made to, instead giving utterly inane responses like I disagree with your assessment and I've already expressed my opinion. Perhaps a 1RR restriction on some of the member’s edits in articles under discussion would fix this, forcing them to then engage in constructive discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

  An article 1RR would not address the important problems, which have to do with behavior in discussions. --JBL (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  It could be extended to the AfD discussion, if a clearly rubbish source is provided as “proof” of notability (or upon verification it is found to be misattributed), another can remove it and discussion could occur on the AfD TP. Cavalryman (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

  Cavalryman, This is why I think we need ArbCom page where we can present evidence against particular users. I, for one, haven't seen much junk refs added to an article, only junk refs (mostly offtopic or SICOV-failing google hits) added to the AfD, coupled with an attitude that's dismissive/condescending at best aimed towards the nominator, as well as occasional mass deprodding with no evidence that the deprodded read the prod summary or did any BEFORE on their own (although I'll note that this is not required, so from the strict technical sense, mass deproddings by the so-called "PROD patrol" are fine, even if a "PROD patroller" is a clear inclusionist indiscriminately deprodding anything in sight). Add to this occasion removals of notability and other maintenance templates with no edit summary either... For this, 1RR is not relevant, what is needed is some sort of topic ban. Again, it is likely we are talking here about behavior of different ARS users, which has different levels of severity and requires different sanctions (and IMHO neither of those translates into the clear need to deprecaite ARS itself). Hence, my strong belief that ArbCom is needed, to review behavior of various users. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  We wouldn't need an Arbcom page at this stage. We'd need an AN/I about each problem user, with diffs. If AN/I can't resolve the problems, then Arbcom might be a possibility.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall The problem is that in the past, the user I am concerned with was subject to several AN(I) discussions that IIRC were mostly inclusive, maybe with one ending with a warning for civility at best (I'd have to double check). While I could try to make the case that their behavior has kept on deteriorating into more conflict-generating, IMHO that behavior was already bad enough in the past - but AN(I) did little to put a dent in it. And now that we may want to review behavior of several more editors, plus whether the entire ARS project is not violatating some policies, I think this is big enough we need ArbCom's touch as the matter is too complex for AN(I). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus, apologies for my late response, I have been enjoying freedoms gained after the world’s longest covid lockdown. The discussion has obviously moved beyond this, but as indicated above [23] I think ARBCOM is a good idea. Further, if I were in the position of the ARS I would be seeking it, as surely they believe they will be vindicated by the process. Cavalryman (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC).

  @S Marshall I have started such a section below for the user I find most problematic. Let's see if this solves anything. At least now that I wrote this up, my future if-needed ArbCom evidence is mostly ready to copypaste... :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  So we are clear if an article's AFD is actually posted at WP:ARS list, the notice that it was posted is routinely placed on the discussion. It is in ALL of the discussions in which I participate. I always double check that. If it is missing, I add it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is proving useful, I see

Proposals to topic-ban certain editors from certain areas, mainly because they are part of a canvassing team voting en masse on AfDs, is promptly voted on en masse by said editors and their ARS fellow travellers. If you actually want to do anything about this problem, ArbCom is the only venue, for that exact reason. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, I say give it more than a day as I have faith in our colleagues' abilities to close discussions. (And maybe we could merge these subsections into one discussion subsection?) Levivich 19:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• And why can't the person who closes this discussion just weigh the arguments and make a decision. If there's no consensus, that's when arbcom should enter the discussion IMO, and not before. In general, I think it just adds noise to these noticeboard threads when people throw their hands up part-way in, when proposals are still being developed, splintering the discussion to include "go to arbcom" as a viable outcome. "Go to arbcom" shouldn't be an outcome at ANI; it should be what happens when everyone tries their hardest to resolve things at ANI and fails. If a bunch of people decide it's not even worth it to try, that more or less ensures that ANI will fail. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  And why can't the person who closes this discussion just weigh the arguments and make a decision. WP:BLUDGEON or WP:TE illustrate why it's not always so simple. In all honesty though, that's likely backfiring here and instead creating an ample WP:ROPE situation they are putting themselves into. The issue is how much effort it takes for the community to sort through all that at AfD or here, which is where I can see Black Kite's frustration coming from. KoA (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Yes, it has produced en masse voting by said editors; but after 23 hours they're outnumbered roughly 2-to-1 in the section above concerning Lightburst. Perhaps you should add your voice there, as well. --JBL (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've done so. I'm still unconvinced that this is the best way to approach it, however. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree. This very much looks like something for ArbCom. I doubt any admin will even want to close this monster of a discussion. I certainly won't be reading the whole damn thing. Arbcom cases have word limits to stop this sort of insanely long debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

      From recent experience, I tried to file an Arbcom case to shortcut the traffic on ANI. The result was there was a general consensus that the community should be given the opportunity to let these threads pan out, no matter how long and tedious they get, and only defer to Arbcom if nobody can agree on closing anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of the editors who are suggesting this thread should be closed because it's unwieldy are also adding new subsections to this thread. Levivich 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Aye. Well, let's see where it goes, and if we end up in the usual "meh" situation, ArbCom is still an option. I've added my comments to the subsections, and those paying full attention will not that they're not all the same, either. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've skimmed most of the discussion and would be willing to close it. I'd want to give it more time since the two most recent proposals were recent, so I can probably close everything on Wednesday assuming no one proposes anything new or substantial. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In a couple days you shouldn't have to worry about it, as the mass and density of discussion will likely cause it to implode and form a singularity. If we're lucky, it may take all of ANI with it when it goes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

      I fear we have crossed the Godwin horizon [24] and observers may be affected. Levivich 04:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

    • That cite sounds like something Andrew would say at ARS. Dronebogus (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Best solution of all. Close this, and open a discussion about this at ArbCom noticeboard.

It seems that this discussion about something serious is not getting anywhere on ANI. Usually when something serious is going nowhere on ANI, it is closed and the problem is brought up to ArbCom (one-level above ANI). Seriously, I do not think this discussion on ANI is going to get anywhere due to conflict of interest, as many of those with power at AfD and ARS usually are Admins. It's like we here at ANI are asking Admins to solve problems with Admins. In my opinion, even if there are Admins at ArbCom, they usually are not the ones who will have a conflict of interest. Therefore, it would be wise to close this thread, and inform ArbCom to make a discussion on their noticeboard, about the issue. That or, just move this entire Wall-o'-Monster to ArbCom. I am more keen on the first one. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with your assessment. What happens at ANI is we get a WP:CONLIMITED and many ivotes are colored by old grievances and perceived slights - evidenced by the discussion and diffs from two years ago etc. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but ANI is for stopping an immediate disruption, and ARB is for persistent disruption. For my part I will stop all editing on the project while this is debated or arbitrated. Lightburst (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• The problem as I see it is that AfD is an adversial process which, by its nature, tends to generate conflict rather than collaboration. It has always been this way and that's why we have a long-standing article about deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. I was looking at that recently and found an interesting paper based on a study of about 2 million AfDs from 2005 to 2018. You can read it for yourself but what stuck out for me were the following points:
  1. "AfD participants cluster in two major groups, colloquially referred to as the ‘inclusionists’ ... and the ‘deletionists’ ..., which suggest the presence of substantial social bias in the AfD process overall."
  2. "the administrators who close the discussions do have an effect on the final outcome."
  3. " there are strongly polarized groups in the AfD community, and that the evolution of group structure in different cohorts of editors reflects different historical periods"
  4. "In particular, we find that one group (strong deletionists) is much less susceptible to change than others."
  5. "the proportion of Delete to Keep votes is roughly 68%, while for outcomes it is 77%. This suggests that delete votes are more decisive."
  6. "4 main groups, roughly corresponding to the following classes of users: a) strong deletionists, b) moderate deletionists, c) moderate inclusionists and d) strong inclusionists."
  7. "Editors who joined before 2007 tend to overwhelmingly belong to the more central parts of the network. These earlier cohorts are not only formed by more experienced and more active editors, but they are also the largest"
  8. "Editors involved in AfD discussions adapt to a particular voting tendency early during their tenure in the AfD process. This is reminiscent of results from prior work, that found that highly active contributors are active from a very early stage. In the context of AfD discussions, this finding could potentially suggest the presence of social learning mechanisms, for example due to imitation. Also, strong deletionists seem more resistant to changing their opinions compared to other groups. More generally, an interesting open question is to determine which stable user characteristics in peer production systems are due to learning phenomena or to the presence of inherent individual traits."

So far as this discussion is concerned, the relevant point is that editors seem to form clusters on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. And, of course, the strong inclusionists won't tend to get along with the strong deletionists. That's all we're seeing here – a natural antagonism which is generated by the process. It's a structural, systematic issue.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you citing a quality source, and providing quotatiosn - if only you could do this at AfDs. Regardless, a structural, systemic issuse needs to be addressed by the community. And sometimes the solution is to change policies (like, let's say, requiring deprods to have informative edit summaries) and/or force editors who commonly disregard some policcies (like CIV, AGF, etc.) to follow them, through various sanctions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looking over the two proposals ArbCom might be the answer for 7&6=thirteen, but there seems to be a clear consensus to topic ban Lightburst. Either way I don't see why both proposals can't play out first though. There isn't any evidence that it's something ANI is completely unable to deal with. I'm sure the closer will consider the COIs with ARS members. As well as taking other relevant factors into account. If not, then IMO that's when ArbCom would be appropriate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Adamant1: Right, that sounds legit. Cancel the opposition. I am sure you know that a good closer will weigh the arguments and not just head count. It might also be a conflict of interest for those who support my ouster who are still smarting over something from years ago. All that matters at ANI is whether there is an immediate disruption and can it be corrected. The choice should be for the least possible non punitive means of stopping the disruption. Not cancelling people without a warning. Here is an example of a PA against me at AfD an admin had to remove it because the user would not allow me to strike it. Then he added a second PA. Nobody is warning them or threatening to tban them even though they bludgeoned multiple AfDs. i think we are all on the same side, and working toward the same goal. I have owned my behavior, and I think we all should. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    And if you can believe it, he restored the PA. Remember it is not a PA if it insults an ARS member Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Doubling (tripling?) down on your persecution complex isn’t helping your case. Dronebogus (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    For the record, his account isn't very accurate. The so-called 'personal attack' was me asking him not to be willfully ignorant after he distorted a statement of mine. The admin only deleted the conversation after I launched the second so-called 'personal attack', when I asked him to stop 'acting like an immature child' after he had repeatedly edited my own comment with my own signature. Sure, that second comment may have been an overreaction on my part, but your conduct was hardly exemplary either. Avilich (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Avilich: I had already forgot about it until I saw your name in here today. I was shocked to see you put it back in there today. I see the AfD closed and sadly is now the permanent record. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Looks like my effort was called out by the closer. I found quite a few sources very quickly. I see it even changed someone's mind in there. AfD works like that. Lightburst (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Lightburst: I went out of my way to say that the closing admin should consider other factors because I am aware that some users who are involved in this might have long-standing problems with you that might be affecting their judgement. Although, that would make sense considering how many people you've gotten into it with. I don't see that the same way as the clear bandwagoning going on by ARS members around each other though, even in crystal clear cases where the behavior was erroneous. Which IMO should be treated by the closer no differently then a nonsensical, BATTLEGROUNDish AfD vote. Neither one is "canceling" anyone. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly support this, as the current discussion was nearly unreadable a full week ago, and has now progressed into total chaos. The parties here are not remotely neutral -- sure, there is a bloc of editors who tend to vote together on AfDs, who are all agreeing here about how the ARS is fine. But there is also a bloc of editors who tend to vote together on AfDs, who are all agreeing here about how the ARS is a cancer upon the project. This is not a situation that's going to improve by two armies of editors ganging up to defend themselves and balloon out AN/I to four megabytes calling the other groups "arseholes" for another (day? week? month? who knows). jp×g 10:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your being massively hyperbolic. No one has called anyone an "arsehole" in this discussion. You and Lightburst are literally the only people who have used the term. It's complete nonsense to say that only people who can have an opinion about this are people who haven't participated in deletion discussions. Realistically, no one is going to know enough about this to have an educated, experienced opinion except for other users who have participated in deletion discussions. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Search for it. It has been used as an insult in a different section of this long ongoing discussion as an insult to members of the ARS, and has been used previously elsewhere as well. Dream Focus 10:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The word that has been freely used as an insult here is "arse". There's an WP:ENGVAR issue with this as it's more common in British English than American. Per the OED it means, "A person's buttocks; the bottom, the backside. Also: the anus; the rectum. ... A stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person; a fool." So, this is clearly a personal attack. The fact that this insult has been permitted to stand tells us all we need to know about WP:ANI and the quality of this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    I did search for it. JPxG claimed "groups" where being called "arseholes." Someone said "Project Arsehole" one time at the start of the thread and the same user said "Arse's" twice later. That's all I could find outside of the usage by JPxG and Lightburst in response to it. No one aside from the single user has said it though. So no "groups" are being called "arseholes" and it's not "freely" being used as Andrew is claiming. In the meantime how much hemming and hawing have you and other ARS members done about cherry picking? Yet you've all made this much hay out of a single comment made at the start of the discussion to try and discredit the whole thing and portray yourselves as the victims. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    You also have to search for just arse. Its just Roxy the Dog doing this here as well as in past AFDs such as [25] Dream Focus 10:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Hhmmm, yeah that instance didn't come up when I searched for it. Still though, it's only one user and it isn't even that much of an insult since your project literally sounds like arse when it's abbreviated. "arseholes" shouldn't be said either way though, it's just juvenile, but I can see where someone might spell it "arse" because that's how it sounds. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think it's right to minimize this. Repeatedly calling ARS members "arseholes" is a level of incivility that does constitute disruptive behaviour. Luckily this is AN/I so we can hope that a sysop has spotted this and will provide the appropriate support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Adamant1, S Marshall, and Dream Focus: I linked to the ARShole moniker in the thread about me. I hesitate to bring up other folks as they will be pinged over to show their open hostility. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Perhaps if you all weren't so completely transparent in your bloc behavior (especially repeated defenses of straightforward civility violations), people would take you more seriously when you whine about being attacked. Or, you know, you could do what I did and put together a clear, actionable complaint. --JBL (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - ArbCom is not a noticeboard for discussions. The originator of this subtopic probably means to request that the ArbCom open a full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with requesting a full case. The volume of the evidence that has been entered is more appropriate to the quasi-judicial proceeding of the ArbCom than to a community decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: In case you were wondering: as of 11:55am central time, this thread is 52,404 words 388,321 characters. Contrast with one of my favorite novels: Of Mice and Men which only has 30,000 words. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any point to posting this to the arbcom noticeboard. A full case would be a better route. The committee uses the noticeboard as... a noticeboard. Cases are where things actually get done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agree I don't think community input will clear things up here from what I see. It would take me hours to actually read through everything in this discussion and same goes for any other editor trying to see what's going on and pitch in. Thus, this either should go to higher ups if stronger action is taken or consider ways of wrapping it up. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There’s definitely a consensus to topic-ban Andrew though. Dronebogus (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Dronebogus yes, and I agree with that consensus. I just think that maybe the tban proposals should be spun off to their own threads so they dont bulk up here if no clear consensus, or closed if clear consensus. It's much harder to close discussions if they're one in 8 subthreads than if they're stand-alone. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I just found out about this discussion (and am glad that I don't look at ANI more frequently than I do). It does seem to me that, once there has been enough additional time for this ANI discussion to reach an astronomical length without consensus, thereby demonstrating the community's difficulties in resolving it, that an ArbCom case with all four of the principal ARS members as named parties will be the best way to go. It really requires taking some time to look at evidence, and decide which evidence is solid and which is not. (I think that decisions here about which of the four are more disruptive are being made too quickly.) I also want to say that, some time ago, I spent a lot of effort trying to convince ARS to use Template:Rescue list at every XfD they list, and to adopt the wording of their Code of Conduct as it exists now. And the amount of pushback I got was... unpleasant. It was the verbal equivalent of being spat at. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  You went to a Wikiproject you have never had anything to do with, other than insulting it in many places, to edit war in changes you wanted to our code of conduct. [26] You then told others on a talk page what you had done, with a follow up post soon after that read: "I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this." [27]. So that's basically canvassing. You had enough people you knew hated the ARS to go over and edit war with the regular members to get something in, that was then totally ignored. If you remember where the long conversation/argument about this was at, please post a link. The edit history I linked to should show enough of what really happened. You finally gave up after a time and removed the nonsense you wanted added in, that stated that unlike other Wikiprojects, we should have to tell people we saw it listed on the Rescue list. Dream Focus 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for providing me with up-to-date evidence of your battleground conduct. And here I thought I would have to give ArbCom evidence only from some years back. But now, I have this diff. Of course, your description is inaccurate. But I'll see you at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, anyone disagreeing with you is doing battleground conduct. The record clearly shows the edit warring you did, gathering up like minded editors to help you win your "battle" against a Wikiproject you don't like. If it goes to ArbCom they'll read through the entire mess and see that. Dream Focus 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  our code of conduct (emphasis added) – Our code of conduct. Wow. Everything you need to know about ARS is in this one diff to their "code of conduct": [28]. This little group is sounding more and more like WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People all the time. EEng 03:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  For those playing along at home, here is the edit history of the conduct template: [29], and here is the accompanying discussion: [30]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have time to read through the discussion at this point, but is there a particular reason that ARS is against using Template:Rescue list at every XfD they list? I had suggested it a couple of times myself as one of severally good faithed compromises ARS could have taken when this whole thing started and the suggestions appear to have been mostly ignored. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I always use it. Some don't, I don't know why. What he tried to edit war in was the requirement that every single person who went there told people they saw it on the Rescue list. Two totally different things here. Dream Focus 02:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hhhmmm, OK. I know it's different, but I thought I'd ask. requiring that every single person who went there told people they saw it on the Rescue list is kind of ridiculous. There should at least be a basic requirement that AfDs that get posted to ARS are notified of it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's only "different" if you believe what you are being told. This is a good reason why there needs to be the more controlled process of an ArbCom case. But to answer your original question, currently the ARS people do a middling-good job of using the notification template, but when I had those discussions with them, nobody was using it, and there was immense pushback against using it, on the grounds that no one should tell them what to do and they were doing everything just right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Also worth considering: WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd just like to say that, for the moment, "move it ARBCOM" seems pointless considering the progress of the discussions of topic bans. And it would undoubtedly benefit those who are seeing more support for topic bans against them by delaying the issue. ARBCOM is supposed to resolve intractable disputes, not prolong resolution of issues where the community is taking action. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  This was started over a week ago. It is massively long and rambling. It will never end. We will go down in history as the longest pointless conversation ever long before it ends. Dream Focus 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  It seems like were are moving towards a topic ban or two. It is somewhat convenient for the ARS crew to advocate ending the discussion now. I suppose they would recommend the Germans tell the Allies on May 7, 1945 "Ah this fighting is all pointless and is leading nowhere, why not call it a draw?" -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Indy Beetle, the discussion has spawned several proposals which are approaching consensus even if the main thread is too chaotic to close properly. A lot of editors have a lot of things to say and that's not a bad thing. If the length is causing problems, would it help to move the tban proposals to their own sections and close them separately? –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Andrew's proposal could almost be snow closed and clasped as an indef ban at this point. That would save a lot of space. Looking the over "votes" it's like 25 support and 4 or 5 oppose. Depending on how much weight Andrew and a few other ARS members "votes" are given it's probably less then that for the oppose side. So I don't see the outcome not being an indef ban unless something drastic happens between now and Wednesday when it sounds like the whole thing will be dealt with. I don't see why other ARS members wouldn't support that if they think this is to long and rambling ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Close Andrew’s case as indef ban from all deletion-related stuff per above. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Not going to lie, just the sheer volume of text the ARS editors are adding to the thread almost feels like WP:BLUDGEON. I'm glad consensus is still somewhat clear but damn have they made it so much more tiring to get there. In any case, I suggest next time something like this happens that the tban proposals get spun off to separate ANI threads while the main discussion remains about what to do with ARS as a whole. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I, too, can see some emerging consensus, there are problems with depending on this ANI discussion and excluding the option of an ArbCom case. Of course, I get it, that editors are eager to have some resolution sooner rather than later. But I'm not seeing a careful examination here of what has been going on. Just look a few lines above at DreamFocus' conduct, and then consider how the discussion here, so far, has not centered on that editor. In my own interactions back then, DreamFocus was just as problematic as you see here, whereas Andrew D. was actually pretty cooperative. But from the rushed (and yet interminable) judgment here, it looks like the community could get it backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Someone can also create a proposal for DreamFocus if need be. I probably wouldn't support it myself, unless the evidence was particularly strong and I doubt it will be since DF seems to be on the lower end of problematic ARS people, but it's not like that isn't an option. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Already done, and that's a good illustration of why I believe that an overly-long and overly-chaotic ANI thread will not achieve what ArbCom could. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

        Oh, I missed it because I hadn't gotten that far down in my reading of the latest comments yet. Which can happen even with less chaotic and long ANI threads. That aside, I think there's a benefit in doing it this way because it keeps everything together as a single coherent topic and makes it easier to sus out particular voting patterns if any exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Not a serious proposal

For years, the ARS has cried out against the deletionist boogeyman. I say we make that fantasy a reality and start the ARTICLE DESTRUCTION UNIT and just blatantly canvass delete votes on a big list. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Oh DO keep up, Beebs! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC) WP:LOC confirms the existence of the deletionist cabal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Apparently I was aware of it 12 years ago [31]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) The sad thing is that, 12 years on "But on the other hand, it's hardly our fault if it's unencyclopedic, fancrufty bollocks that stands as much chance of being a serious article as Boris Johnson is of being a credible politician." (though recently changed to "haircut") hasn't dated as a comparison. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "Destruction" is the more engaging action word. Draws more likes, thumbs, subscribes. "Delete" seems so... keyboard-constrained. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) I'm looking for editors interested in joining a cabal of people who unaccountably show up at AfDs to !vote neutral? Anyone in? Or not, I'm not too fussed either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC) I have no strong feelings, one way or the other.ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC) With comments like this and almost 2,000 edits in 18 days, you're living up to your username. Levivich 23:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Support ban on Beeblebrox from the topic of making suggestions - If this proposal passes, this will be in your bed tonight, closer. Darkknight2149 00:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) All these random side threads really aren't helpful. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A Discussion on helping avoid discussions as inordinately long and disorganized as this one

• Hi! I recently started a thread on the Village pump (policy) to see if we can as a community find ways to avoid creating the massive long wall of text this whole thing is, identify how to move discussions along when they start becoming too complex for a single thread, or other issues y'all might be identifying with this thread. Rather than complain here about how long, messy, unreadable, and battlegrounded this has sort of become, I recommend y'all to go there and propose solutions rather than just adding more and more text here that admins will have to pour through when resolving this. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ARS Proposal #1: A concrete proposal - Topic-Ban User:Lightburst

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The central concern of the discussion was whether Lightburst's participation at AFD was disruptive and if that disruption was sufficient to justify a ban from deletion discussions. The consensus was yes, and editors justified this position in two ways: (1) concerns about conduct and (2) concerns about policy competence.

Editors concerned with conduct took issue with a battleground mentality, inappropriate canvassing, and civility in general. The initial proposal cites a number of diffs that allege incivility in particular, and while editors did not view those specific diffs as particularly problematic, many argued that the pattern of behavior as a whole creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment at deletion discussions. Other editors argue that the cited incidents don't go beyond the typical zealous advocacy typical in our discussions, though some come to support a topic ban for competence reasons. While most editors at times have been too pointed in their arguments, the main argument made by supporters (and in the thread generally) is that the scale is unusually large and disproportionatly degrading the topic area.

The other argument forwarded in support of a topic ban is best summarized as a lack of policy competence. Regardless of conduct, editors took issue with the sometimes frivalous arguments Lightburst made in deletion discussions. Various diffs were provided of misapplications of policy, arguments contradicting core policies, or outright unhelpful comments. These comments, the argument goes, are disruptive and unhelpful in building consensus. Regardless of whether they were made in good faith, the disruption caused still justifies sanctions for the sake of the project (see WP:CIR). Some editors were uncomfortable with this idea as it comes close to topic banning editors for having a different opinion (which ultimately undermines the consensus process). This is a serious concern, but as I understand the argument, the concern here is not that Lightburst's oppinions happen to contradict policy but that they are balderdash (see chewbacca defense).

Numerically, a substantial majority favored a topic ban. There was sizeable opposition largely predicated on the weakness of the evidence in the proposal, but most editors rejected that argument. However editors on both sides suggested that, given the generally low-level civility issues, a time-limited topic ban would be more proportionate than an indefinite ban. I tend to agree. I'm not sure there's a consensus if we take out the editors supporting a time-limimted ban so there needs to be a time frame between nothing and forever. A ban of about 3 months was explicitly brought up and had some limited support, but given the bulk of discussion was in support of an indefinite ban, editors seem to think these are problems that will take longer to resolve than a couple months. Given the discussion and a bit of discretion, I think a ban of no less than 3 months and no more than 6 months is consistent with the consensus here. For clarity, that means the ban is for 6 months, but may be appealed after 3 months. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Several people above have suggested that the problem with ARS is best addressed by dealing with the ARS members as individuals. On that principle, I would like to make the following proposal: that Lightburst be indefinitely topic-banned from participating in deletion discussions and DRVs. The thesis here is simple: Lightburst is a high-volume contributor at AfD and related venues. Setting aside the quality of their substantive contributions, Lightburst is chronically abusive and uncivil towards other participants, creating a poisonous atmosphere via their frequent personalized attacks on nominators and others. For example, in the week from October 17 to October 24 (just before this ANI thread was opened), I find the following four comments: [32] [33] [34] [35]. (In the last, one should read the link WP:SKCRIT to understand what is objectionable.) Any one of these might be excusable in isolation, but the rate and volume (one personalized attack every 2 days) should not be acceptable; yet it is easy to confirm (by repeating my experiment in other time-periods) that this is a longstanding pattern of behavior. The proposed topic ban is narrowly tailored to deal with the locus of disruption, and I believe it would go a significant way to improving the overall tenor of AfD. --JBL (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Why is [36] a problem? Are you mad his edit summary is (Star Trek beats Star Wars)? How exactly are all of these personal attacks? Can you find some better examples to make your case or is this it? Dream Focus 01:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  What's not a personal attack about "When a nominator has to type a 1000 word dissertation to obfuscate a deletion rationale"? The nomination rational by Mztourist was only like 400 words and seemed pretty reasonably thought out to me. I can guarantee if it was shorter that one of you would have bitched about how Mztourist didn't really think about it or research the subject before doing the nomination. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd issue a warning for PA over this, but if this is the worst, I don't see grounds for a topic ban. If there is more diffs showing repeated PAs from a longer period, then we could discuss something, but this is why we need a proper ArbCom evidence page. ''Maybe'' there is something to worry about here, but the four diffs above are not enough to see it. On a sidenote, I am used to "much worse" PAs fro some other(s) ARS members. If this would lead to a TB, then more will need to be handed out, but I'll repeat that I don't find the diffs presented here sufficiento endorse it. Reviewing the three other diffs, this contains no valid AfD argument but is not otherwise offensive, just "noise". The other two diffs seem more or less fine given the context. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  As my statements says, this is not "the worst", it is what I found by looking through one week of their edits. Repeat the experiment yourself and you will find that this is chronic behavior (and doubtless you will find many worse examples than the ones above). --JBL (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Lightburst has been uncivil, argumentative, proffered various spurious/fringe arguments and provided dubious sources to support their position at a number of recent AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support One good example of questionable behavior is Lightburst saying "Apparently the dissenting voices must be scrubbed from the internet. Can we save the minority voices? Should we? Or must we all speak with one voice? Perhaps we can demonstrate the usefulness of WP:LISTN by organizing the dissenters?" in an Article Rescue Squad discussion from the end of 2019. I'm sure there are others. As a side note I find it semi funny that people are saying ARS isn't a canvasing platform and only cares about article improvement while it's members are trying to "organize dissenters" so their voices aren't scrubbed from the internet. In the meantime that is clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND way to treat AfDs. The fact that it's from the end of 2019 just shows that it's a chronic problem, that is unlikely to go away on it's own. I also find the example provided by JBL to be problematic. (BTW, in case anyone asks for it, I tried to link to a diff of the comment, but it wouldn't work for some reason) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the incivility, they have a history of questionable AfD !votes. Although we welcome a wide range of opinions in deletion discussions, ones that violate our policies and guidelines are never appropriate. Here are a few that I've run into recently in geography AfDs:
  • Klock's Crossing - LB argues that passing mentions in news articles [37][38] are sufficient to establish notability. This is a long-running pattern, and LB is far from the only offender, but it violates our WP:SIGCOV guideline which requires that sources "address the topic directly and in detail" and be "more than a trivial mention".
  • Akin Junction - Again presenting passing mentions as significant coverage, as well as advancing (and doubling down on) the bizarre theory that the rail junction was notable because somebody thought that a city would spring up there. Remember, WP:CRYSTALBALL is a policy.
  • Philip Linn Pioneer Cemetery - Citing WP:GEOPURP as a reason to Keep. This is entirely nonsensical since GEOPURP simply tells us which topics fall under the geography SNG, not whether or not they're notable. When this was pointed out to LB, things went downhill [39][40], with LB arguing that "We do not need sigcov based on my rationale and based on Geo". Please note that according to WP:NGEO, the only places that don't require SIGCOV are "Legally recognized, populated places"; LB is choosing not to follow that guideline.
  • Calvary Cemetery (Mt. Angel, Oregon) - Personal attack: Accused me of saying something shitty and wished me a nice day. –dlthewave ☎ 05:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Dlthewave has been pretty unforgiving since I became active on WP in 2019. I even caught a block because he kept reverting my properly attributed block quote in an article I started. I went to ElC and asked him to take a look because it was an edit war - he immediately blocked me because he said, I had reverted to my preferred version before coming to him. Then ELC called it "borderline copyvio". Welcome to the project! It is pretty difficult to start up here. Especially if you join up with the ARS - I have never seen such vitriol. Above the name calling is allowed. I even had an admin revert me when someone called me an ARShole and I removed the personal attack. I have not been on the project long despite my years, but I have contributed much to the AfDs. Regarding DLthewave I have ivoted with them 90% on GEO items. However we are on opposite sides when it comes to cemeteries - which I see as historic, permanent, man made - I called out GEO PURP as an overriding guideline stating the purpose of GEO. There is no cemetery guide. He said and I am paraphrasing: you don't know what you are talking about, go study before you participate here. Dlthewave has proposed two other GEO items in the past few days that I researched, he disagrees with me, that is how AfD works. Nothing to see here. I held no grudge for catching a block from the edit war he started, and I held no grudge from him tell me to go study the guidelines before I participate. I held no grudge against the admin who thinks it is not a PA to call me an ARShole. I held no grudge against ElC. FTR: Dlthewave had no problem with 90% of the GEO ivotes that agreed with his. If WP:CIR then we would have just a few DLthewaves participating at AfD Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Since I am hardly an inclusionist, I'll play the devi's advocate (as I do believe there are some problems with some ARS members),. The last difs violates CIVIL and mayb a PA. It should be crosed out/refactored/lead to a minor warning. The other three arguments are debatable as to whether they are good or not, policy-wise, but I don't think we should topic ban or otherwise sanction editors who occasionally make bad arguments. Now, if someone wants to show this editor repeatedly makes weak/bad arguments that go against eventual consensus/decision, we could consider this, but for that we need many more diffs, showing this is a long-standing problem the editor has been cautioned about yet disregarded the critique, plus a simple statisticsal analysis of what % of LB's votes go against the consensus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks @Piotrus: I like to think I am a work in progress - I find myself verklempt for many reasons. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD needs high standards of civility or it quickly turns into a circus. This user's behavior has fallen below those standards. However I believe 1-3 months would be sufficient in this case rather than indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose These examples are ridiculous. None of them seem to involve the ARS or canvassing which is supposed to be the issue here. And the quality of the evidence is feeble. For example, look at #4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formation (bandy) The crime here is supposed to be a vague wave to WP:SKCRIT but lots of editors make vague waves at AfD all the time. And notice that Lightburst struck the comment just 3 minutes after making it! So they seem quite capable of pulling themselves up and doing better. The other point about that discussion is that there was hardly any participation by anyone, even after relisting. If editors are driven off from AfD for making hasty or light-hearted comments then the place will become a desert and the relisting will get worse. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • They aren't light-hearted comments. Allowing users to repeatedly attack nominators and voters without consequence will actually turn AfDs into deserts. Just in a way that you'd probably be fine with. Whereas, in the meantime, getting rid of a few bad apples isn't going to do jack to AfDs except make them less of a toxic cesspool. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Example #2 about the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy is especially light-hearted, with cartoons and much joking. If someone is a "high-volume" poster then it is too easy to cherry-pick examples and try to frame them as problematic. For example, at another AfD, we see JBL striking a comment because someone complains that it is uncivil. You need evidence based on the full set of contributions, not a few isolated examples. And the examples chosen in this case do not show what is claimed for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    How come you didn't have that attitude when you voted to have me perma blocked multiple times a few months ago? There were plenty of examples of me being civil. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Adamant1 seems to be refering to the Proposal for Adamant1. In that discussion, I did not support the proposal that they be "topic banned from all deletion discussions about schools". Instead, I presented some detailed evidence about the full range of their activity, suggested a weaker sanction and did not make a formal !vote. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    You said "This shows that, before schools, they were trying to delete colleges and universities and, before that, it was hospitals. And then there are topics like Matriculation in South Africa which would generate tiresome arguments about "broadly construed". I reckon it would be better to start with all proposed and speedy deletion activity because it doesn't appear that they are doing them right and such activity is less visible than AfD", because you wanted to have me blocked and my edits reverted more broadly. Instead of being confined to deletion discussions about schools as was being proposed. That's it. No where did you say you didn't support sanctions. In the meantime a lot of my PROD and speedy deletion nominations where subsequently deleted. You never said jack about the ones that weren't being cherry picked. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Andrew Davidson has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2008, and is the subject of a TBAN proposal below. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose only the first out of the OPs list of four diffs ( [41] [42] [43] [44] ) seems to be a clear personal attack, albeit a mild one. The rest are at worst just arguably wrong - e.g. for the 3rd I'd not have classed Sandsteinds close as a supervote. AfD's are inherently emotive, how can they not be when dozens or even hundreds of hours of other editors hard work are at stake, not to mention coverage of notable topics. If the community was better at discouraging the timewasting nomination of worthy articles - which itself can be see as highly uncivil - then there might be a case to give Lightburst a 3 month topic ban. As things are, I think a warning to be more civil is the most that is warranted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • All four votes make personal criticisms of nominators or other voters. This kind of personalization is poisonous to good-faith discussion. I invite you to repeat my experiment in any other week of LB's editing -- they do it routinely and have been for a long time. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FeydHuxtable has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have noticed that once Lightburst joins a deletion discussion it can quickly become rancorous. Further, they will stoop to very low levels to fake notability, for instance this and this in an article about a truely obscure Spanish terrier like dog with absolutely no known connections to the New World, pure WP:GAMEsmanship. Further these two responses to my first post above demonstrates why any objections from other core ARS members should be ignored, basically they believe the ends justify the means including every underhanded tactic available (despite the means having absolutely no bearing on the ends in that instance). Cavalryman (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Bar the first one, the four diffs provided by the OP don't appear to be personal attacks at all. Regarding the diffs supplied by dlthewave, the last comment was out of order but I don't see a problem with the other three. Bad arguments should be disregarded by the closer. We all form our own interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines and there is no need to abide by them to the letter in every case - this is why WP:IAR exists. Thus it would be inappropriate to ban someone from participating in AfD discussions simply because they are more inclusionist than most. NemesisAT (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "there is no need to abide by them to the letter in every case" Indeed; and if the 4 examples above came from, say, the last year, that would be a very good argument. But in fact they are four examples of personal comments that create a poisonous atmosphere that I found by looking through one week of their contributions. You should look through a different week of their contributions to confirm! --JBL (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    "Bad arguments should be disregarded by the closer" I've seen this comment many, many times from folks who make bad arguments in RfCs, AfDs, etc, but when a close actually goes against the numeric vote count they inevitably fight it tooth and nail. There's even an example in this proposal. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with Sandstein's actions there but LB is clearly saying that a close should not go against the majority !vote. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • NemesisAT is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time [45], and has voted with ARS, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in military fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have expanded the title of this section to name its subject. I have deeply mixed feelings. I think that LB and the other three have been uncivil influences in AFDs and DRVs, but AFD is unfortunately often uncivil. I agree that Lightburst has been abusing Speedy Keep, using it to mean I don't like it, but I am not sure that that abuse of Speedy Keep should be sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No clear evidence presented proving this is a problem. Some of those who support this action against him, are familiar names seen voting opposite of him in multiple AFDs. Of course maybe they are just upset he said (Star Trek beats Star War) in his edit summary. [46] People have argued and raged against one another for that previously, among other pointless things that don't really matter. Dream Focus 12:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is really disappointing that you (and the other better-behaved ARS members) haven't taken the time to reach out quietly to your poorly-behaved colleagues and encouraged them to behave better; instead, you have abetted and promoted the behavior that is likely to have you all end up at ArbCom or whatever. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Personally, I don't like either. Also, I agree with JayBeeEll that the way ARS members have supported each others bad behavior is disappointing. Wikiproject's should be able to regulate themselves to some degree. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Dream Focus has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per evidence presented. Deletion discussions go into the gutter once this user participates, let's see if removing one bad apple straightens out the rest. Zaathras (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Lightburst is persistent, his views on deletion-related matters are unique and idiosyncratic, and the sources he introduces are often an extreme stretch, but to topic-ban him for incivility is also pretty far out there. He's not even the worst member of the ARS for incivility. To tackle this issue I would recommend that we begin with topic bans for those who have been shown to fabricate source page numbers. For the rest of the ARS I would advocate (1) a restriction to only one comment per AfD and (2) a complete ban against all accusations and attacks on nominators, to include a specific restriction against invoking WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks @S Marshall: I certainly can improve - it has been an evolution and a deep dive into acronyms and conflicting guides, policies and essays. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here one finds evidence for another ARS member inventing page numbers. As for Lb himself, there are some damning accusations here, which I can't personally confirm, though other editors who commented here can. Avilich (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  You have also been less than civil at AfD. Here is a double PA that an admin removed. But nobody is calling for your ouster or sanctions. I had already forgot about it and it was less than two weeks ago. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  and now he restored the PA. I have no idea why that is ok. even after an admin removed it. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, let's go with that. See proposal #2 below.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some more examples of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from Lightburst just on the AFDs I've been involved in: [47], [48] "attack on history", claiming I'd deleted correct information [49], poisoning wells [50], adhom attacks [51], attacking closer on their Talk Page [52], accusations of bad faith on relisting [53], [54], [55] and [56], [57], [58] Mztourist (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Lightburst can bring a battleground approach to AfD. I don't think I see anything all that egregious in the diffs presented, but that doesn't make them excusable, either. The thing is, and I think this is important, he does seem to regularly improve articles when rescuing them. So I'm surprised to see him as the first concrete proposal following this thread (certainly not the ARS member who comes to my mind first when it comes to being a consistent net negative at AfD). In the case of Lightburst, I'd prefer to see something less than a total topic ban from deletion discussions. Ideally we wouldn't tban someone who regularly improves articles they try to save, and just address the battleground part. Perhaps a formal warning that personalization or a battleground approach to AfD will result in escalating blocks or something along those lines (while we're at it, how about a general announcement along those lines combined with more cracking down of bad behavior at AfD in general). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  This has come up so many times that a warning would be redundant. Otherwise, this is a limited topic ban as they would still be able to participate in article improvement in mainspace, just not the AfD itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoA (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: The proposed topic ban does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are up for AfD, just from participating in the discussion -- if they improve an article, I'm sure the AfD participants can be relied upon to notice that and take it into account. In other words, this does narrowly address the battleground part. Based on the substance of your comment, I think you should support the proposal. (Also if you want to put together a separate cogent proposal about one of the others, be my guest -- I picked the one I'm personally familiar with.) --JBL (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is actually a good middle ground in this case. The ban from AfDs, etc. would not be a ban on ARS activities when it comes to improving articles. If anything, that is how things should be done with the group. The justification for this is pretty well documented already despite denials from other ARS members when I read over the history. KoA (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above, though since there’s only like four “oppose” votes and three of them are from ARS members this is probably leaning towards a WP:SNOWBALL close. Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW I think it's best to leave this open for 24 hours at the very least. There may be folks who have not had the chance to weigh in, and a hasty close brings the risk of others coming forward with more information that challenges the outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your numbers. I know I didn't use the word "oppose" in bold, but, read what I wrote.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry for my tardiness, it is quite a thing to wake up to. Apologies, I took a year off of editing on the project, and may have had some rust. But I will speak to the edits in the nomination. In one of Jaybeel's examples #38 -I struck that comment myself. I will AGF and assume you missed that. See here: diff Sorry if I go all over the place a bit here but I think I am mostly here because of the the MzTourist. The toursit does not assume good faith and said so both to me and to 7&6 here. I think the tourist is wrong in trying to delete multiple Tuskegee Airmen and poisoning the AfD with an adhom in the nomination. I will take responsibility for #35 and my elevated tone. I did leave that AfD. One can see how bludgeony it is in there even without me. Anyone who ivotes keep get bludgeoned. So I did leave that AfD in #35, and that is the most recent example. Maybe someone can tell me about Jaybeels objection with my saying the this in #37, it was in fact a Supervote and was overturned. Great arguments on both sides - but the consensus was keep. Maybe Jaybeel should illustrate his own response to my ivote there. Saying I made an "Thanks for illustrating the kind of utterly worthless comment (with NPA violation to boot) that any good closer will discard out of hand. ". In #36 above I was trying to be funny. Apologies if that is out of bounds. Look at the subject and I dare you not to laugh out loud. Maybe Jaybeel did not look at the article? let me summarize: Over 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page before a consensus was reached to capitalize the "I".. i am still laughing about it and may spit my coffee out again. It was the definition of pedantic. Many of the other supporters above - I understand, I have ivoted angularly to their deletion goal. I can only call them like I see them. Lately I see ivotes like this. Delete: ping me if anyone finds anything. Delete per nom. I will not call out who they were, but it happens. I won't bore anyone with the personal history I have with any of the supporters of this tban. I will just speak to my own actions, I think I bring a research first approach to AfD. I know I have over participated in some AfDs especially the Tuskegee Airmen AfDs, and so I have tried to participate less - like in the example of the Herbert V. Clark Afd. I am sorry for any disruption I may have caused and I cannot respond to all of the diffs above. I can certainly be more civil and participate less at times and I recognize that. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it too much to ask that you spell my username correctly? --JBL (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    To be fair and in defense of Lightburst, it's a bit confusing as your signature doesn't match your username. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    @JayBeeEll: Definitely no attempt to offend you - what NemesisAT said. Regarding your proposal thee purpose of blocks and Ibans and Tbans are to stop disruption. I am disappointed that there was an effort to swing so hard on a proposal to remove me indefinitely from AfDs. I have never been warned for behavior on AfD. I see this as punitive. I am a rational person who can change without being hit with a hammer. Which these measures are not supposed to be. We are all working for free on this great project. Sometimes it is important to remember that somehow the encyclopedia gets built in spite of arguing over whether to capitalize the letter "I". Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, no offense taken. As I have mentioned in response to a couple of other comments, this proposal is structured not to prevent you from building the encyclopedia (and I am happy to accept the assertions of others that you do that well). --JBL (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @JayBeeEll: It is very large sanction, no simpler sanction or warning has been tried. I am a logical person and can change. I truly did not understand what you meant at DRV. Turns out the guy behind me didn't either. He said Appallingly condescending and egregiously offensive comment by JBL Urselius. it is easy to take someone wrong on here. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Lightburst added their name to WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members on Oct 27, 2021 but has been an ARS participant since before renaming this account, having made 516 edits to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list [59], and is the subject of this TBAN proposal. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Extensive evidence of canvassing and battleground behavior on WP:AFD; clearly (as a consensus above seems to agree) Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is a net negative for the project and has disrupted discussions it has gotten involved with. This comes down to the activities of its most active members, of which Lightburst is a member. And a topic ban from AFD specifically should not be a big deal - it is not a place where editors should be staking out positions on deletion policy and pouring huge amounts of time into pushing it; what it needs is experts on the specific articles being discussed, rather than factionalism. Note that Lightbursts' "defense" is to re-litigate a massive pile of AFDs, and completely ignore the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CANVAS issues that are the real issue here. Take some time off of AFD, contribute elsewhere - save articles before they come to AFD by improving the ones that really need improvement. --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Short-term Tban there's enough tendentious comments/battleground behavior/snide remarks to justify some action. (I still don't agree there is a "canvassing" issue that needs to be addressed.) However, an indef TBAN from AFD is too much, and a "warning" will do nothing. Perhaps 1 month away from voting will correct the issues; Lightburst should be welcome to improve articles that are at AFD in that time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support a short-term t-ban per 力. If Lightburst's ultimate aim is to save notable articles from deletion by improving their sourcing, this can still be done entirely independently of participating in xFD discussions, and showing a track record of doing so without needing to vote, debate, or argue tendentiously would be a boon to all sides. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with a ban on DEPRODing as well. The closing administrator would be wise to ascertain what is the ARS voting position here, and what is the community's voting position. William Harris (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2021
• Support I think my above comments provide my reasoning. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – a good editor and a net positive. His actions were not egregious - the most they warrant is a warning. Canceling out a participant who does the hard work at AfD (and he does it mainly by substantially IMPROVING articles) should not our goal. Indeed, his record in starting new articles is commendable. This man is an asset to the encyclopedia.
  Censoring opposing viewpoints and editing when AFDs is unbecoming of Wikipedia. All editors are created equal.
  From what I can see this editor never even had a warning for AfD behavior.
  I hesitated to raise this, as I foresee that I will be a detriment to his defense. Apparently some of you think that I am guilty as charged, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary.
  There are those who will see this as further proof that there is an ARS cabal that should be squashed. Truth be told, ARS has 500 subsribers, and very few of them contribute. You have made a mountain out of a molehill. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 7&6=thirteen has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2017 and has made 755 edits to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list [60], and is the subject of a TBAN proposal below. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Some of might remember an RFA that did not go well for the candidate. After the thing was crashed and the candidate was destroyed we found out the guy had a heart attack. I was a "no" ivote at that AfD and I was sad. It helps to remember there are rational people at the end of these fake names. I have never even been warned about any behavior at AfD. And now I have to watch the World Series. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Doubling down on the Chewbacca defense with a side of Shaggy dog story isn’t going to convince anyone of anything. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dronebogus: I this this comment was unnecessary -- LB is expressing here that they find this all upsetting on an individual level. That seems quite understandable, and I think it deserves to be quietly respected, not mocked. (The relevance of Guy Macon's RfA to the present moment is not exactly clear, but that's not a crime.) --JBL (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • If you’re trying to defend yourself from accusations with irrelevant rambling then you’re using the Chewbacca defense; if you’re not trying to then it’s still irrelevant rambling. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support for indef tban. Most of the linked "personal attacks" are a pretty big stretch. What I see as an uninvolved editor is a bunch of shitty !votes at AfD and light canvassing. I don't think any of these actually rise of "personal attacks" that we block for. A lot more editors have gotten away with a lot less, and it seems like we're just trying to kill Lightburst as the sacrificial lamb and imputing all of the sins of ARS onto them. Calling the deletion of a Tuskegee airman an "attack on history" [61] is pretty strong but it's not a personal attack. Nor is accusing an admin of supervoting in a DRV, given that DRV is effectively a process to determine whether the admin did in fact supervote. [62] These NPA claims are baseless and without merit. But the AfD !votes are garbage. It's not Lightburst disagreeing with others or disagreeing how a policy should be applied; or even just misunderstanding policy. Lightburst has consistently demonstrated a pattern of !voting with complete disregard as to what policies actually mean. Unironically !voting WP:ILIKEIT and using a non-specific comic strip (xkcd presumably) as a gauge of notability [63] is useless and disruptive. So is !voting "lol". [64] So is the nonsensical citing of WP:GEOPURP as a notability criteria in and of itself at Philip Linn Pioneer Cemetary. [65] This is actively disruptive behaviour in the manner of a sovereign citizen; in the sense that Lightburst is making legitimate sounding arguments that deliberately misconstrue the wording of policy to create points that have no basis whatsoever (for the record, I am not calling Lightburst a terrorist). This is a waste of time and disruptive. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Chess: Didn't ivote lol. Here is the thread: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy. There was a comic strip in there describing the pedantic dispute by Cartoonist Randall Munroe. Commons deleted for license. It was also funny. But regarding the AfDs - I have ivoted or otherwise participated in many, and I mostly have cogent arguments. Have a look through a few that are not selected to make me look incompetent. My cemetery rationales I outlined, sometimes a novel argument can make me people consider. In the case of GEO the same three editors go to every one and they all basically ivote the same. Arguing GEOPURP is a loser as it has distracted editors and made it seem as if I am being obtuse, I was saying the purpose of the guideline was to consider a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.. That is what I interpret a cemetery to be. We keep lakes, streams, and permanent man made structures that fit our criteria. The idea was rejected. That is how AfD works, if we all arrive there and rubber stamp the AfD we are not doing our due dilligance. I had no intent to disrupt or engage in NOTTHERE behavior. I have been in this ANI too much, but it is stressful when a long record of contributions is mischaracterized. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The cited examples are at best reason to issue a warning over focusing on the content not the person, an indef topic ban without a prior warning is a very severe reaction. -- GreenC 03:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • GreenC is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members but has edited WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 190 times [66] and votes with ARS, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Devine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Ross. Levivich 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Responded below since you posted the same thing here. -- GreenC 18:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's quite hard to tell if the accusations being leveled here really warrant an indefinite tban -- a lot of the people commenting here are themselves quite ardent AfD warriors. But maybe they do. It is something that should be settled through an actual arbitration procedure, rather than a twenty-four hour walltext marathon, appended to the most asininely long AN/I thread in months, on Halloween. Before someone accuses me of being an "ARSEHOLE", note that I am not a member of ARS and I do not check their article lists; furthermore, I said the same thing (i.e. that defenestration was silly and unnecessary) when someone made a thread here to defenestrate Mztourist a few weeks ago. jp×g 09:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • User:JPxG what are you referring to in relation to me? Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @JPxG: Thanks. I love your reasoned and researched AfD ivotes on the project. you were instrumental in several. I certainly want there to be less animosity everywhere and I have to work on myself first. It is old news but I did not want anyone to think it is invented. Here is the ARShole moniker being used in sentences, notice I twice reverted it as a PA, but the (admin who claims to have coined the term), and Serial# agreed that it was not a PA. ARSholes. People are quick to show their bonafides - and compete with each other to show their disdain for the project or the ARSholes in it. I left the project for a year shortly after that exchange. Lightburst (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: for indef tban as above; aside from the evidence posted above, I've seen incivilities by this editor myself over the years in such discussions. Ravenswing 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing Could you link some for us to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBan - I wasn't actually as aware of this editor's persistent issues as the "usual suspects" - but yes, the evidence enough is too many times. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and the other support !voters, whose arguments/evidence I won't repeat. These concerns were previously raised at ANI (in boomerang fashion at threads started by Lightburst) in 2019 and 2020. I support an indef duration because LB went on wiki-break from Nov 2020 to Sep 2021, and since they've been back, it's been right back to the disruptive behavior. A time-limited tban will just be waited out. (Indeed they already posted a notice of a wikibreak on their userpage.) Levivich 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I didn't get into this in my proposal, but looking at the threads LB has started at ANI and also at WP:3RRN is very interesting. I think LB has started four or five threads at 3RRN, none of which have resulted in administrative action against the reported user (there was one warning administered), and several of which have resulted in administrators questioning LB's behavior. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose case doesn't seem that strong. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be a separate ANI thread - all these late-in-the day block discussions in a discussion that should have been closed days ago, are very confusing. Make a simple case in a separate thread, after the dust settles. Is this even the forum? I don't see an imminent or urgent threat. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  lolz It's almost enough to make one think that vague process-based complaints are not always made entirely in good faith. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I would first prefer a warning per Piotrus and Rhododendrites. The majority of the diffs seem pretty typical for AfD comments and don't yet warrant a far-reaching sanction. I certainly have seen Lightburst make many constructive contributions to deletion discussions and hope he can continue to do so. If there is a topic ban, the closer should take into consideration the nature of the diffs and make it the 3-month TBAN offered by powerenwiki. Worldlywise (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Though Worldywise (xtools) is not listed as an ARS member, they have a very interesting contribs history. In the last four years, they have made 3,427 edits, 3,372 of them to mainspace [67]. Of the 55 non-mainspace edits, 25 are Wikipedia-space edits [68], and include opposing sanctions against DF in 2018, opposing the shut-down-ARS proposal in 2019, opposing GS for XFD (in the 2019 thread about 7&6) (the diff is revdel'd, so search for "worldlywide"), and opposing sanctions against AD in 2020. The only MFD they ever participated in was to !vote to keep a page in AD's userspace. They've only participated in 8 AFDs [69], mostly ARS ones: 1 2 3 4 5, and this DRV, the only DRV they've participated in. Their only edit to the Wikipedia talk namespace [70] was to !vote "remove" in an ARS straw poll (the only other editors voting "remove" up to that point: DF, 7&6, AD, and GreenC). Their only two edits to the User talk namespace [71] that weren't to their own talk page were both on an admin's talk page, in 2019 posting on behalf of DF, and 2020 posting on behalf of Lightburst. (Note this editor was discussed in a 2020 RFAR and has already been to SPI.) Levivich 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support combative and battle ground mentality drives away editors from contributing to discussions and this users is immune to reacting positively to feedback. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Spartaz. Anything that reduces battleground behavior at AfD is to be desired. Deor (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the comments above by User:S Marshall and User:Piotrus, I don't find the instances of incivility to be sufficiently egregious to warrant a complete topic ban from deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I dislike tbanning anyone from one of their primary interests when I'm sure they're well-intentioned and have done good work, but the whole Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas thing was just really bad. When I asked which three sources could go to proving notability, LB basically told me it was up to me to figure that out from the literally dozens of crap sources ARS had added in an apparent attempt to refbomb, and which I had to clean up after. I do not think LB should be !voting at AfD. I'm not sure they should be adding sources to articles at AfD. —valereee (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per their behavior at the Lake Bachelor AfD and its accompanying "shit show",* here. ——Serial 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  *As Lightburst put it ([72]), prior to being reprimanded for personal attacks.([73]). ——Serial 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support routinely creates more heat than light through battleground behavior --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas, I can see Lightburst said up front, "Not a terrific source" which is just not good enough for BLPs, and this is a monumental lack of self-awareness. However, this issue is two and a half years old; I don't know what was said to Lightburst in the interim, but if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kendall (3rd nomination) is indicative of Lightburst's conduct, then I don't see an issue. It's not a crime to try and fail to rescue an article for deletion, and some discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota), he seems to give as good as he gets in terms of blunt and terse replies. I don't think you can say he caused the "shit show" there single handedly. So the bottom line is I can't support anything more than an admonishment to Lightburst to stop taking comments at AfD personally, and that it is never okay to respond in kind to incivility or snark. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Re I don't think you can say he caused the "shit show" there single handedly...since I said no such thing, you'll apologise, Ritchie333, and acknowledge that the salient point was not minor incivility in a room full of robust back and forth, but the fact that in that very room of robust back and forth they were the only editor to be warned by an admin against personal attacks. WP:STRAWMAN applies. Cheers, ——Serial 11:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  (for the avoidance of doubt, "you" here refers to the generic you ie: I don't think anybody could say Lightburst caused the "more heat than light" conduct issues in that AfD solely by himself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC))

  Self disclosure : The user Ritchie333 has been mentioned on the ARS member list since 2012, and self-declares an interest in rescuing articles from deletion; however he likes to keep an open mind and has just closed an AfD as delete, declaring the "keep" arguments to be not up to snuff.

• Support: I am an inclusionist and I find it repugnant that some of the above !votes for "Support" overstep the line on trying to ban people for their opinions. It is perfectly acceptable to !vote at AfD in contradiction with a policy or guideline, so long as there is rational reason behind it, per WP:IAR. Some policies and guidelines should not be regularly violated, but others—particularly those that are going to turn up most at WP:AFD—aim only to describe current community opinion, so permitting views outside of these PAGs will be necessary in order for community opinion to ever change.
  So, let's get to the reasons Lightburst should be topic banned. Battleground behaviour and incivility is the main one, and though Lightburst is careful not to overstep the line that would get them blocked for any particular comment, or even warned, they consistently devolve the tone at AfD in a way that makes it a very unwelcoming place for anyone who wants to disagree with them. We see that, unsurprisingly, transfers to their conduct around this ANI discussion. The next is a failure to comply with basic content PAGs like WP:V and WP:BLP (these are not matters of reasonable disagreement between inclusionists/deletionists). For instance, valereee points to an AfD above where Lightburst introduced a multitude of BLP violations in the form of unsourced or poorly sourced information, including that of low-profile individuals (the family of the biography subject). Lightburst should not be permitted at AfD because they show no interest in actually improving articles but in feigning a case that chosen articles should be kept, in the name of a greater good—ardent inclusionism. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I don't think that the instances of incivility presented are severe enough for a full topic ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. ARSers act as if WP:BASIC lets you add up trivial mentions to meet SIGCOV; I don't see why the same approach can't be used for their numerous instances of sub-PA-threshold incivility. This is in addition to the more egregious accounts of battleground behavior. JoelleJay (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I actually think that the evidence here is stronger than that for Andrew, whose sanction has already gotten consensus. To some extent, I think that Lightburst means well, but there are just too many instances of bad judgment that their participation in deletion processes becomes a net negative. --Tryptofish (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I rarely agree with LB in AfD discussions and they clearly have strong and somewhat idiosyncratic opinions on what notability means but their arguments are characterized by good faith. Yes, they push the envelope on civility and equally they push the envelope on sourcing but I've never seen them break any clear lines on core content policies nor am I impressed by the evidence presented here against them. I have little doubt that a similar body of evidence could be compiled against any editor who has commented frequently in AfD discussions. I may not like LB's participation, but I don't see the need to TB them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, Eggishorn no way: I have little doubt that a similar body of evidence could be compiled against any editor who has commented frequently in AfD discussions. I triple-dog-dare you to come up with a similar body of evidence about any other editor at AFD. Absolutely no way. I'm sorry but that is such baseless and dismissive reasoning. Levivich 14:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich:, challenge accepted: Personalizing a debate, questioning an editor's competence, telling another editor to stop contributing, etc. I obviously don't think that I crossed any lines other than using sharp and pointed commentary. I think the majority of the evidence here is merely that: sharp and pointed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Shit, Egg, you win, that was extremely well-played. I did not expect that! :-D After reviewing your supporting evidence, I can no longer argue that your rationale is baseless or dismissive. Levivich 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Whew! I was sure those diffs would be mine. EEng 22:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the many examples given above of personal attacks and battleground behavior. (FYI: I've also considered myself an inclusionist). Paul August ☎ 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with much of what has been expressed in prior support comments. One example no one else explicitly has mentioned is using WP:NOTPAPER as a reason to keep, which has nothing to do with determining notability and clearly says "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion", yet LB applies this in AFDs. MB 16:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARS Proposal #2: Topic ban for 7&6=thirteen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on the evidence here this user seems to have fabricated page numbers and, likely, falsified a source in an effort to prevent an article being deleted. I propose a topic ban from AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• The article has been deleted, and I don't remember which book it was exactly, though I remember checking and confirming it myself, and I'm pretty sure Mztourist's comment about there only being 223 pages and not 386, 512 or 514 as 7&6=13 claimed is basically accurate. He could've simply been careless and not acting in bad faith, but I'm not aware of him retracting his statement afterwards; he never came back to answer the charges I explicitly laid before him at that discussion, and his contribution to that AfD, like many many others, was simply saying "the article has been improved since nomination" (really, he always says that). Avilich (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't recall the book name, but it was very clear that the pages didn't exist and as Avilich notes, 7&6=13 didn't respond to the comment. Mztourist (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Click on "search inside" and then "Display all" in the book. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Appears to be this one, which ends at page 223 or 224. He was pinged after the error was noticed; a response/clarification would've been nice. Avilich (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yes that's it. Mztourist (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    I used the "Search Inside" function and didn't find any results for "Reginald". Am I missing something here? –dlthewave ☎ 18:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    I also used the "Search Inside" function and didn't find any results for "Reginald". (Is it possible that Google Books makes certain parts of the book available and unavailable across time?). William Harris (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    @William Harris: That's because everyone is looking at the wrong book. See below. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, you are correct. William Harris (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This example could have been malicious or as already mentioned above it could simply be an error. The lack of response is frustrating but I don't think its grounds for a ban from participating in deletion discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Alone this wouldn't be grounds for a tban, but his use of ARS for canvassing (1, 2), coupled with his spamming of WP:HEY in multiple discussions (1, 2) and overall tendency to throw around keep votes just for the sake of it (as in here, to which he was canvassed), calls into question the idea that he was there to genuinely improve the article in the first place, rather than simply on an inclusionist crusade. Avilich (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "spamming of WP:HEY" mean exactly? They told me not to say "No compliance" or poor compliance with WP:Before. So I don't. And if the article is improved with substantial additions of content, that's an impermissible observation now too? See here. And the deletionists and ARS worked together. Your prior restraints on my right to express my WP:Good faith opinion is a bridge too far. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Whether ARS activities should be regarded as canvassing is disputed, per the above discussion, and I feel it is a separate issue. There is nothing wrong with citing WP:HEY and votes with poor or no reasoning, or "per nom" votes are common and certainly not a serious offense punishable by a ban from participating in deletion discussions. The proposal was on the basis of falsifying sources, and for now I don't think enough evidence has been provided for a ban to be warranted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    I don't know where you've been all this time, but the evidence for canvassing is unequivocal and indisputable, per the discussion above and the evidence at ARS. I just showed you an example of him and the usual suspects teaming up (through ARS) to obstruct the AfD nomination of a well-meaning editor with subject-matter knowledge. He's not on trial just for misrepresenting a source; that's just the formal pretext and the tip of the iceberg. And while unproductive AfD votes are not technically grounds for blocking someone, they indicate and exacerbate this sort of behavior. Avilich (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, he is on trial, if you like, for falsifying a source. That's really serious misconduct.—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Read my comment again, I agreed with you Avilich (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • NemesisAT is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time [74], and has voted with ARS, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in military fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support the falsified source was unacceptable. That together with their prior warning [75] and more recent comments such as these: [76], [77], [78] and [79] show an ongoing problem Mztourist (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine. I guess I was wrong.

  I got a notice that I have fabricated references. Not true. It is possible that the display in google books (when you ask it to show all the references in the book) showed on screen content and pages that were inconsistent with the hard copy. Which of my 140,000 edits and 14 years of editing are you talking about? What was in it for me? I would also say that I often improve articles and sometimes vote at AFDs.

  I do not ever say any more that there has been bad or no compliance with WP:Before, even when the article improvements convincingly demonstrate that fact.

  There are folks participating here who have over the years expressed enmity toward me and WP:ARS. MZ:Tourist has been vocal and a deliberate disruptor at WP:ARS. You don’t like opposing views at AFD or improvement of articles. But I do not choose to respond in kind.

  Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. You are culling the voters; and deciding who gets to vote based on scoreboarding and outcomes. I try to improve articles and seldom vote. I choose not to blindly vote keep; and I do not participate on many articles that appear on the rescue squad page.

  Reasonable minds may differ as to whether articles should be kept or culled. That there is an opposing view is a hallmark of fair debate and a catalyst for balanced consideration. And when it is posted at ARS, articles are in fact often improved. That some of you don't like the improvements or the sources is no proof of misconduct by the improving editors.

  I have successfully helped rescue many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at WP:DYK. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that WP:Before was ignored or done haphazardly. I don't write that at AFDs any longer, but it is a fact. And it is not a "personal attack."

  FWIW, I am not singling out the repeat deletionists who are partipating here. And I am not asking that they be banned from participaitn at AFD.

  I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. (Apparently we are not allowed to name names on defense; while these persecutors are immune.) And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct.

  The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

  7&6, you wrote: I have successfully helped rescue many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at WP:DYK. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that WP:Before was ignored or done haphazardly. That is just not true. At Daniella van Graas you accused the nom of having not done her BEFORE. You and other ARS members added completely unusable sources until someone who could search in Dutch came in and found a couple of reasonable sources that eventually supported notability, but you and your work had nothing to do with it. I had searched, the nom had searched. I found a single source in English -- which you had not found -- that could be used to support notability. You were adding poor sources and accusing the nom of not having done her BEFORE because she hadn't added those crap sources. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  You didn't like the sources, and you changed them. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. The article was kept, notwithstanding your best efforts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Calling everyone you don’t like a hater deletionist doesn’t work when there’s direct evidence of misconduct on the table which you haven’t refuted. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes making more personal attacks on me with the comment "MZ:Tourist has been vocal and a deliberate disruptor at WP:ARS. You don’t like opposing views at AFD or improvement of articles." just further strengthens the case. Mztourist (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose one of the best editors on the project. I worked with him many times and I can give a few examples of our tag teams, Bertha Boronda, Put on airs - and many more. I am quite stunned by the efforts here. He has cogent arguments at AfDs. we can all get a bit snippy in AfDs, and we do not tban people for mistakes. And as i said above MzTourist said he does not AGF regarding 7&6 here. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • And given my previous recent history with 7&6 as detailed in my Support above, not AGFing from them is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Mztourist (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing us to Bertha Boronda where 7&6 made this comment to User:Clarityfiend in their edit summary [[80]] "precursor (you are picking fly turds our of pepper)" Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Lightburst added their name to WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members on Oct 27, 2021 but has been an ARS participant since before renaming this account, having made 516 edits to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list [81], and is the subject of a TBAN proposal above. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He has done quite a lot of work on articles. [82] list some of them. A valuable contributor to the encyclopedia who creates valid content. If anyone has a complaint against him who isn't also constantly arguing with him in deletion discussions, please, post away. I'm curious about your opinions in this. Dream Focus 16:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You do realize this is just a topic ban, right? We’re not kicking them off the encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Dream Focus I'm sure several Users who 7&6 edit warred with on Big John (dinosaur) five days ago would complain if they were aware of this discussion, do you want to notify them? Mztourist (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    There was no "edit war" at Big John (dinosaur). I disagreed with the editors who wanted to delete it. And I added WP:RSs, which are still in the article

    And I did not come to WP:ANI to initiate a complaint. I have been importuned to intervene. And I have been lied about; so I do not want someone to take my silence as some sort of an admission of guilt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Really? User:Hemiauchenia clearly didn't think so which is why they placed an edit war warning on your Talk Page: [83]. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Dream Focus has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty of evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on AFD, which makes the mistakes above hard to credit; likewise, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're WP:CANVASSing in order to "save" articles from AFD. We don't need a repeat of the old deletionist / inclusionist factionalism that used to surround AFD, and the easiest way to prevent it from recurring is with topic-bans for people who get too battleground-y there. For the people above who say that he has good edits elsewhere, sure - the whole idea behind a topic ban is that an editor's problems are confined to a specific area. They'd still be able to improve articles, just not contribute on AFD or on discussions and wikiprojects (like Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron) manifestly about it. And the reality is that it does seem like their contributions on those places have become combative, disruptive, and - even by the most lenient interpretation of the errors above - careless enough that it would be better if they focused their attention elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion. Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'm struggling to wrap my head around the whole page numbers thing. GBooks is essentially a scan of the hard copy, which could be off by a few pages due to title pages etc, but nearly 300 pages seems implausible especially since Amazon shows 223 pages for the hardcover version. I'm also not finding any results for "Reginald" when using the Search Inside function. Even if there is some sort of mismatch, it's unclear why an experienced editor in possession of a hard copy would cite Google Books without verifying the page numbers. Admitting that you screwed up would go a long way towards building goodwill with your fellow editors. See below –dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not say I was in posssession of a hard copy. That is your assumption. I can assure you I did not make this stuff up. These were all good faith edits. WP:AGF apparently has been repealed, too.

And if I erred, it was unintentional. If I screwed up, I apologize. And if I screwed up, it was undone by one of our other esteemed editors. I did not put it back that I recall. So confession may be good for the soul, but once it was undone there was no point. Other than to make you and your friends feel better.

That AFDs are sometimes overly long and positional is true.

But my comments are limited solely to the merits of the AFD and the quality of the article, the sourcing and the potential sourcing. That there are folks that have chosen to do masss deletions and ignore WP:Before is not my fault.

You ought not to make it your business to tell editors what the acceptable votes are at AFD. Nor should you be purging the voting rolls of those who choose not to grease the wheels of the oncoming train, even if the result seems predestined to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

How can that possibly have been an accidental error? I can't envisage any way that could have happened.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Update I'm convinced by Suffusion of Yellow's discovery that the page numbers were a good faith error, not an intentional misrepresentation, and I won't support a block based on that. However, the above comment about "purging voter roles" and "greasing wheels" is the troubling type of personal accusation that we see all the time from ARS participants and 7&6-thirteen would be well advised to steer clear of such comments. I'll keep an eye on this thread and may consider a "support" or "oppose" !vote depending on what evidence is brought forward. –dlthewave ☎ 12:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose if the evidence has been deleted, this will need to go to ARBCOM. Presumably the editor intended to refer to some book other than [84], a book with more pages and mentions of Reginald Smith. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• User:7&6=thirteen, did you maybe mean The Tuskegee Airmen: The Men who Changed a Nation by Charles E. Francis? Because I a find Reginald V. Smith mentioned on pages 384, 512, and 514 there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Even if that's the book 7&6 meant, there's nothing on those pages that supports the sentence "His wife Rogers Mae and sister Annie Marietta Smith-Randolph attended his graduation", which is what 7&6 appended the ref to. Deor (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Deor: But we're not talking about "fabrication" anymore, are we? The book exists, and Smith in mentioned on those pages. Maybe 7&6 just appended it to the wrong sentence. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Suffusion of Yellow: To me, adding a citation that doesn't support what it's supposedly referencing qualifies as falsification of a reference; that the referenced work exists is immaterial. The only thing supported by those pages (two lists and a caption) is that Smith graduated in 1945—which was already referenced in the article—and mere listings certainly contribute nothing to notability. Deor (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or, it could have been a mistake. That is, we can now envisage any way that could have happened. Deor (or any admin), do you mind undeleting the article to user or draftspace, so we can at least see who added what where, and when? It's impossible to tell from the archive.org copy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't recall what I was doing. I think I added several books but honestly don't recall. You edit articles, and move on. I may have mixed them up. Human error will exist in 141,000 edits. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's presumably the correct book given the coincidence of page numbers, but even so, the pages appear to be entirely devoid of prose, so it's not clear that this should be referenced to anything at all. I can't see the full pages, but, from what I can make of the snippets, it's just a collection of names, possibly part of some image caption or roster, or both. Avilich (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  The subject of this thread is not "Is that an ideal reference?". I can see the full text (must be regional copyright thing...), and it is not. This sub-thread was started with the premise that 7&6 fabricated page numbers and some people have already voted to TBAN 7&6 based on that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't vote against anyone as of now, and I'm not even in favor of making this source affair the center of this whole deal; the overall collective behavior of ARS should still be the focus here, and evidence against individual members should be viewed with that in mind. Deor seems to disagree with you on the contents of the source, though. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow making a mistake is one thing, 7&6 failing to address that mistake when I pointed it out, specifically tagging them: [85] and then commenting above "I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine." shows more intractable behavior. There are also numerous examples of battleground behavior and personal attacks and incivility shown by 7&6. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't had a chance to fully weigh the merits of this particular topic ban proposal yet, but I will echo Mztourist that this example and related responses are a highlights of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. While in isolation they may just seem inconvenient, but a consistent pattern is disruptive, a time sink, and often hidden either purposely or by obliviousness by claiming it wasn't so bad. At the least, there is merit here that 7&6 has individual issues related to the larger ARS problems that go beyond just simple mistakes. KoA (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Kudos to Suffusion of Yellow who has provided a reasonable explanation – that this was confusion between two sources. When working on content, some editors tend to have many tabs open as they compile information from a variety of sources. As some passages may involve more than one source, it's then easy to get them mixed up.

Confusion like this is why we have the guidance to assume good faith. Per Hanlon's razor, the general rule is that a cock-up is usually a more plausible explanation than a conspiracy when something goes wrong. See also Murphy's law.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2008, and is the subject of a TBAN proposal below. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The page numbers thing is a problem, and if his user was willing to accept responsibility for it then why would another user need to explain their mistake? Refusal to accept responsibility is an ARS problem. Also this user’s desperate dressing up of the Attack On HMS Invincible article (deleted with solid consensus) shows they aren’t doing us as much good at AfD as they could. Since they don’t seem to show any indications of sincerely willing to improve its best they be told to move their efforts elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose since I haven't said so explicitly above. No, I haven't looked into the greater issue, but the well has been poisoned with an accusation than can no longer be supported. Would we really be having a thread about topic-banning right now, if 7&6 had cited the correct book in the first place? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably yes, since he was already singled out as one of the four special ARS editors above, and it's not like the problem with ARS starts or ends with wrong referencing, anyway. If you want more evidence of poor referencing habits, there was an AfD I participated not long ago in which he added refs with only image captions and no prose to support a non-trivial statement that was not otherwise properly sourced. And there's also this grotesque cite-bomb: here he seems to have simply searched the subject's name in each book, taken note of every single page number for which there was the even the most trivial of matches, and dumped everything in one place, without bothering to check if the ref actually matched with the corresponding sentence or was even adequate.

    I can believe that in each and every one of these occasions he was acting in good faith, in the sense that improvement, not disruption, was his sincere objective. But when you resort to keeping superficial appearances of notability and making the sorting-out process as difficult and nightmarish as you can, coupled with blatant canvassing (which was already acknowledged even before this vote started), then you're not being a positive element on AfD. Avilich (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Avilich: could you explain in more detail the problem with the first diff you linked (Special:Diff/1046265521)? It looks like that diff added four citations. Which of them did you have an issue with, and why? Colin M (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    I should've mentioned that I was referring to the ones highlighted in blue specifically, though I did notice the others too. The second is a picture where the subject appears and that's it, no prose. In the first, he seems to be mentioned in a listing of individuals, possibly as part of an image caption. I can't see the whole page, but the snippet says, "Back row: (...) [subject] (...)", and doesn't appear to indicate any sort of significant prose commentary. Avilich (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    I don't see the issue with the second cite. I'm looking at the page now, and the caption does verify part of the accompanying sentence (that Fuller was a member of class 42-G). I could see an argument that the sentence is overcited, but it's not totally obvious - e.g. if the first three (web) sources are considered to be only marginally reliable, it might be worthwhile to add "redundant" cites to published books, even if they only verify a portion of the claim. Colin M (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    It gives the partial name at most, and only because the picture is of the class to begin with. It's not clear at all that redundancy was the intent, let alone appropriate. The web sources for this specific batch of articles tended to be unreliable and user-submitted, a point which was extensively brought up in the corresponding AfDs. The correct thing would have been to simply remove them. Avilich (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Avilich: and re the second linked diff (Special:Diff/1044077685). You say that "he seems to have simply searched the subject's name in each book... and dumped everything in one place, without bothering to check if the ref actually matched". But did you bother to check whether any of the refs didn't match? If not, this seems like simply an assumption of bad faith. Also, I think it's worth noting that the edit you linked was the first of a long series of consecutive edits made by 7&6=thirteen over the course of a day. Looking at that diff, my initial assumption was that he just swooped in and dropped a huge number of refs in the intro without improving the article in any other way. But the full diff incorporating all 53 of those edits, shows a very different story - it appears he made a lot of substantial changes throughout the article. Colin M (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    The cite bomb is still there, he just relegated it to a footnote. And yes, I did do a check. Typically all the pages in which the subject is mentioned are cited, even the indexes and captions. As for the other improvements, again, I don't think he lied or acted with malice, but what's being discussed here is his stance and conduct in AfD, not his basic competence in everyday editorial procedures. Avilich (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree the page number thing is a problem. One of many really. While Suffusion of Yellow's explanation is plausible, it's just as plausible that 7&6=thirteen never addressed it because they knew they made it up or were otherwise being miss-leading. Otherwise, they could have just dealt with it at the time when they where asked by multiple people why the page numbers were off. At his point it just seems like a post-hoc justification for bad behavior though and it's not like that's their only issue. Including other times where they were extremely lose with providing accurate sourcing. It's not that far of a stretch that someone who chronically shows zero respect for the process, guidelines, and nominators might make up page numbers or lie about what a book says. In the meantime 7&6=thirteen's dismissive and combative comments here haven't done anything to make me think it was a good faith mistake and not just an intentional BATTLEGROUND move, that they and ARS members are now trying to make excuses about and blame others for. So we are long past the opportunity to AGF about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? I guess 14 years of faithful service (presumably complete with mistakes) won't persuade you.

Let he who is without error cast the first stone.

Disappointed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I was recently blocked and took a self imposed 3 month break from AfD because I couldn't handle it without acting inappropriately. I think that was the right thing to do. Both my mental health and the project are better off. So at least my case I'm coming at this from a completely none privileged perspective of what is the best option for everyone involved. You can still improve articles if you aren't involved in AfDs and likely in a much more productive way then treating AfDs like a battleground. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as there is a good faith explanation for the error.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No: there really isn't. Look, this is core policy stuff. WP:V requires that material that's challenged or likely to be challenged is supported by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. It then goes on to say The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s). And when an editor does supply an inline citation to a reliable source, we assume that they've done it in good faith. In this case, the user cited the wrong book, and when we look at the page in the book they meant to cite, it doesn't support the material. That's utterly reckless behaviour. It means that all the citations that this user has provided at AfD need to be checked by someone who takes more care.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • So anyone who accidentally copy-pastes the wrong title, or URL, or transposes the digits of a page number, or makes any other mindless error in the course of referencing should be banned from the project? That seems like an incredibly harsh policy. Anyone could make such a mistake. I'm sure I've done so in the past, and encountered plenty of examples in the wild left by other editors - when I do, I fix them, the same way I would fix a typo or any other error. (Here is just one example I recall off the top of my head - in a GA no less! We worked on fixing the issue - it never occurred to us to seek the head of the editor that introduced it.) Colin M (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • But this isn't just a copy/paste error. The citation this user intended to add doesn't actually support the claim being made.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. (I missed the detail of it being the wrong book and inappropriate page numbers. That makes it less straightforward.) Colin M (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• See my reply to Suffusion of Yellow's oppose vote above. Good-faith or not, this is not just about a single mistake, it concerns chronic behavior. Avilich (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Jackattack1597 good faith would have been acknowledging and correcting the mistake at the time not adopting the attitude of "I was ignoring this and hoping it would wither on the vine." as 7&6 stated above. As Avilich notes and as shown by various diffs above on just my encounters with 7&6 this is chronic behavior. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Falsified page numbers? How many times did this happen? Links? Seems a bit detailed - and why would one, as you don't need page numbers in a reference. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed punishment far outweighs the supposed infraction. Anyone who does a lot of work in AfD or Wikipedia generally, it's inevitable reasons for complaint can be generated. It's a logical fallacy cherry picking], sifting through reams of edit history ignoring the positive contributions. Basically what I see here is an attempt to find an objective reason for banning, but there is nothing to see here but mistakes that could be good faith and differences of opinion over what is a reliable source. -- GreenC 03:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• S Marshall, While the claim of source falsification is serious, mistakes happen - I will play devil's advocate again and note that on a few occasions I've used wrong page numbers too by copy paste or typo accident. Before I vote here, I'd like to see what 7&6 has to say in their defense, and whether there is any evidence there is a pattern of low-quality or fraudelent voting. I am not prepared to endorse a topic ban based on a single wrong ref added to an article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not just a wrong page number: the citations this user intended to add don't support the claim being made. It's not a single wrong ref: it's three times in the same article.—S Marshall T/C 09:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @S Marshall I'll trust you on that, but did this happen in another article or several? I am still willing to AGF that when something like this happens once, in a single article, it may be some sort of unintentoonal error or misunderstanding. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • GreenC is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members but has edited WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list 190 times [86] and votes with ARS, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Devine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Ross. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Well I am concerned by article deletion activity on Wikipedia. I try to participate in AfD when I can, but have not had as much time for it recently, find it best in small doses, not all the time. Trying to ban active members of AfD because of their inclusionist bent seems like a step backwards because it's already under-participated, banning people has a sense of book banning. Would require serious infractions and not really seeing it, mostly just disagreements over content, at the root. -- GreenC 18:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Trying to ban active members of AfD because of their inclusionist bent seems like a step backwards it's a good thing no one is doing that, then. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban based on a single alleged error; I say "alleged" because the page in question has been deleted and hardly anybody even seems to have a solid grasp of what the hell it was (or what the book was). If this is really a big enough deal for a topic ban, surely it's a big enough deal that people should actually see the evidence (e.g. in an ArbCom case)? jp×g 09:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unless this is a consistent pattern, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather not burn someone over what could be an honest mistake, following Hanlon's razor. I don't intend this as a general statement about their behavior at AfD. There could be other reasons necessitating intervention, but I don't think it should be based on this particular matter (again, absent further evidence of malice). – Anon423 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Falsifying sources is indeed most serious, but as others are saying we should want several more examples before assuming it wasn't a good faith mistake. As admitted back in March I've made the mistake of adding content not supported by the source myself, no one can be perfect all the time. If anything, it's probably better for content creators to make a very occasional OR type mistake rather than erring in the other direction and sticking so close to the sources that they violate copyright. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • FeydHuxtable has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The only thing necessary here is to tell 7&6=13, "please don't do that again". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I've banged my head on the desk regarding 7&6 before but in the end I believe they are not here to disrupt. But for $DEITY's sake, please stop pulling stunts like this, because the community's patience is clearly not endless. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support not because of the falsified page number which is serious, but because of his incredibly appalling behaviour, his incessant incivility to and PAs about nominators (yes usually minor but staggeringly common), his continued use of absolutely terrible “sources” despite being repeatedly pulled up on them in multiple forums and his flat out refusal to discuss them. With regard to his sourcing, I cannot decide if it is a deliberate attempt to game the process, or he really just has no clue, neither is a valid excuse as he is either being WP:DISRUPTIVEor is WP:INCOMPETENT. He might require a trip to ARBCOM. Cavalryman (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC).
• Support but for different reasons. It's not just that they put the wrong book title or wrong page numbers in a citation. It's that the correct citation didn't support the content cited, and that when this was pointed out, 7&6 didn't correct it or even acknowledge it; it took other editors, here in this thread, to speak for them, because they ignored it. Even still, that one incident alone, doesn't merit a topic ban, but that wasn't an isolated incident; it's indicative of a long history of problems at AFDs that continues up to this day:
  • There was the 2019 ANI and the August 2020 ANI, at which I posted a bunch of examples of incivility and other problematic conduct. What's happened since the Aug 2020 ANI:
  • Attacks at the ARS page, for example "Massive attack (not the band) on Native American participants." and "A living memorial to the arbitrary and capricious possibility of a closer, namely...". When I raised this with ARS at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 60#Attacking AFD nominators on the ARS page, I was ignored.
  • More recently, the usual battleground at AFDs, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed-counting machine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller (search for "thirteen" on any of those pages to read the comments in context)
  • And it's not just AFDs, the disruption also extends to mainspace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur) is an instructive example. It's an ARS AFD, and aside from the battleground behavior in the AFD, there is edit warring on the page and using lax sources:
    • 7&6 adds content that is not about Big John from a non-RS, it's removed, reinstates it clarifying it's not about Big John (still a non-RS), it's removed again as not an RS but "Creationist pseudoscience"
    • 7&6 adds content with OR/SYNTH "paltry by comparison" from non-RS www.dogonews.com, a children's website; it's removed; reinstates it changing "paltry" to "small" (still SYNTH, still not an RS); it's removed again; reinstates it with the edit summary "take it to the talk page" (heh, how I love it when people reinstate their bold edits and tell others to take it to the talk page)
    • Removes a edit warring notice with the edit summary "Taking out the trash."
    • I believe that every single edit of 7&6's on this page Big John (dinosaur) that was reverted was reinstated by 7&6 in whole or part. It's indicative of the "must-win, sources-be-damned" attitude.

  All in all, the "page number" example is indicative of the non-collaborative nature of 7&6's general approach to deletion discussions, and how this creates unnecessary work for other editors who have to clean it up or otherwise deal with it. A tban from AFD is frankly long overdue. It's necessary to prevent disruption, such as what's going on at the Big John AFD and article, in real time, right now. Levivich 19:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Levivich: You might find this talk page discussion[87] interesting. It was about 7&6's references for.John Tiedtke not backing up what he had written in the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Moderate support. This is maybe the relatively weakest case of the current 3, but as others have said, a decision, whether support or oppose, should not be based off the somewhat premature OP of this section that left out a lot of evidence. I originally wasn't going to !vote here, but Levivich's post above convinced me (which says a lot if someone is assuming supports are just voting in buddy-buddy blocks). The evidence in this section so far and the overall ANI show a battleground attitude along with competence issues (assuming WP:AGF rather than malice) in poorly using sources or going for pseudoscience sources. Going on about deletionists as a WP:POT tactic here put it over the edge of merely tepid support for me at least.

However, this is the only one I can say the behavior (that I've seen at least) may not warrant an indef topic ban. They're going down a bad path, but I'm not convinced it can't be redirected unlike the other cases that are pretty exhaustive so far. In this case, a six month ban would give them time away from the subject to try to force some reflection while allowing the overall subject area to cool down. It's also partly a mismatch with the current editing environment than just 7&6's direct behavior, so I say this in part for what may be best for the community while giving 7&6 a chance. When 7&6 would come back, the other bad actors would mostly be gone from the looks of it, and WP:ROPE would be the guiding principle for what happens with 7&6 after the ban. That would give them the opportunity to turn things around with the expectation that there would be more direct focus on their behavior if the others in the group aren't around anymore. KoA (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment for those who are focused on the book pages - There are other reasons to be concerned here, such as this user recommending a blog post be considered a reliable source at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis or withdrawing their keep vote at a PAID Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin, not because they admitted they might be wrong, but because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing delete consensus. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• support I don´t really buy the excuses around misclaiming sources but contributions to the area frequently degrade the quality of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since there is no consistent pattern, we should assume good faith. This discussion is by itself a punishment and warning so we should leave it at that. gidonb (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I just do not, frankly, think a good enough case has been made here. Compare this thread to the one below, which begins with a pile of diffs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll do mine: Rhododendrites is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, but has listed maybe two things at ARS ever. He has agreed with ARS members at times, disagreed at times, and has been critical of some of their practices many times. He doesn't particularly like long walks on the beach, but does think these !votes should be evaluated on the strength of arguments, and being a member of ARS doesn't disqualify an opinion any more than having long feuds with members of ARS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:NemesisAT and User:Rhododendrites. I am not persuaded that the case is sufficiently strong to warrant the extreme sanction proposed. There is reasonable doubt as to whether the single cited sourcing issue was intentional or accidental. Given that the alleged sourcing issue is limited to a single instance, I am inclined to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: what do you mean, "single"? There are multiple. Levivich 12:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I am using the word "single" in its ordinary English-language usage. The proposal set forth above, as submitted by S Marshall, was premised upon the alleged falsification of "a source" (and page numbers therein) in order to prevent "an article" (i.e., "Reginald V. Smith") from being deleted. If there are other alleged instances of falsification of sources, they were not referenced in the proposal. What do you mean by "multiple"? Cbl62 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Cbl62: yes it was unfortunate that there was only one example in the proposal, but there are diffs to additional items in Mztourist's support vote, and my support vote, above. Whether or not those additional diffs are convincing, I don't know, but there's more to look at than just the one thing mentioned in the proposal. Levivich 13:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, sorry about this, but I'm afraid we've learned a lot from each other during this discussion. It's necessary to follow the arguments, then look at the now-deleted edits, then form an opinion about whether the three separate references this user added really did support the claims being made. The case for a t-ban is no longer that this user wilfully fabricated the references, because we now know that they meant to add a different reference entirely. It's now that the three references they meant to add did not in any way support the three claims being made. I put it to you that this editor has been so reckless and negligent with references as to forfeit the community's trust at AfD. And as Levivich says, there's additional evidence by others to consider as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Again I dislike tbanning anyone from one of their primary interests when I'm sure they're well-intentioned and, particlularly in the case of 7&6, have done very good work, but the very poor sources added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella van Graas -- while accusing the nom of not having done her BEFORE -- in an apparent attempt to refbomb the AfD, and which I ended up cleaning up after, are very troubling. I would feel more comfortable with a stern warning not to ever add crap sources at AfD ever again, but I'll go along with a tban in the hopes that this editor, in an unblock request, will agree to stop behaving this way. I don't want us to lose this productive editor, but adding just completely bad sources is too big a problem. —valereee (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I was on the fence about 7&6, but I have to agree with S Marshall's post above Valereee's. People who play fast and loose with refs are among my personal bugbears, and this situation is just too reminiscent of the days when A Nobody would attempt to derail AfDs with "sources" that had nothing to do with the topics of the articles under discussion, such as citing scientific articles on static molecular analysis to justify an article on the concept of "molecular static" in a fantasy TV show. The current tactics of some ARS members aren't as blatantly loony as that, but the indiscriminate throwing of irrelevant sources into AfD discussions and—even worse, I think—the rush to introduce into articles themselves references that often turn out to be erroneous or irrelevant can only be harmful. If an article is kept at AfD, any bad references that have got into it are unlikely ever to be checked and removed. Deor (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support routinely creates more heat than light through battleground behavior --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Suffusion of Yellow. Looks like a mistake, or perhaps a small series of mistakes. The mistakes were corrected. I don't see any "pattern of falsifying sources" here. "ARS activity", or other grudge matches, may be other topics for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, anyone who has made as many edits as 7&6 is going to have made a few mistakes. If any editor has cited an incorrect page number or even an inappropriate reference it can easily be challenged on the relevant page (and often is). A topic ban is a significant over-reaction. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose as, in AfD terms, I have not done a WP:BEFORE. That is, on the basis of the evidence presented, there is no reasonable case to topic ban 7&6=thirteen. I have not investigated to see if one exists. There has been only one case of "false" references presented, which was a mix-up of which book a set of page numbers belonged, and a comment about its coverage that most people disagreed with. This is not even slightly close to evidence of deliberate falsification; anyone who has not made such mix-ups from time to time themselves has not been engaged in content creation sufficiently to have any place at this discussion. As for incivility, I'm not seeing the evidence presented, and though other editors may know without checking based on regular encounters with 7&6=thirteen, for a community-given topic ban someone needs to lay out the evidence clearly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support. Per battleground behavior pointed out by Levivich and others. Making honest mistakes in reference page numbers is forgivable. Linking to what turn out to be trivial mentions as potential GNG sources is lame but at least could offer a stepping stone for more industrious editors. Regularly misrepresenting clearly non-RS and non-SIGCOV refs in AfD discussions/articles in an effort to sway other !voters is a problem. Their confrontational attacks on other editors are a problem. While they are certainly not the worst of the ARS group, and while any single example is not sufficient for a TBAN, I think the fact that we have multiple examples at all is an indication that their AfD editing is problematic. JoelleJay (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: As JoelleJay cogently states, regularly misrepresenting refs at AfD is manifest bad faith. There comes a point where you just can't airily wave off a string of the same as "a few mistakes." Because here's where we all ought to stand: no one has any business registering a vote at AfD until they are certain that their stated position is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and that their assessment of the sources is in accordance with community standards. An editor who has a track record of not being able to do these things? We bounce newbies right and left on WP:COMPETENCE issues. Editors with many thousands of edits have no excuse. Ravenswing 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I recognize that 7&6 is an editor who makes good contributions in other areas, but this sanction would only apply to deletion. And I've seen too many examples of personalizing and assuming bad faith of good-faith complaints about ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support While not impressed by the page number problem that began this in isolation, it is indicative of their general, "throw every scrap of possible source at the wall and see what sticks" input. The Big John AfD and others mentioned above show that 7&6 has little regard for the core content policies in trying to find something, anything they can to support a "Keep". The point of both AfD and ARS is to see if an article nominated has sources to support inclusion but 7&6 reverses that and tries to create sources to force inclusion of everything nominated. Sources that (badly) fail WP:RS or sources that fail to even mention the supposed subjectare brought up to justify a pre-determined position. They are obviously putting the first result from their searches into the articles without any selectivity. And then there's, well, whatever this is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARS Proposal #3: Topic ban or other restrictions for Andrew Davidson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I am still not convinced we can solve much here, and ArbCom might be preferable, as I was asked to present the evidence I mentioned above, here it is, coupled with the proposal to a) topic ban Andrew Davidson from AfDs, dePRODs, and removing copyediting templates, or b) at least to require him to provide an analysis of all sources he brings to AfDs (discussing what makes them reliable and containing significant coverage), to provide a similar rationale for his deprods or removal of copyediting templates. This is because I believe that his votes are repeatedly low quality, based on WP:GOOGLEHITS, that he is often uncivil in his AfDs comments, that his repeated deprods, low quality votes, and abrasive behavior have been producing a battleground atmosphere in the deletion TA, and that he has been repeatedly, and for years, been asked to behave better and to follow best practices, requests he has disregarded over several years. PS. My preference is for b) rather than a) if it is judged workable by the community (while a) is simpler but b) might be more constructive).

Item one: Prior discussion of Andrew's behavior in context of deletion and civility

December 2017 User:Everymorning (now User:IntoThinAir) proposed a topic ban for Andrew from RfAs Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive295#Andrew_Davidson_and_RFAs:_time_for_a_topic_ban? While not directly related to deletion discussion and closed with no consensus, the closer also noted that “A common theme, however, is that people regard Andrew's votes on RfA as against consensus, petty and unlikely to gain traction, and he should consider changing tact” - this is relevant given the notes about tone and incivility are similar to many latter complaints regarding his deletion comments. Note that this was the second attempt to ban him from RfA (the prior one was from January 2017 filled by User:Samwalton9 and also closed without action Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive286#Andrew_Davidson_and_RfA_-_Topic_ban_proposal; and again the issues raised were related to civility and attitude). 18 June 2018 at AN User:Zxcvbnm complained about Andrew’s behavior at AfDs. Closed as no action. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD 5 November 2018 User:Softlavender proposed at ANI that Andrew should be required to provide rationales for his PRODs. This has been closed as no consensus. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD. Same day User:Roxy the dog proposed a topic ban and block for Andrew for his deprodding without a rationale. This has been closed as no consensus as well Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#TBAN_and_Block_Needed . September 2020 A general complaint about Andrew's "bad faith editing" by User:Hako9 was closed with no action due to no consensus but also a note that “Andrew is advised to take seriously the feedback (and in some cases warnings) offered by many, particularly around personal attacks, in the thread.” His behavior at AfD has been criticized there, for example by User:Reyk, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Bad_faith_editing_by_User:Andrew_Davidson. talk page warnings: [88] a discussion leading to a topic ban suggestion on Andrew's talk page in 2018 User:Adamant1 warns Andrew that “I'd support a ban if it ever came to one. It's clear that Andrew is abusing the system and wasting everyone's time by serially removing PRODs from articles that just end up getting deleted at AfD. Then instead of doing simple things multiple people have asked him to do, like leaving a changeset comment” more requests/warning to be more civil on his talk page: a complaint by User:Deacon Vorbis [89], [90], December 2020 User:Peacemaker67 complains about Andrew's behavior (civility) in the context of AfDs, nothing "You seriously need to get a grip. Afds are not a personal attack on you" [91], February 2021 he was warned by Ritchie333 that calling others a “dick” is out of line and not very constructive; pnn August 14, 2020 User:Argento Surfer asks him to stop attacking the nominator “you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse".”

Item two: Andrew's AfD stats

Andrew’s Del stats accessible at https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Andrew%2BDavidson&max=500&startdate=&altname= are are around 50% (i.e. half of his votes match up with the community). At that level, they are arguably not distinguishable from random noise. A longitudinal analysis suggests his ratio is getting steadily worse each year; and dipped below 50% last year. In my view, an experienced editor should be "correct" more than half the time, anything below this suggests his actions are not aligned with the prevailing consensus. Note that https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name=Andrew+Davidson&search=DEPROD&server=enwiki&max=500&ns= will show articles Andrew dePRODed which were not deleted (many were not followed up with an AfD due to the nominator not being aware that they were deprodded; others were redirected, often without merging). Some of those were redirected. I am not aware of how to produce a count of articles Andrew deprodded that were subsequently deleted, but I believe that number is very high. What will follow next is the analysis of various problematic cases I am aware of.

Item three: Mass deprodding of low quality articles

Item three: Andrew is habitually doing mass deprodding as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling. I have no issue with this project, it’s a valuable initiative just like ARS, but in my experience (judging by edit summaries and seeing who actually deprods articles I prod), Andrew is responsible for 90% if not 99% of deprods coming from this project. I am not aware of any other editor who has been doing mass deproddings on such a time scale (several years), who is not willing to compromise in any single detail (such as adding justifications to their deprods), and who is also so aggressive and ABFing towards those who prod or AFD articles. Here is a sample (starting in November 2019) of articles he dePRODed with this generic rationale, ALL of which ended up deleted. Despite being pinged and asked to explain his views in the following AfDs, he did not participate in a single one; the AfDs subsequently ended up with a strong consensus to delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MUX_(The_Hardy_Boys), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Teens_Against_Crime, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Assassins_(The_Hardy_Boys), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Wizards, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Book_of_G'Quan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dilgar_War, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAS_Pollux, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAS_Hyperion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAS_Alexander, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth–Minbari_War, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interstellar_Alliance_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emperor_Cartagia, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Gideon, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zack_Allan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morgan_Clark... There were several more that were redirected or merged following his deprod. The above list is a good illustration of how Andrew forces the community to waste time discussing uncontroversial (and cleary not meeting our modern standards) articles at AfD. As far as I remember, he deprodded every single article about the B5 TV show I or others PRODed during the cleanip of articles related to that series in late 2019, did not participate in a single resulting AfD, and each and every AfD ended up with the article being deleted (a few were redirected). Andrew could have saved everyone’s time by redirecting them himself to Babylon 5 (and if he did so, more of the content would’ve survived in the redirect’s histories; by taking the hard inclusionist stance he wasted others time and got more of the content “hard” deleted than he would have if he tried to compromise). Least someone argues that this is stale stuff from a two years ago, here are similar cases of DePRODs from last and this year - deprods of articles who are often unreferenced, and end up being deleted/redirected with little or no objection: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemers (comics), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_and_Helen, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miraz's_Castle (He participated in those two AfDs. Note that his keep vote was the single keep among other 6-7), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tisroc, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Manealoff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Heineman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying polyp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsieur Stigmonus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Taramis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingmen of Thanagar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadesdah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss (comics) (his keep is again the sole dissenting vote), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Mel, [92] (sample article he deprodded that got redirected shortly afterward by another user), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nathan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying machine (The War of the Worlds), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embankment machine (The War of the Worlds), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handling machine (The War of the Worlds)... please note this is a sample, not an exhaustive list of such incidents - the full list would be several times longer. My aim is to show this is a long-standing pattern. Please note that even if he is pinged to elaborate on his dePROD in the AfD, very often he ignores such a request entirely.

Item four: repeated concerns about not providing PROD rationales

In addition to mass deprodding, those deprods themselves are, well, mass produced and thus poorly rationalized. He has been asked numerous times to provide prod rationale and use more informative edit summaries. He will either ignore such requests or reply that DEPROD doesn’t require doing so. Over the years, numerous editors have complained about this. See User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Osterley_Television_Centre , User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Andrew_de_Leslie_(d._c._1352) (by User:Domdeparis), User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Pension_hotel (by User:PamD), [93] (by User:Hijiri88), User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Jazz_in_Africa (by User:Vmavanti), User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#World_Beer_Cup, (by User:Sitush, User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Parks (by User:Rusf10), User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Galileo by User:Winged Blades of Godric), [94], [95],[96], [97] (by User:Magnolia677), [98] (by User:Brigade Piron), [99] (by User:David Fuchs), [100] (by User:CommanderWaterford), [101], [102] (by User:HTGS), [103] (by User:Tautomers), [104] (by User:Sputnik13), [105] (by User:Mztourist), [106] (by User:David notMD), [107] (by User:William Harris), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Davidson&diff=860123649&oldid=860042869&diffmode=source ] (by User:JRPG), by User:AssociateAffiliate [108] and User:Blue Square Thing [109], by User:DoubleGrazing [110] (note Andrew just deleted the post, this is quite common way he "replies" to such concerns, see also [111] and note the edit summary to User:AlexMullane).... Recently User:Calistemon and User:JarrahTree faced similar problem, see [112] (resulting AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monash_coal_mine - resulted in deletion at AfD, like many of the rest). That's... quite a lot, isn't it? I am sure there are more than just these, I might have missed a few. I'll highlight [113], where Andrew mocks a user who says they are experiencing significant stress and note that at User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#List_of_megaprojects_in_India User:Hijiri88 warned Andrew that “You should probably also bear in mind that while there is no broad community consensus that editors in general are required to provide a reason for deprodding, there was a pretty strong consensus here that you specifically should provide a reason when you deprod, or potentially face sanctions”.

Item five: a sample of AfD votes with no or bad rationale, including personal attacks

Some of them are jokes, rants, condescending personal attacks, etc. [114], [115], insinuation of racism in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Angola (see discussion there, also User:Reyk noted this happened before), [116], . Referring to Andrew's "vote" in this AfD, User:Darkknight2149 called it " laughable and borders on obfuscation". Here another editor calls him out for being too sarcastic. This is not new behavior, in 2017 User:Chris troutman asked Andrew “Do you ever make a policy-based argument at AfD?”]. Not much has changed since, certainly not for the better. After nominators note there are no good sources, Andrew often calls their claims false, even if his sources are found wanting and don't sway the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedtime toy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee, [117], He repeatedly called Prods or AfDs disruptive or otherwise problematic, often in a disparaging way. Another term he has used that has been criticized is “cookie-cutter nominations”. This has been criticized here and here [118] by User:Darkknight2149 votes where his sources seem google-hity, others have pointed out they are irrelevant to the discussion, likely showing Andrew did not read them, just googled something with the discussed word in title/body, and threws it into the discussion with a variation of "keep, there are sources": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomalhaut in fiction, etc. Here [119] User:TTN concludes that Andrew "didn't even look at the source before posting it". Similar case here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flycatcher (comics). User:Zxcvbnm described Andrew's participation in another AfD as "trolling" In this AfD in his keep vote he calls the nomination a “drive-by”, doesn’t present any policy-based argument. User:Sandstein closed this AfD noting that [120] “I must discount all "keep" opinions because they fail to address the suggested reason for deletion (lack of coverage in reliable sources), or violate WP:NPA/WP:AGF, or both.” A few days later, on July 14 2021, User:S Marshall commented during a deletion review which was closed by Sandstein on Andrew’s behavior: “It's not OK to charge around AfD punching nominators on the nose, and I view the behaviour in that debate as totally outside Wikipedia's conduct standards. Andrew Dingley and AlgaeGraphix's contributions both demonstrate their need for some support and direction from a member of our administrative corps.” .[121].(Note: I believe S Marshal meant Andrew Davidson, not Dingley; I'll correct this sentence if I was wrong). Andrew’s response? [122] “Sandstein's supervotes are getting beyond a joke. "I must discount all "keep" opinions" is quite typical of his style which fails to observe WP:DGFA's guidance to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants."” Well, I believe that it would be nice if Andrew would start to respect the judgement and feelings of Wikipedia participants he so vocally criticizes in many deletion discussions.

Item six: removal of copyediting template

Lastly, a new (I think) and worrying development this year has been Andrew's removal of copyediting templates. Now, not only is he opposed to deletion of articles, but he is also opposed to tagging the as in need of fixing. February 9, 2021 he was asked by me not to remove cleanup templates (notability), endorsed by another editor, User:David Fuchs who additionally also asked him to use informative PROD summaries. Andrew never replied to either of us, removing the section without archiving it [123] Following this, he kept removes notability templates (as well as occasionally others, such as “more citations needed”, “dictionary definition” or “original research”) from articles that have no clear claim to notability with the WP:TAGBOMB edit summary, despite some of those articles not having many tags (just a single one). Here is a sample series of deprods also removing notability and other cleanup tags from July 2010, 2021: [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]... I have asked him not to so again in July 2021 [132] to which he replied aggressively, changing my neutral section heading to “barking” [133] and attacking me with comments directed at who knows whom, like “Piotrus' edits often seem contentious”. And he kept on removing templates with the same rationale [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140]...

I rest my case. I believe the links above show that this is a long-standing pattern of problematic behavior - from disruption to personal attacks and battleground attitude - that many editors have complained about. Can the community do something, or do we need ArbCom to step in? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support (A) Saying that Andrew D. is intentionally disruptive is an understatement. It's hard to estimate the countless hours of wasted time people have spent having to nominate articles that normally would have remained PROD for deletion, only for them to later be deleted regardless. Not to mention the time spent refuting arguments that, on their face, seem like valid ones, but on closer inspection are clearly meritless with bait and switch sources. Just because he technically does not break the rules doesn't mean it is not having a massive chilling effect. There's a term for that, gaming the system._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: while I have no opinion on the rest of your comment, please don't characterise run-of-the-mill editing by other editors as "chilling". Even if you're making a valid point otherwise. That term means "horrifying or frightening", and accusing editors of that usually implies some sort of WP:Harassment or trust and safety issue is at play. Clearly not the case here. Calling things "chilling" seems to be cropping up more and more in discussions these days, and it is over the top as well as making it harder to deal with genuine issues of harassment.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's usually used in the sense of a chilling effect, which is to say actions which discourage others from contributing or acting; in this phrase it is "chilling" in the sense of freezing, causing inaction, not in sense of "horrifying or frightening". ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose , some end up as valid articles that are kept, others deleted. The first thing listed at [141] right now is [142] A user without many edits prodded it and from the looks of it, it is a valid article, so deprodding was valid. Prods are meant for deletions that had no one likely to disagree. They are unfortunately misused at times. Dream Focus 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's whataboutism, I am afraid - like saying "it's ok when cops shoot civilians, after all, just yesterday I saw a news piece about this cop shooting a criminal and saving some innocent person" (read: article). Nobody is denying Andrew does some good, but he also does a lot of collaterall damage at the same time. Damage that he could easily prevent by being civil, assuming good faith, and using informative deprod edit summaries/talk page comments, and by providing source analysis instead of just linking google hits results in AfDs. Some of his deprods/votes are fine, but way too many are not, and I think the amoung of those problematic comments/votes/deprods is too high to ignore. It's the case of doing more harm than good, IMHO, a net negative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment "There are times when someone goes around rapidly proding things, he goes about deprodding all of them" You are not helping his case. Making changes to articles without actually reading them should be avoided. Andrew D. neither spend time evaluating the articles, nor made efforts to improve them. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support 30-day topic ban from both AfD and de-prodding on grounds of many examples of gross incivility. Unlike Lightburst, I feel that this user's habitual unpleasantness does rise to the level of disruptive behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You want to give someone who has been active (and consistently problematic) at AfD for well over a decade, with countless warnings and several blocks.... a 30 day tban? What exactly would that accomplish? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support some topic ban: Since I was tagged here, I will give my observations. I noticed a pattern with Andrew Davidson in the back half of 2020. Andrew has a constant track record of going into AfDs with a "protect the article at all cost" mentality and will often stretch the meanings of certain policies and criteria (or evoke them even in situations where they obviously don't apply) to justify his Keep votes. I have never seen him vote Delete on anything and this sort of thing has happened persistently over a long period of time. This behaviour has extended into obfuscation, incivility, and general attempts to mislead. I attempted to reach Andrew on his talk page and elsewhere back in August 2020 politely asking him to stop, but all he did was say "I don't know what you are talking about" and then resumed what he was already doing. I haven't spoken to him in quite a while, but the concerns raised by Piotrus are not imaginary. Darkknight2149 12:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A recent example of my !voting Delete has already been provided – see List of controversial deaths in the military. That was not four years ago; it was just a few weeks ago. This demonstrates both that I'm expressing my own honest assessment of topics and that I'm not blindly following an ARS party-line. See also confirmation bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you legitimately think that voting delete just 1.4% of the time indicates that you are "not blindly following an ARS party-line"? Does your "honest assessment of topics" truly result in notability nearly 90% of the time? eviolite (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Although deprodding itself is not the problem (prods can be removed for any reason) and good faith users are sometimes strawmanned into being inclusionists boogeymen (I can see a couple of long-term partisons voting here right now, unfortunately), I'm sorry to say that this is an example of a clear-cut case of non-constructive behaviour on your end. It's not just your one-note record, but also the long-term sample size, the persistent weightlessness of your Keep arguments, the general (and sometimes even dishonest) behaviour surrounding anything related to deletion, your demeanor towards anyone and everyone who nominates anything for deletion (even for legitimate reasons), ETC. It's pretty much all of it packaged together. Darkknight2149 19:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, this is an indiscriminate ragbag of issues, most of which are unrelated to the supposed issue of the ARS and canvassing. The idea seems to be that if you keep slinging enough mud then eventually something will stick. Anyway, let's start at the top with the first points. There's a misunderstanding of WP:GOOGLEHITS which I have already explained above. That essay doesn't mean that editors should not use Google to find and list sources; editors are explicitly expected to do this.

And then the first detailed item is a complaint about RfA from 2017. That's over four years ago and so is very stale. But notice that I haven't opposed anyone at RfA for years now because I decided that this was a mug's game as people just didn't listen. So, having driven off opposers who did detailed research like me, the result is that you get RfAs like the recent one for Eostrix in which you get huge numbers of supports and only one oppose until it is realised that closer inspection is required and RfA can't be trusted to get this right.

But even though opposition has been silenced, people still complain that RfA is toxic and so we have another round of reform. I have commented in that and my suggestions are being listened to — even Piotrus agreed with them.

But talking about RfA is a huge tangent from the OP's original issue and so quite off topic. This is what happens when you leave discussions open for too long — you get thread drift and a free-for-all.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2008, and is the subject of this TBAN proposal. Levivich 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: It has already been stated clearly by Beeblebrox and the rest of the Arbitration Committee that the discovery that Eostrix was a sockpuppet of IceWhiz was only obtainable by off-wiki evidence, and it was also clarified that no fault should be found on the nominators HJ Mitchell and Girth Summit whatsoever. So either you had a lot of convincing off-wiki evidence to prove this case to Arbcom, in which case you should have worked with Arbcom to get a ban invoked before the RfA even started, or (more likely in my opinion) you are casting unnecessary aspersions and antagonising people. I haven't decided how to vote in this sanction yet, but if you continue to make antagonising comments like these that annoy people, you're likely to find the ban proposal will reach consensus. Now please - knock it off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The only one of these I'd support. I always find it painful to support sanctions on long-term good-faith contributors. I think Andrew has done a lot for Wikipedia, but, unfortunately, I've also long been under the impression that he's a net negative at AfD. Andrew is likely to attack the nominator, seems to frequently try to circumvent real discussion by wikilawyering about the nomination statement (or cherry-picked elements of the nomination statement, while ignoring the rest) in ways that hurt rather than help discussion ([143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]). Andrew has idiosyncratic opinions about deletion, and will aggressively present them not as opinion but settled fact, and those who disagree as somewhere between a fool (to be corrected) and a vandal (to be scolded). Even when ostensibly being helpful (and FWIW I don't mean to imply that Andrew is never helpful at AfD -- that would be untrue), the effect is still often negative. For example, responding with a list of titles apparently copy-pasted from a list of google books/scholar hits, with no information about them or what they contain and not so much as a simple link to let people know what work he's even talking about. Everyone else has to do the work of finding them. Too often, whether linked or not, the sources wind up being low quality or barely mention the subject such that it's hard to believe Andrew actually read them before pasting the titles (there are lots of examples of the non-linking and use of poor sources, and these are not the most illustrative, but they're what I have ready to hand: [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]). These lists of sources (or sometimes just one, or just a link to google hits) are treated like they absolutely rebut any possible argument while making it hard for people to track down and verify his claims. All of this stuff just makes an already frequently unpleasant corner of the project that much more difficult and unpleasant. And, although I consider this less important, amid all of the talk about ARS and canvassing, there are frequent examples of Andrew actually using ARS as a keep club (e.g. with jokes rather than a neutral explanation of why it merits rescuing as per ARS's own guidelines). He has the worst afdstats I think I've ever seen from a long-time contributor, and has had problems with deletion going back more than a decade (prior to Piotrus's links, too, under Andrew's other account, Colonel Warden). A caveat, though: my support is completely unrelated to deprodding, which I don't particularly care about, and which I frankly think is a mistake to bring up here given how many times it's been reaffirmed that deprodding can be done for any reason. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Updated to include more diffs, and I edited part of it in the process. Should there be any doubt, here is a link to my initial comments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites doesn't give any examples, so I looked for one. The most recent case where we commented together seems to be Mac Ross – one of the Tuskegee Airmen that have been the main bone of contention lately. In that case, I removed the PROD from the article. If this had not been done, it would have been deleted without discussion. I then commented briefly at the AfD, citing both a source and policy. And I improved the article by adding an image – it did not previously have one. So, I was working hard in several ways to save a topic which seemed to have good promise. In that case, Rhododendrites !voted Keep like me so I'm not quite understanding why they see me as such a villain. Are they going to take over such duties if I am banned? Or are they content to see such topics deleted without discussion? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Indeed Colonel, the fact ARS legends are getting attacked by those we've often colledgially worked shoulder to shoulder with is what makes this such a distressing thread. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm starting work at the moment (sorry, in hindsight I should've waited to post until I could respond/update accordingly), but will return to this this evening with examples and a follow-up. If you would prefer (and not anyone else), you have my permission to remove my comment above (and these replies), which I will restore later when I have more time to respond/add later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Updated now with some more diffs. FWIW I don't see you as a villain at all. It might not mean much given what I've written, but I get the impression you're a smart and good humored fellow who cares deeply about this project. I just also get the sense that the deletion process you want (or the community you want -- one which understands and treats deletion the same way you do) just doesn't exist. While I'm all for a dissenting view and disrupting traditional ways of thinking, it's just gone on too long, too consistently, and too inflexibly. It's one thing to speak out in dissent; it's another to force everyone to listen to the same arguments and put people through the same haranguing tactics over and over, for years. It's just time. I genuinely hope you'll stick around and continue to voice your opinion about deletion when it comes to our policies and guidelines (and continue to improve the project). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the OP on one point – the Colonel can be a little abrasive, and makes more point scoring type votes than is necessary. It would be good if he could make an effort to be more respectful of those with different opinions at AfD. Overall though, my view is that the Colonels contribution to AfD & prod patrol is a huge net positive; he's saved countless valuable articles from deletion, and his scholarship often elevates the debate. To address the “low quality, based on WP:GOOGLEHITS” , I can see why it might appear that the Colonel relies on professor Google , he speaks with authority on such a wide range of topics. Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting the Colonel in RL know differently – he can talk knowledgeably and spontaneously about all sorts of things, one of the rare few who warrant being called a walking encyclopaedia. And often his arguments are based on extensive printed sources from his private library, not google. I remember the first time I met him in RL at a meetup with Sue Gardener back in 2010. At the time, Deletionists were targeting London bus routes – the Colonel brought a stack of about a dozen books to the meeting, just to show the extensive coverage that London bus routes actually receive in reliable sources.
  This whole thread is starting to take on witchhunt qualities, it's starting to feel like parts of the community won't be happy until there is blood on the carpet. Even broad minded editors long respected by the ARS, such as good professor Piotr, Rhododendrites & S Marshall are pitching in. Please someone close this nightmare. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Even broad minded editors long respected by the ARS ... are pitching in or maybe they have a legitimate concern that remains unaddressed. Levivich 14:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be good if he could make an effort to be more respectful of those with different opinions at AfD. I think it is really disappointing that you (and the other like-minded but better-behaved editors) haven't taken the time to reach out quietly to your poorly-behaved colleagues and encouraged them to behave better; instead, you have abetted and promoted the problematic behavior that is the reason we are here, as you are doing above. Removing a small number of chronic caustic contributors at AfD is going to have a large positive impact on the environment there. --JBL (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Indeed. This is the "end justifies the means" mentality that leads to the building of groups, including voting blocks. As I said many times, the goal of ARS is noble, but some of its members have gone too far, turning AfDs into battlegrounds, with the logic that if they attack the "evil deletionists" and make them leave the project ("your kind is not welcom here!"), they'll "save" the project. Sacrifice a bit of civility in order to prevent the deletion of useful articles - I am sorry, but this is not the right way to build the project. I don't even mind the existence of the ARS voting block, and their coordination and such - as long as the end result is a constructive, polite debate. But when instead the result is a development of civility-violating behavior (understandable, after years of hard work and slow burning out and radicalization) and defending it because the editor is "on the right side" of the "inclusionists vs deletionist" debate, then this is the AN(I)/ArbCom problem to deal with :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    @JayBeeEll, It's not correct to assume such quiet words have not been had. I created WP:NWZ back in 2009. In 2011, I had a long off wiki chat with the Colonel about a Deletionist we were frequently tangling with at the time (ScottyWong) , who I argued deserved our respect. The Colonel even agreed. In later discussions concerning other editors he did not - but then the Colonel is a much better scholar than myself, so it's understandable he sometimes sticks to his guns. Here's an example from just over a year back where I partly agreed with Reyk on the Colonel's AfD conduct, even suggesting he might benefit from the occasional AfD break – and that was on a thread where the Colonel was enjoying much higher support than here. Squad members and other inclusionists are always having quiet words with each other, there would be hundreds of diffs if I had time for some digging. I recall benefiting several times from good advice from Dream, when I made a vote that wasn't well grounded in policy. That said, while I agree the Colonel's conduct isn't beyond improvement, I don't agree it's majorly problematic. It's a valid perspective to see putting an article up for deletion without following WP:Before as inherently aggressive. Criticising the nom can be a good thing, even if the Colonel probably does so too frequently. On balance, I don't even agree with the assumption I'm better behaved that the Colonel - more like he's someone for me to look up to. If not for my flaw of being excessively adverse to online conflict, I'd be involved in more AfDs, even sometimes making warranted criticism of hasty nominations. Then the Colonel might not feel obliged to shoulder so much of the burden himself. Now these assumptions have been clarified, perhaps you'll consider amending your vote? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    So, to summarize: you agree that AD's behavior is problematic, you think it would be better that they stop, and you believe that non-coercive methods of getting them to stop have failed. Sounds like a strong Support to me! Separately, w.r.t. my flaw of being excessively adverse to online conflict, if AD shared this flaw then we wouldn't be here. --JBL (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • FeydHuxtable has been a member of WP:Article Rescue Squadron since 2009. Levivich 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no requirement to provide a rationale for PROD removal. They're quick to add and quick to remove, that's the point. I'm uncomfortable with sanctions based on an editor's AfD stats or PROD removals because these are all within our guidelines, and editors should feel no obligation to follow the trend and likewise shouldn't feel scared to post a keep if others are voting delete or vice-versa. A ban for these reasons would send out the wrong message to other users. NemesisAT (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • NemesisAT is not listed at WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, but in their past 200 AFDs in the last four months, they've !voted "keep" 95.9% of the time [159], and has voted with ARS, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in military fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II. Levivich 15:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Why is this relevant? Ironically, I didn't realise the ARS existed until I saw someone complaining about them on an AfD. I usually avoid voting when articles are likely to be deleted and focus my time on those that could be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Same reason {{subst:canvassed}} exists; provides info for the closer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    For the sake of completeness then, Levivich votes delete/merge/redirect ~78% of the time and the OP Piotrus votes delete/merge/redirect ~90% of the time. NemesisAT (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, mine and Levivich's tag team is a thing to be feared... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support (a) (that Andrew Davidson be t-banned from AfDs) on grounds of incivility. The evidence presented in items 1 and 5 shows that Andrew has a longstanding behavioral problem that contributes to the poisonous atmosphere at AfD. I think it is unfortunate that the nomination mixes this up with questions of the quality of Andrew's contributions to AfD; Andrew should be topic-banned because they treat AfD as a battleground, routinely making personalized attacks on other AfD contributors, despite many warnings (as documented above). As applied to AfDs, I do not think (b) is workable or that it would address the problem; this comment should not be taken as either support or opposition on the question of PRODs. --JBL (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current policy on prod removal is that "You are encouraged, but not required" to explain why you are removing a prod. I can see a good case for changing that policy, at least for experienced editors. Filing an RFC and calling for a change to that policy is a legitimate way to change policy. Seeking to change policy by attacking those that follow a policy is a form of harassment and should be treated as such. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  The proposal (regrettably in my view) mixes together several different issues and several different remedies. This response relates to one area only (PRODs). (Several other commenters above have explicitly separated their comments about AfDs and civility concerns from their comments about PRODs.) --JBL (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Item seven: Extension of item one, failure to AFG about subsequent nominations
Andrew loves to complain about users supposedly "disruptively" renominating articles subsequent times, even if in some cases over a decade later. This is usually in poor faith and entirely unconstructive.

• Support I have added item seven. Besides his rote copy-paste of Google Books titles that do not necessarily mention the topic it hand, much less provide significant coverage, Andrew is regularly dismissive of the very concept of deletion, and the fact that AFD is forum for discussion, often shutting things down with a rude "My !vote stands", as if anyone thought they could change his vote in the first place. It's fine for someone to reply to a !vote for others to see without you attacking the fact they've addressed your points.

Further bad faith comments include this attack on a user rarely starting articles from scratch, this complaint that an editor made a nomination on behalf of another, calling it "vexatious" for having been discussed a decade earlier, this complaint calling a valid AFD "drive-by", and this attack where he literally calls me "a dog returning to his vomit" in one his useless trite quotations, this time to a Bible verse ("See also Proverbs 26:11.") Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Adding that like Reyk below, while I have had strong disagreements with Lightburst and 13, they do not leave such a bitter taste in this process and do not reject the process itself as Andrew does. "Speedy keep" is a common refrain when a nominator would be fine with a merge or redirect and total deletion is not requested, even when he states he may agree with one of those ATD options; this obstruction of the discussion is not helpful when outside input is sought and those are valid options at AFD. His gish gallop of book titles that happen to include some of the same words as the article title without showing how they'd improve the article or show notability (or the need for a stand-alone article sometimes) – and his often sarcastic adages – are rarely useful to "rescuing" articles or promoting good discussion. With respect to PROD, one particularly reflexive and unhelpful one was this when the tag said the topic already existed at another page. Even if a merge/redirect was better, the rationale was left ignored. At least he seems to have gotten over the phase of spouting "per WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, and WP:PRESERVE" as if they were blanket bans on the concept of deletion. Reywas92^Talk 16:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban because Andrew is probably the most blatant canvasser in the ARS with his dumb no-context “wink wink nudge nudge vote keep” jokes in place of information. A topic ban is a comparative slap on the wrist next to more serious sanctions (like total banning) but has more of a tangible effect on solving the issues at hand than just a warning (which has already been tried). He’s also persistently uncivil and a look at his stats suggests he’s a blind partyline voter. Dronebogus (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from deletion related issues and maintenance tags, broadly construed. It's clear that the Colonel is not capable of working collegially in these areas. The fundamental issue is that he does not care if mainspace articles are of awful quality, contain inaccuracies, contain irrelevant or falsified sourcing, copyvios, spam, or whatever else gunk you can think of- provided it's kept and that those advocating cleanup or deletion are called names and left frustrated. He's been white-anting the encyclopedia for over a decade and people just don't want to see it. Piotrus has done a good job of presenting evidence; I'll point out a few extra diffs and links to add to the pile:
  • The mendacious approach to sourcing is by far the biggest problem. As pointed out by Rhododendrites the Colonel often presents lacklustre "sources" that don't support the claim and which he may not have even read. Piotrus has linked to a few discussions already; I'd just like to show that not only would the Colonel like to load the encyclopedia up with inaccuracies he'd also like to censor people from pointing inaccuracies out. See for instance this AfD where a dumps a bunch of irrelevant sources into the discussion and then claims @Ravenswing: isn't allowed to scrutinise them because, the Colonel's opinion, he hasn't sufficiently abased himself at the holy altar of WP:BEFORE (and the Colonel will always claim that). An earlier example of attempted censorship is this Mfd. Basically, a book previously used as a source for numerous Wikipedia articles was found to be riddled with errors and utter gibberish and the user page in question catalogues the errors and set out why that book shouldn't be used as a source. Well, pointing out inaccuracies in WP content is extremely felonious especially if it leads to articles being deleted, so this user space page had to be quashed using the most tortured interpretations of WP:NPA and WP:OR I've ever seen. Luckily nobody was deceived but I think it shows the mindset pretty clearly.
  • Maintenance tags do not have an expiration date; they do not go "stale". They expire when the problem they alert the community to has been resolved, not before. Typically the maintenance tags he removes are neither "vague" nor "stale". A recent, typical, example is this, where a BLP-sources tag was deleted. It was obvious at a glance that the article contained at least three contentious and unsourced statements regarding a living person so there's nothing vague about it. Eventually the issues were mostly dealt with by removing or properly sourcing that stuff and that is when you remove the tags- not because you find them unsightly or because you want to undermine and sabotage the maintenance tag system. As for "stale", if a previous AFD in 2009 is cause to yawn "NOTAGAIN" today I don't see how 2019 can be considered stale.
  • As for the serial deprodding, "I'm allowed to do this" stops being an effective justification when the volume and repetition of it is getting disruptive, you're obviously just trying to be obnoxious, and people have legitimate questions about your motivations. We passed that point long ago.
  • Others have mentioned the personal attacks, including Piotrus and Reywas separately noting that he's called them dogs. I've noted his love of falsely calling people racists before yet has no qualms about making actually racist remarks himself.
  • I haven't !voted on Lightburst or 13's discussions and I'm not going to. There may be concerns about hurling insults and presenting sources of dubious provenance at AfD, but if so it's clear who they're trying to emulate. Removing the Colonel from XfD broadly construed would only reduce the amount of acrimony there, and the amount of shite in the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 16:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor is disruptive to the PROD and AfD processes, blindly voting keep and mass contesting PRODs without any good reason. Numerous examples are included above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all the mentioned problem areas. Leaving aside any questions of ARS canvassing and the like, Davidson is a net negative to the project in this realm—removing valid cleanup templates without any apparent significant thought or cogent argumentation, consistently poor conduct at AfD, and this has been an issue going back years and years and nothing has modified their behavior. Darkknight2149's summation of the behavior as "protect the article at all costs" is accurate, and where I think AD's behavior is clearly tendentious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support A per Rhododendrites description. B isn't easily enforceable. The lashing out at AfDs, superficial refbombing, etc. are almost the norm from Andrew nowadays, and I'm surprised this wasn't the first topic ban to be proposed. I do think this needs to be both an AfD and PROD ban to truly get them to step away from the behavior issues.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skull_Cave is one that caught my eye awhile back. Right away, Andrew just launches into attacks like More abuse of our deletion processes directed toward nominators followed by an alphabet soup of wikilinks and misuse of sources called out by Argento Surfer here.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Bad_faith_editing_by_User:Andrew_Davidson Closed as no conensus, but NinjaRobotPirate warned them if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. and endorsed by other admins like Cullen328, BD2412 , and RickinBaltimore. This isn't a new/recent issue, and Andrew has had plenty of time to change their behavior despite multiple admin and regular editor warnings.

These AfDs below are all from mostly just looking in their AfDs through this past summer. Besides the incivility others have posted evidence on, just a lot of time-wasting, etc:

Sniping, lashing out, or straight up personal attacks at AfDs. Piotrus seems to be a common target

It's the nomination which is indiscriminate as there's no clear reason for its existence[160] Another vexatious repeat nomination. . . (result was delete)[161] The usual cut/paste, drive-by nomination. . .[162] How many fingers am I holding up? That's the number of times that this page has been dragged here to Room 101 for a Two Minutes Hate before it is dropped down the memory hole.[163] Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find. . . article deleted[164] sniping about WP:TNT, The references to TNT are in poor taste here as TNT is a toxic explosive which was used to kill many people during WW2[165]

Reference hand-waving, wasting the communities time on WP:SIGCOV, often uses superficial "appears in numerous references" comment

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sidney_P._Brooks Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_B._Perry Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Haney Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gevrik Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Taggart The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD. responded to by The term is used exactly one time in that source, we're nowhere near passing WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[166] Keep A respectable scientific association. Finding sources is just a matter of looking – see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOEFFORT. responded to by Then what exactly are these sources that are supposedly so easy to find? Sandstein 12:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC) result was delete[167]

Then there's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_California_(2nd_nomination). This has already been discussed here and the result was keep. This fresh nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD. . . responded to with The last nomination was 9 years ago. You are acting like it was two weeks ago. Consensus can change, and surviving an AfD doesn't grant an article lifetime immunity if the issues persist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This is all hallmark WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior where in isolation no one is going to bother reporting or sanctioning, but the persistent behavior is apparent when you total up diffs. KoA (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support a (presumably indefinite?) topic ban for AD per previous discussions on their WP:POINTy WP:BLUDGEONING of AFDs, rarely via constructive criticism but containing PAs of varying degrees, often but not exclusively based on their perceived lack of WP:BEFORE, something which they rarely adhere to in their presentation of 'sources' with the same exacting expectations as they require of others. ——Serial 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban from AFD's, as per more evidence above than should be repeated. I will also cite:

  Abuse of Speedy Keep in saying that the nominator has not offered a policy-based reason to delete, when Speedy Keep 1 is the failure to offer a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support topic ban per the evident disruptive blind-!voting of repeat AfDs brought up by Reywas92's item 7 and KoA above. The opposes above only cover the PROD concern (which personally I do not have an opinion on) or that the given items do not relate to canvassing and ARS (which is nonsense as this is a proposal against Andrew alone and not ARS in general). Andrew's above comment that he is "not blindly following an ARS party-line" is also rather telling as in fact he has had voted keep or SK nearly 90% of the time - this certainly feels like a repeat of what Darkknight2149 mentioned: that all he did was say "I don't know what you are talking about" and then resumed what he was already doing when asked to stop. eviolite (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I supported something similar in September 2020 and the disruptive behavior has continued. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support (b) or (a) at least to require him to provide an analysis of all sources he brings to AfDs. This is the bare minimum we can ask for guys. If you provide an offline source then you're expected to have read it, to prove that notability is evidenced by those sources. All he does is blindly throw a dart expecting to hit the spot. It takes nothing from him to spam those long list of offline sources in all afds, and he knows those sources can't be dismissed without others having actually read them. Once a source is pointed out to him as having little to no association with the subject in question, he pivots to other sources or other arguments. This is a reliance on unfalsifiability. This is a massive drain on others though, when this action is repeatedly abused. Also, prima facie, based on his comments on other editors, I feel, any other person would have long been banned for personal attacks. An afd t-ban would solve the purpose by actually having him rescue articles rather than just saving them from deletion by hook or by crook. You can't say that all abortions must be stopped, but also then abandon the child once it is born. Why not save articles worth saving and let us abort the shitty ones. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This user has often dumped sources of minimal relevance into AfD discussions and simply driven on to another discussion. Let’s have them actually use relevant sources to build the articles rather than try and win deletion discussions. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan We're here again, how many years down the road is it since the multiple previous issues first came to light? It's time to stop at least some of the issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strongest Conceivable Support: Andrew's not merely a cancer on every level of deletion practice, but his indefatigable incivility, tendentious arguments, wikilawyering and agenda pushing is a running sore to Wikipedia at large; I would cheerfully support any sanction against him up to and including a community ban altogether, and an indef tban from any level of the deletion process, from AfD to deprodding to DRV is the least that should be enacted. If he wants to save articles from the axe, then he can go and improve the articles ... something he seems militantly opposed to troubling himself with (his mainspace edits, INCLUDING deprods, are only 30% of his total edits). And the worst of his nonsense? That if he throws up a bunch of links/sources in support of his assertions, you pretty much have to assume it's all bullshit -- that he's just cherrypicking from the first page of a Google search, that he hasn't examined a single link, and that he hopes no one else does either. (Honestly, reading a couple people defending his "scholarship" produced enough of a derisive snort from me to scare my cat out of my lap.)

  To anyone sitting on the fence on this issue, or contemplating leniency ... look. At what point is WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT worth actually enforcing? Andrew's antics are enough to have gotten a hundred newbies indef banned, and you all know it. Hell, Mick MacNee had ten times the productive edits Andrew's made. Ravenswing 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  a cancer on every level of deletion practice A somewhat bizarre view, but at least I now feel I understand the social dynamics that enabled the Athenians to vote to permaban Socrates. The Colonel is a truly unique scholar and Wikipedia will never again see his like. I know for a fact that several other worthy causes & projects in and around London are appreciative of the Colonel's time, so on the bright side, unlike with Plato's teacher, there will be several winners if your sort of rhetoric carries the day here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  I understand that you’re quite personally fond of “the Colonel”, but “I like him” is not an excuse when a ton of evidence has just been presented that he is, and will continue to be, a disruptive, toxic influence at AfD and that he can devote his knowledge and skills elsewhere on the project if he wants to improve it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'll also second this. It seems quite often when people are trying to deal with Andrew's bevhavior, Feyd is close by engaging in "Colonel" puffery. That interaction isn't core to this particular dispute, but maybe the ban will help cut down on some of that tangential aspect. There often does seem to be a sort of battleground attitude of how dare someone impinge on the "colonel". KoA (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seeing him as a “new Socrates” is the bizarre view. It’s also, frankly, disturbingly obsessive. You’re a dick isn’t “the unexamined life is not worth living”. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed; if anything this is just a sign Andrew is inspiring a weird, disruptive level of fanaticism that no editor should ever have, let alone an editor who clearly isn’t among Wikipedia’s best and brightest. Dronebogus (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Think of the children? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  And by that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  That you are right that we are seeing some weird appeals to emotion / save-my-buddy stuff here. And it is also a very valid point that we need to make a strong case that his behavior does not represent best practices, and that it should not inspire followers. Case in point: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#Majestrix_Lilandra (ping User:Haleth - read this thread please, and reconsider the advice you received there...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  You've pinged me here for a reason which is unrelated to the developing consensus in response to your proposal outlining allegations about Andrew's lack of civility, and probably has more to do with your long-running feud with Andrew since you are insinuating that I am a "follower" of him. The PROD policy clearly states that it must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected and providing the reason for deprodding is encouraged, but not required. It's not something Andrew or any other editor had made up on your own. Had Avilich, the person who left the PROD in the first reason, asked me to explain my reason for the deprod prior to or during the AfD, I would've given one without hesitation. It is also clear that the outcome of that particular AfD indicates that more then one editor opposed the deletion and thus it would be controversial, which means it is unsuitable to be subject to a PROD in the first place. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dronebogus, I must warn you that if continue to blaspheme our Lord and Saviour the Coloniel, you will spend an eternity in the fiery lake of Jimbo Whales. No pension in the afterlife for you. You will respect he who votes Keep and gives you fried chicken, praise be the Holy One. Darkknight2149 22:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia never again sees his toxic like, the encyclopedia will be a better place for it. It is entirely possible to be an inclusionist and still not be a troll. It is entirely possible to passionately wish to save threatened articles and yet avoid disruption, deceit and constant bad faith. Not that you seem to be listening to the mountain of evidence contradicting your attempted panegyric, but while you're talking about "scholarship," you might puzzle out why there are dozens of editors here so willing to come down on your hero. Ravenswing 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  The hubris of this group borders on the tragic. William Harris (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per all above (FYI: I've always thought of myself as an inclusionist). Paul August ☎ 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Full Strong Support The evidence provided here is incredibly extensive, thorough, and complete. I have had the displeasure of trying to reach out and reason with Andrew Davidson in the context of PRODs and AfD's and it was entirely ineffective. He operate in bad, rules-lawyering faith and is a net detriment to deletion discussions. Per the noms, he should be banned indefinitely from all deletion sections of wikipedia. This should include undeletion as well because if he is permitted to go there, it is almost certain he'll take strong advantage of that loophole. The core interaction I had with him is cited as item 95, but it went further. The discussion on his talk page can be found here where in I provide my analysis. He unfortunately deleted this off his talk page after that. It is also of my opinion of no action is or can be taken here, it should be escalated to ArbCom as the disruptive nature of Andrew Davidson is more than strong enough to necessitate that. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban, per nom and other support !votes above, which I won't repeat. I remember the 2020 ANI about AD and even putting the PROD stuff aside, the examples in the nom demonstrate that basically nothing has changed since the last ANI. A topic ban is overdue here to prevent the ongoing disruption. Levivich 19:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Pardon me for rambling here. I can only imagine all of the editors pounding the keys out of their keyboards and refreshing the thread. A long term editor like Andrew, who regularly deprods articles is bound to ruffle feathers. The challenge is to find one article that a prodder was wrong about: if the article deserves deletion it will be deleted and no amount of editing can save it - believe me I have tried. Many things need to be deleted, I have seen it researching the AfDs of Reywas92: he does that hard work in GEO - and I saw Giant Snowman did that work in FOOTY.. I almost always agree with some of you about deleting rubbish - I do not think the project needs more Pokemon trivia and I don't think Andrew does either. Regarding Andrew's tenure on the project...They tell U.S. Senators to run for President right away - like Barak Obama did. Do you know why? It is so they do not have a long record which others can pick apart. Well Andrew has a long record here, and more things to pick apart. And couple that with his affiliation with a group that takes on articles that many of you think should be deleted...well that is a recipe for the cathartic explosion in this thread. He can tone down his acerbic behavior and I will tell to him that. Right after I tell myself. Recently I complained that an Admin was snarly - others were quick to defend them, and then that admin basically said they were entitled to that attitude after 15 years on the project. My own opinion is this: would we allow a McDonalds Employee to mistreat customers because of their tenure? Probably not. So yes, I think Andrew gets it. You cannot work at McDonalds with an edgy attitude. Lightburst (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • About 90% of that was irrelevant Grandpa Simpson rambling, but I got that you think he shouldn’t be banned for de-prodding. But did you just ignore everything ELSE he’s accused of? Dronebogus (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "He can tone down his acerbic behavior and I will tell to him that". Don't hesitate to show us the diff of this admonishment. And I'd love to see Andrew apologize for his "acerbic behavior" and promise to mend his ways. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think Lightburst needs to, I've given Andrew a serious head's up that if he doesn't change his tact PDQ he's going to get topic banned. His reply so far is not encouraging. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This basically boils down to "this user is not to blame for having a bad record", and my only question is, why? And, the thing is, if Andrew had apologised for their previous errors and/or moved on from them we wouldn't still be here, would we? The analysis of AfD stats above shows that Andrew has consistently voted in ways up to the present day that are at odds with wider consensus. Not an indictment by itself, but clearly showing that their standards for keep are way lower than everyone else's. A simple acknowledgment of "Hey, sorry we didn't use the best sources, we'll try better next time" or something similar from the ARS crew would have gone a long way IMO in preventing ANI discussions involving topic bans. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus, it's not the Colonel's style to frequently apologise. He's rather meticulous and rarely makes mistakes, at least by not his own standards. But he does offer olive branches. Like for example only a couple of months ago he explicitly said he'd created an article in response to a request from your good self. That's the Colonels way of showing he has good will towards you, despite the fact you often oppose each other at AfD. Frankly, I can't believe it's looking like you're going to be the one to finally bring him down. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • “The colonel” is not so ineffably perfect that he’s somehow above apologizing for bad behavior and admitting to mistakes, and normal civility doesn’t cut it. What do you think he is, some kind of demigod we should be happy even noticed us mere mortals? Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Why are you debasing yourself with such servility and highfalutin language. "It's not the colonel's style to apologise", "he's a modern day Socrates". Wow. Listen to yourself dude. - hako9 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • He "rarely makes mistakes, at least by not his own standards". Unfortunatley, his own standards are irrelevant, what is relevant are the standards required by WP:POL. William Harris (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • His "style" is not to apologize? The only standards he deigns to follow are his own? Then he does not belong on Wikipedia, and it's sad that you refuse to see that such behavior is incompatible with a consensus-based project. He's capable of making good faith suggestions? Well, la-de-dah, he made one to me once, and I thanked him for the good advice. And yet here we are. Acting in good faith isn't merely something editors should be capable of doing. On Wikipedia, it is required to be every editor's standard operating procedure. Ravenswing 10:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • FeydHuxtable, Weeell, I appreciate Andrew's creation of that article, but it's a form of whataboutism - it does not address any concerns of mine regarding his other behavior. Many editors have been sanctioned, even indeffed, despite having tons of otherwise good edits in various areas of the project. Incidentally, Andrew inspired me to create an article as well, Speech is silver, silence is golden. As I said at that time, he would do well to focus on the "silence" (writing/improving content) than "speech" (voting/commenting). It seems that the community concurs. I am glad this is stopping short of an indef ban, and as I said above, I'd even support restrictions lesser than a topic ban from deletion topics, broadly construed, which seems likely right now. But sadly, it seems that Andrew standards, and the community, have diverged too far to allow lesser remedies (which, for the record, I'd still support - IMHO we could always revisit this later, if lesser remedies, such as the requirement to provide analysis of sources, would be ignored/gamed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, A) per above. I've come to believe Andrew is a net negative to these areas. I've looked at many of the above diffs and found my belief reinforced time and time again, additionally through my own experiences. Most recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy he managed to accuse me and others of using afd to boost my edit count, presented no valid rational for keeping and mis-cited 'speedy keep' as being applicable (which I'm sure he well knows the criteria), and did not reply to my ping. (Note that this is apparently because he feels correcting/explaining his mistake would be digging a hole deeper, somehow... That feeds back to the problem that many of these users are unwilling to admit to a mistake.) The examples go on, but the trend is clear: Andrew either fundamentally misunderstands how our deletion processes work or chooses to ignore it, and is actively disruptive. He seems to view AfD as a battleground, which is incredibly problematic. This may well be my first substantive comment on ANI, fwiw. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• support per above arguments. Sometimes enough is really enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support so that I can stop looking at this massive thread and cannot be tempted to (God forbid) close it. Deor (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looking through the diffs at AfD and the de-PRODing it’s pretty much WP:NOTHERE Utter disruption anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC).
• Support. T-ban and DEPROD ban. In addition to the items raised above, for far too long this editor has deprodded articles with no edit summary nor reason on the Talk page - which are "encouraged, but not required" under WP:DEPROD - but are required under ARS's own operating guidelines: "Prod on an article you don't want to have deleted→Evaluate the article and prod concern→Deprod. Explain why on the article talk page. Optionally, leave subst:deprod-disagree|(pagename)on the prodder's User talk page." Additionally, there was no answer provided on their Talk page when politely asked the reasons as to why there was a deprod, which indicates either incivility or that the deletion was not done in good faith because the editor did not know the answer to this question, or both. William Harris (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling not the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  It is and the link to it can be found on an ARS page here under Articles proposed for deletion (prod), so I assume they endorse it. William Harris (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support A). I think a fair case has been made, with sufficient examples, that this editor often does not act in good faith at AfD and with de-PRODing. Just one example that comes to mind is AfD/List of fictional counties (4th nomination) where Andrew asserted "If you are not British and have never listened to an episode of The Archers, you are unlikely to fully appreciate this topic." In jest or not, this kind of behaviour is not really appropriate or useful. Editors should be doing a thorough WP:BEFORE and making arguments accordingly which Andrew rarely does. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Clearly Andrew did not heed or care about serious concerns about his behaviour raised during the 2020 ANI discussion. His persistent incivllity towards nominators is more than enough reason topic ban him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Indef topic ban from anything to do with article deletion. Including deletion reviews. Since there's overwhelming evidence that he is a net negative to those areas and has repeatedly refused to modify his behavior when asked to. Even by people who are not "deletionists." I had a run in with him myself a while back over a bunch of PRODs that he removed and didn't leave a comment for. When I asked him why he removed them the answer was because they are controversial. Then when I asked what was controversial about them his response was "their controversial because I say they are." Afterwards he tried to use the whole thing as reason to have me blocked for incompetence. The whole thing was extremely circular nonsense. Going by the examples other people have provided it's clear that's just his overall mentality about this. "I'm right because I say I'm right. How dare you question me." I hate to think of how many people where turned off of contributing to AfDs or left the project because of it. Also, I find the whole cult of personality around him by certain people to be rather bizarre. It seems be something he actively fosters and the community shouldn't allow for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I concur. I ceased doing PRODs for WP:DOGS-related articles, and no longer considered AfDs for that project viable. William Harris (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Adamant1 re: "I'm right because I say I'm right. How dare you question me." See my small essay at User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_most_dangerous_of_mindsets. Would you say this ampty describes the problem here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban from all deletion processes. There is ample evidence of disruptive behavior over a number of years with no intent to change or even acknowledge the problem. The lack of specific rules surrounding AfD !votes and DEPROD rationale does not entitle one to constantly make bad arguments or DEPROD indiscriminately; most editors are able to self regulate and function just fine in this environment. Our shared goal of building and encyclopedia (which includes culling unneeded content) takes precedence over any individuals right/privilege to participate in these processes. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• A request for comment cataloguing Davidson's lies around deletion and support for falsehoods in articles from 2010. Good times, good times.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Some "outside views" were provided at that time, eh? The definition of "outside" - one would assume neutral - appears to have been serverly stretched. William Harris (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban. Uncivil inclusionist who will do anything to Keep pages regardless of low to non-existent sourcing. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but I can't ignore the irrefutable evidence supplied by Piotrus and Rhododendrites, plus my own observations. Indeed, in debates such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters, I would speculate that some of Andrew's involvement makes it more likely that an article will get deleted as people !vote delete to refute his badgering instead of being indifferent about it. Despite hoping Andrew would climb down off the Reichstag and take off the spiderman outfit, it doesn't look like it's going to happen per this comment "Fan qua sentiat – say what you think. Both TRM and myself have gotten in trouble for doing this but so it goes.", apparently showing that he doesn't care who he offends or disrupts. I would also like to admonish FeydHuxtable for continually referring to Andrew as "the Colonel" and would remind them that in-jokes can cause annoyance and frustration with other editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  The admonishment is noted but not accepted Ritchie. I'm not the only one who calls him the Colonel, & in my case at least it's not a joke. In appearance, demeanour & abilities, he strongly reminds me of Colonel House. We've met in person Ritchie & you made a very favourable impressions, I could never feel the slightest ill will to you even if you indeffed me - which is the only way you'd get me to not call the Colonel the Colonel. To save anyone further commenting that Im posting for the Colonel for WP:ILike reasons, the last two times I was on ANI it was defending prolific deletionist editors with whom I've no strong relationship. The trend towards sanctioning long term productive editors who arent always word perfect is not a good one, IMO. As for the Colonel not caring, he's actually extremely caring, giving up way more of his time to good causes than most others. It's more a case of stiff upper lip, one of the many fine qualities the Colonel exemplifies. Almost every hero takes a fall eventually. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: In the past, I have seen examples where AD's input at AfD discussions has been constructive, but the majority of what I had seen were hand-waving at non-existent sources or comments that were lacking in rationales based on policy or guidelines. That's not cause for significant sanctions, even if it is frequently counter-productive. However, the more serious issues with regards to incivility and disruption are supported by many examples here that are sufficient to demonstrate a consistent and long-term pattern that has not stopped despite numerous complaints. The proposed indefinite topic ban seems appropriate here. Hopefully, AD can use this broad body of critique for future improvement and for future productive contributions, regardless of whether that is in the deletion realm of Wikipedia or in other areas. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Big kudos to Piotrus for going to the trouble of collating the material above. This has been an issue for many years (tempted to say a decade by now?) but never got anywhere. Yes, Andrew is a perennial facepalm (at best) or disruption (at worst) in the large majority of AFDs he comments on; and his single-handed holding hostage of the PROD process has been a problem forever and a day. There is clearly no bad intent behind any of this, but if being an inclusionist at Andrew-level generates such friction with what almost everyone else is trying to achieve, then he has to stop doing its. Hope we can finally get this done. (currently I'm largely off-net and so will restrict myself to a basic support statement; I'd have much more to say at another time) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Both the evidence above and my personal experience convince me that Andrew Davidson's participation in the deletion process generates more heat than light, and given the long history of problematic behavior I believe this is the only solution that has a chance of working. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOSUMMARIES. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Summary of consensus as of now (note: this is not meant to establish consensus just by votes, but a cursory look at just the numbers paints a good enough picture of community opinion on the editor) In favor of an indefinite topic ban: Piotrus, Zxcvbnm, Rhododendrites, Darkknight2149, JBL, Reywas92, Dronebogus, Reyk, Trainsandotherthings, David Fuchs, KoA, Serial Number 54129, Robert McClenon, Eviolite, Cullen328, Hako 9, Indy beetle, Black Kite, Ravenswing, Paul August, Tautomers, Levivich, Eddie 891, Spartaz, Deor, DeCausa, William Harris, Vladimir.copic, Hemiauchenia, Adamant1, Dlthewave, Mztourist, Ritchie333, MarkH21 and Elmidae In favor of a temporary topic ban: S Marshall Against any length topic ban: NemesisAT (note: Levivich suspects them of being associated with ARS) Subset including those editors that are also a part of WP:ARS: Dream Focus, Andrew Davidson, Feydhuxtable, WereSpielChequers and Lightburst I am writing this so no fresh editors feel it is absolutely necessary for them to also join in and give their take too. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC) May I make a suggestion? How about being a member (or not) of ARS being no part of this proposal? I certainly have strong feelings myself about ARS, and that it is less about saving articles than in Thwarting Deletionists By Any Means Possible, but in debating whether to levy topic bans on an editor, his associations should not be a factor: only his actions should be. If those of us who believe that AD should be tbanned are not to be accused ourselves of acting in bad faith, we shouldn't be implying that others are without much better evidence than "But they're ARS people!" Ravenswing 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I included that information because the proposal is within a thread titled "ARS is getting problematic". Seeing how most of those in my list confirmed to be ARS are themselves the subjects of other proposals within the thread I thought to include it. I will remove the information if others also feel it has no place here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry, AC, but this reminds me of an essay I've been meaning to whip up for a while now: Wikipedia:No pre-close summaries, please. That you have explicitly tried to marginalize certain participants makes it an excellent example of why this sort of section is a [well-meaning but] terrible idea. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I'm looking forward to reading the essay again once you finish it, but I did not mean to summarize the discussion in order to prevent the closer from reading all the information (I assume that any admin that will resolve this will look at all arguments, evidence, and make a professional judgement by themselves), but only so that editors see that a lengthy discussion has already happened and don't feel the need to pile on just to give their take (unless of course they have new evidence that they feel is crucial to the discussion). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@A. C. Santacruz: Not that I oppose the result, but I feel it necessary to clarify (for archival purposes) that I supported some topic ban on Andrew Davidson and not necessarily an indefinite one. Additionally, if Andrew were to appeal six months to one year from now, I would be in favour of letting him be heard and potentially taking it under consideration depending on the appeal itself. Darkknight2149 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus

It seems odd to me that we have discussions (one now closed with a sanction) about only three of the four editors who are generally recognized as the principals in the ARS disputes. As I've commented in a thread above, I'm of the opinion that ANI is not going to get resolution for all four of these editors, and that this should wind up at ArbCom, particularly if some of the discussions end up as "no consensus". But can anyone give me a good reason (especially seeing the battlegroundy nonsense above) not to examine this editor's conduct, as well? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they looked at the link to the evidence in the discussion with you above and saw what really happened instead of just believing what you said did. Anyone who wants to read through that, please do so and then state your opinion if you believe it is relevant to this case. Dream Focus 21:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I already outlined one issue with DF above [168] [169] which I think demonstrates blind keep voting without basis or research. Voting record is slightly better than Davidson but still a whopping 91.6% for keep. I can see a common trend with DF of voting and then later asking ARS for help finding sources leading me to the conclusion little to no WP:BEFORE was done or WP:BEFORE was done and turned up nothing so the vote was in bad faith. Some examples from 2013-2021:

1. Vote: [170] → Asking for sources: [171]
2. Vote: [172] → Asking for sources: [173]
3. Vote: [174] → Asking for sources: [175]
4. Vote: [176] → Asking for sources: [177]
5. Vote: [178] → Asking for sources: [179] (This one a week after their vote, they say they cannot find any sources)
6. Vote: [180] → Asking for sources: [181]
7. Vote: [182] → Asking for sources: [183]
8. Vote: [184] → Asking for sources: [185]

These are not all super damning and are just a sample but I think demonstrate a worrying mindset towards AfD not based in reading sources but voting first then worrying about how to justify a vote later. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The first one is from 1 May 2013. Are we seriously complaining about something that happened 8 years ago? Dream Focus 22:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Examples are from 2013-2021. I believe in the law profession they call this a course of conduct charge. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, I was going to replace my comment with this) The first two are from 2013. Are we seriously complaining about something that happened 8 years ago? The third one is from 2019 so I'll comment on it. I posted a valid reason the article List of television actors who died during production should exist, then as an afterthought posted on the rescue list: "Are there any film students who have textbooks about this? Surely its listed somewhere, people studying things that happened in the industry and what effect it had." I have participated in quite a lot of AFDs over the years. You seem to have dug through a lot of them, and all you found was that, two things from 8 years ago, and the rest I haven't looked at yet, but it seems like you don't have much a case for banning me. If I want help finding additional sources, I posted to ask for it. Many people ask for assistance on the Rescue list after voting in an AFD. You believe an article deserves to exist, you just want more help working on it or finding sources, you post a request for help. Simple. Dream Focus 23:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  These 8 examples (+ the one mentioned above) were just a sample from a 5 minute skim of a few ARS archives. I didn't mention a ban or any other sanctions. These examples just seem to demonstrate an unhelpful approach to AfD that you may wish to consider for future participation. For instance example #5 has you voting keep and later admitting in ARS you are struggling to find any references. You do not appear to be in a conciliatory place though so I will bow out and let other editors discuss. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  That was in January 2019. I posted Keep Her discovery was on the cover of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, it quite a notable scientific achievement obviously. Scientists are notable by their achievements, they don't do interviews and get written up in popular news media. Wikipedia isn't just about popular culture, its educational as well. She meets WP:NACADEMIC. No one said delete other than the nominator at that point, I thought this an obvious thing. I check back 8 days later and notice its still at AFD and some aren't convinced so I look around for more sources to convince them, fail to find any, so ask for help with "She seems like a notable scientist, but having trouble finding references. Anyone familiar with articles for scientists?" I see nothing wrong with that, but whatever. I still believe Wikipedia should have educational articles about people notable for their accomplishments, not just popular culture things that get coverage in mainstream media. Dream Focus 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I still believe Wikipedia should have educational articles about people notable for their accomplishments, not just popular culture things that get coverage in mainstream media. Uh, we do have these articles, and in fact NPROF offers the most straightforward path to notability of any guideline, what with all the automatic-pass criteria and the complete separation from GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Mm. I've clashed with Dream Focus before, and think that there's improvement in AGF that can be made. (Hell, if we're going to talk caricatures and knee-jerk opinions, just glance at DF's user page, a 30,000 word paean on How All Deletionists Suck.) But I don't think that DF's monolithic here. He's voted to Delete at AfD. (Even if the one AfD I knew him to file was one of the most egregious "What the EFF were you THINKING?" ones in Wikipedia's history.) I've seen a lot of reasoned arguments out of him. I've gnashed my teeth at a number of his stances, but it's out of disagreement, not that I think he's acting out of pervasive bad faith. I'd need to see a great deal more concrete evidence -- and, as DF reasonably states, from a lot more recently than eight years ago -- to support any level of sanction. Ravenswing 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  If it were simply a matter of !voting inclusionist, I would have no problem with it, and indeed, !voting patterns by themselves are not informative. The issue for me is conduct, and the attitude expressed towards anyone who challenges how ARS operates. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am not advocating for any specific action here but just want to clarify that only 2 of the 8 random examples I gave above are from 2013 the rest are from the past couple of years. DF's comments might make it seems like I am pettily basing this off ancient history. My last example is from this year. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have only had one interaction with Dream Focus but it was not encouraging. After 7&6=thirteen posted an emotive and wildly inaccurate notice on the ARS rescue list [186], despite only being able to find a single, self-published, clickbait article that in makes a single, passing and inconclusive reference [187], and after mulling it over on the ARS rescue list for over a week here they still thought they would assist their friend with this oppose vote. And this response above is perfectly illustrative of the ARS WP:IDHT never admit any wrongdoing approach to what is clearly unconstructive behaviour, if they just admitted their vote (not !vote) was in no way grounded in policy and apologised I would accept it, but that they are incapable of admitting such speaks volumes. Perhaps any trip to ARBCOM should review their conduct also. Cavalryman (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC).
• I'm guilty of putting some information above, and some here, sorry for that. But here are some more links to discussions: [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]. Some of these concern Dream Focus directly, while others involve other ARS members, and provide context. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think the proper context is what I responded to your nonsense above that then caused you to create this section. Since people might not see it I'll repost it down here with some minor editing: You went to a Wikiproject you have never had anything to do with, other than insulting it in many places, to edit war in changes you wanted to our code of conduct. [193] You then told others on a talk page what you had done, with a follow up post soon after that read: "I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this." [194]. So that's basically canvassing. You had enough people you knew hated the ARS to go over and edit war with the regular members to get something in, that was then totally ignored. You finally gave up after another argument later on and removed the part of your edit that everyone was complaining about, that stated that unlike other Wikiprojects, we should have to tell people we saw it listed on the Rescue list. Dream Focus 00:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  This comment does at least establish that Dream Focus has a pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. KoA (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? Pointing out someone posted on a talk page to get people to edit war with them against active members of a Wikiproject they don't like, is "battleground". Do you find Tryptofish's actions in this and him bringing it up after all this time to be "battleground" or acceptable behavior? Dream Focus 01:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily endorse it as a tactic, but when I was blocked recently a few people brought up a couple of pretty minor incidents from like 5 years ago that I was never reported for at the time. No one seemed to care that they went that far back to find evidence of my bad behavior. So that just seems to be how ANI complaints can go sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  That you view trying to deal with the very clear problems affiliated with ARS as battleground (which is the reality of what was going on when reading through those interactions) is the issue here. Your behavior and attitude seems to be the primary instigating factor when focusing on your interactions. Trying to project that as otherwise is why I'm cautioning you now that you're putting yourself on thin ice. I suggest heeding advice here rather than lashing out about it. KoA (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to echo the suggestion about heeding advice. Something roughly along the lines of I don't think that some of the accusations are accurate or fair, but I do recognize that other editors have good-faith concerns, and I'm going to take that seriously and try to improve where I can, or something approximately like that, would really help a lot. Continuing to insist that I and other editors are the real problem would be the opposite of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment while I don't think that Dream Focus is anywhere as problematic as Andrew is/was, I still think they show a variety of behaviour at AFDs that needs to improve. These are all examples where we have both been involved in the 6 months: not AGFing, not quite battleground but certainly going that way: [195]; moving to OR/Synth to keep pages: [196], [197], [198]; poor understanding of military awards and their relevance to notability: [199],[200] and [201]; and List protector [202], [203], [204]. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Personally I'd support a proposal for a warning. I had a feeling there would be a proposal for Dream Focus eventually. So I did some research ahead of time and couldn't find anything that rises to the level of behavior displayed by the other three. In the meantime, sanctions based on disputes over what constitutes SIGCOV, in-depth coverage, or similar would just be excessive and set a bad precedent IMO since they aren't clearly defined concepts. Unless it can be proven that Dream Focus intentionally made up coverage that didn't exist or otherwise tried to pass off something that was obliviously BS as usable. In one of the examples above this he provided a source in a comment that was OR, which isn't great, but it wasn't being fronted as part of a vote rational. So I don't see what the issue is there. Sources provided in comments should never be taken as the same to ones provided in a vote. That said, I think a warning would help curb the more questionable behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I concur with your comment about SIGCOV not being well defined, and a clearer definition should be one of the actions that emerges from this incident. William Harris (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think DF is the most extreme inclusionist on Wikipedia that I know of. I think he seriously believes that deleting articles is nasty, mean behaviour and he sees himself as holding back a tide of evil deletionists (a label he applies to others very liberally indeed). I don't agree with him very often and some of his discussion contributions are way outside Wikipedian norms. On the evidence above he does appear to vote before searching for sources. But we don't topic ban people for being wrong. Show me diffs of him being rude or a diff of him falsifying sources.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think being completely, disruptively, extremely wrong is a violation of Wikipedia:Competence is required. Dronebogus (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • While CIR does include "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus", I take it that this applies to content work. Taking such a broad view of CIR so that it requires following an orthodox interpretation of policy in collective decision making I think would be very harmful to the encyclopedia. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Both Dream Focus and you yourself, Dronebogus, have been completely wrong on occasion. I could post diffs of either. What I haven't seen is either of you being disruptively wrong. That's a claim that requires supporting evidence.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • If one looks at the links I have provided here, one will see just that: being rude and more. Unfortunately, that requires making the effort to actually go through the provided links, which is why I believe that ANI is going to be unsatisfactory; editors are, understandably, reaching the point where this has gone on so long and at such length that there is a growing desire to just wrap it up without any more headaches. This is why I have insisted that this will need to go to ArbCom. In that case, there will be time to evaluate whether or not there is recent disruption. As for recent evidence, just look at what he has directed at me in this current discussion. Don't take what I say on face value, and don't take what he says on face value either. Look at the links I've provided to the events in question, and judge for yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir: [list of diffs] ... which I think demonstrates blind keep voting without basis or research ... I can see a common trend with DF of voting and then later asking ARS for help finding sources leading me to the conclusion little to no WP:BEFORE was done ...

DF's response: ... all you found was that, two things from 8 years ago, and the rest I haven't looked at yet, but it seems like you don't have much a case for banning me.

QED 😂 Levivich 11:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• The heading says "proposal" -- is there a proposal? "What about Dream Focus?" doesn't seem like an ideal way to frame something at ANI. Might as well say in advance that I don't think there's going to be much of an appetite for additional sanctions in this thread unless a proposal includes the kind of copious diffs that Piotrus gathered about AD. It'll just wind up as an RFC/U with tense exchanges and hurt feelings and nothing done (not that I'm saying anything needs to be done). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I used "ARS proposal" for all four sections that I split out to keep it consistent, but I guess that's not quite accurate here. Feel free to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not seeing any proposal here to vote on, but from the diffs Vladimir.copic shared I'm not seeing a problem worthy of a ban, especially from the more recent diffs. In these, Lightburst didn't claim to have sources. In the latest one, Dream Focus shared some sources. There is no justification for a ban here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that the header was changed from what I originally wrote. If someone wants to make a proposal, please do, but it has become clear to me that people are getting exhausted and commenting here without having read the evidence provided so far. As someone who only found out about these discussions a day or two ago, I for one have not had time to collect extensive evidence. All of that is an illustration of how ANI is suited for brief and obvious filings, but not for complex and multi-part ones like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see action being taken similar to the other proposals above (unless someone proposes something with concise evidence), but I personally think it's best to give the current sanctions a chance to settle things down (hopefully). From what I've seen here, DF does need a look at their behavior, but it's not at the degree of Andrew, etc. so far. In this case, the best course of action is to warn DF about their behavior and leave it at that for now in terms of WP:ROPE. If they don't take that seriously, that can be ratcheted up at a new ANI or Arbcom later. KoA (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm just going to re-post some things I already posted in this section, but perhaps this will help, given how hard it has become to keep track of everything here. I've said that Dream Focus has been battleground-y, and he has replied that it was I who was in fact the problem. So here are two of those discussions in which we both participated: [205] and [206]. Judge for yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It just occurred to me: Although this discussion (overall) has been in the form of proposal–!vote, this is ANI, as in incidents noticeboard for administrators. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and any admin can evaluate evidence and choose to enact something. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

The storm appears to have abated, and this incident has gone quiet. Someone needs to wrap this up. (You have my deepest sympathies!) William Harris (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure an admin who's been reading through it said they would close it today. I can't find their comment though. Wait, Wugapodes said they would three comments above the "Best solution of all" section. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that this has gone quiet has stopped reading. Which, frankly, is quite understandable. That's why ArbCom is going to be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Arbcom? There was hardly any imminent danger - as evidenced by the examples above, over a 9-year period - so it was never an ANI issue. I think Arbcom has better things to do than be involved in every witch hunt. One has been topic-banned, and the other three will presumably be warned.

Though I'm a bit puzzled at the outrage at those who are actually trying to improve the encylopaedia on a wide range of topics, even if occasionally misguided. If only others who vote keep did as much to improve articles! Though I wouldn't blame Andrew for taking it there - and I hope they continue to improve articles up for deletion, even if they don't participate in AFD/DRV/prod removals (I'm a bit surprised he wasn't topic-banned from ARS, given what else was done). The only real issue I see is some incivility. Well, that and some of the lack of AGF in the witch hunt. Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BattliBezBītiem - Nazi imagery on User page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this edit, Special:Diff/1053537380, caught my attention and imagine my surprise when I saw their Nazi user page. Slywriter (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Again, I am immune to irony. El_C 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I put it up for CSD (as well as the sandbox). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, forgot. But I didn't notice the sandbox, so double thanks. El_C 14:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PoWaiFung again

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

Hi admins, this is the second time, I'm filing this report after previously one here, as PoWaiFung clearly couldn't bother to care about following guidelines on not to overcite. I have previously tried communicating to user couple of times as mentioned in the first report filed previously, user was also informed by User:bonadea previously as only bonadea replied to the previous report. But guess what, just 5 days ago, the same thing happened again [207] by adding 32 sources reporting the same news. I believe temporary blocking should be issued to user to give them a wake up call, speaking to user doesn't yield much result and fell into deaf ears. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in here, so it doesn't get archived again without a response: it is hard for a non-Korean speaker to evaluate whether something like Special:Diff/1053021899 is in fact constructive – PoWaiFung added three sources to support some very rudimentary info about an upcoming episode, where there was already one source. I ran all four through Google's web translation thingy: this is the source that was there already, and these three sources were added by PoWaiFung. It's certainly the same press release, even if the autotranslated semi-intelligible text is slightly different. So it is not constructive.

As for the diff posted by Paper9oll, that's obviously over the top, without any need to translate the sources – 32 citations for the same fact. There are at least six posts on PoWaiFung's user talk page with information, cautions, and warnings (not all templated, but actually explaining the issue) about WP:OVERCITE. See for instance User talk:PoWaiFung#March 2021 and User talk:PoWaiFung#September 2021. It looks like a language barrier problem, but at least it is not a question of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, since PoWaiFung has responded a couple of times to the cautions and warnings. Other warnings on their user talk page mention sources that don't support the content . --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea Frankly speaking, I'm not every pro at Korean-language either but do have little bit of understanding of the language. I can confirm that, the 3 additional sources that PoWaiFung added is reporting the same news abeit with the different writing styles but the topic and subject involved (which is who is guesting in the upcoming episode) remains the same. Fyi, before PoWaiFung added the 3 additional sources, I have actually removed the 31 sources that PoWaiFung included earlier. I'm just find it weird that despite telling PoWaiFung couple of times to not overcite, PoWaiFung chosen to ignore it despite maybe knowing it, since this was communicate twice in March 2021 and September 2021 section, of which PoWaiFung replied in both occassion to the initial post while not replying to subsequent reply. In such situation if other party doesn't reply for subsequent reply, for me, I would just assume that they has acknowledge/seen the reply but chosen not to reply to it, in WhatsApp context, that would be blue-ticked. While, I'm not saying PoWaiFung editing is bad faith but I do believe some sort of competence is required. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Iskandarov and Ali Iskandariy

Something unusual going on with the articles Muhammad Ali Iskandarov and Ali Iskandariy (both about the same person). Bringing here for attention and discussion.

Timeline:

• 21 October 2021‎ - Muhammad Ali Iskandarov is created by Amirbek77 (talk · contribs). It's moved to draftspace (Draft:Muhammad Ali Iskandarov) a few hours later, and subsquently edited in draftspace by Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk · contribs), Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs) and UzUmUz (talk · contribs) later that day and over the next few days.
• 17:37 on 2 November 2021‎ - Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs) moves Draft:Muhammad Ali Iskandarov to Draft:Ali Iskandariy, then Help talk:Ali Iskandariy, and then back to article space at Ali Iskandariy. Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk · contribs) and UzUmUz (talk · contribs) then edit it further.
  • Yes, I deny that Anvar Mirkhadiev and I were not very competent in editing the article Ali Iskandariy. We made a mistake and renamed the article Muhammad Ali Iskandarov to Ali Iskandariy. To be honest, I wanted to contribute to this article when I saw its creation on Wikipedia. As for Uzumuz, I have nothing to do with him. Please forgive and understand. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk • contribs) 19:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• 17:50 on 2 November 2021‎ - UzUmUz (talk · contribs) blanks Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, which is now serving as a redirect to Ali Iskandariy, and copies and pastes in content, part of which at least is from what has been developed at Draft:Ali Iskandariy.
• 3 November 2021 - Muhammad Ali Iskandarov is nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Iskandarov.

There's a complex mess at the moment of two duplicated articles, a tangled attribution, and several new editors working together on these articles.

• Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk · contribs) has the same name as the article subject, likely WP:COI and perhaps WP:Autobiography. User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy identified themselves "As the author of this article", though from the page history this was Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs). This may however be due to a lack of understanding of English.
• User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy uses similar phrasing (Dear admins, I am ready to correct this article, with your permission) as UzUmUz (talk · contribs) (Thanks for the help, administrator! Your tips help the page do better! Sincerely!) - again I'm not sure if this is not just an issue with non-native English.

Given the nature and the apparently dubious notability of the subject, I'm concerned this might be a concerted exercise in self promotion, either with sockpuppets or meatpuppets. A checkuser might be useful, especially as now User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy and User:UzUmUz are arguing for keep on the deletion page. Both are very new editors working in a narrow field of Uzbek cinema. User:UzUmUz's sixth mainspace edit was a very advanced one to create I’m not a terrorist, a film project of Muhammad Ali Iskandarov. User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy edited the article five minutes after its creation. In short:

• UzUmUz (talk · contribs) - first edits 24 October 2021, solely about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov and his projects.
• Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk · contribs) - first edits 21 October 2021, solely about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov and his projects.
• Amirbek77 (talk · contribs) - edits infrequently since 13 June 2021, on Uzbek actors, films and singers.
• Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs) - first edits 21 October 2021, solely about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov and his projects.

Spokoyni (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected Ali Iskandariy to Muhammad Ali Iskandarov. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Dear Spokoyni It's not as complicated as you put it on this page. Firstly, I have nothing to do with Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, but as for Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs) we are classmates, and I asked him for help, as it was difficult for me to understand Of English language. What's wrong with helping each other? (Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC))

  You say you have no connection to Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, but you have taken as a username Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (using his stage name), and you have been working with Anvar Mirhodiyev, whom you state you know, solely to create and edit articles related to Muhammad Ali Iskandarov. Can you also state your relationship with User:UzUmUz, who has the same editing patterns? It would seem you have a strong conflict of interest here, and working with other users raises questions of WP:Sock puppetry and WP:Meat puppetry. Can you explain how you became aware of the creation of the article I’m not a terrorist by User:UzUmUz and were able to edit it five minutes after its creation? Spokoyni (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Spokoyni You are coming very closing to WP:BITING newcomers. Two people created accounts, both started editing an article, they know each other, even if they know this third person that is not in any way against any sort of Wiki policy (that you have mentioned) you're clutching at straws that two sentences are of anything like a similar construction; they've explained their position you don't have a right to continue interrogating them in this manner. JeffUK (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's very simple, via the link! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yoruba disruption (still)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia: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)

Close requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Now the edit warring has spread to the talk page itself, Talk:Yoruba people#Etymology Dispute and consensus. A table of sources was created, and the entries had been numbered for the sake of referencing them in the subsequent discussion. Once that had begun, one of them unilaterally rearranged and renumbered all the items, rendering the previous numeric references opaque. Those changes have now been undone and redone three times, with accusations of having deleted one user's commentary on top of the complaint over the renumbering. I think Ppadallo is the one who re-sorted and renumbered the table, creating the disruption, per Talisman-white's new entry at WP:AN3, with Ppadallo, who didn't create the table, insisting that it has to be ordered in Ppadallo's preferred way. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Here I am, trying to watch Looper only to get a notification about this edit warring. If this doesn't show what I mean by this report that Ppdallo is disruptive, then I don't know what will.

For any admin out there, the report is here (permalink). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:50, 1 November 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,[208][209][210] 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)

• Support — per analysis by MJL and RickinBaltimore. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As involved user with a brand new Ppdallo report it was just suggested I move into this voting section. Report I'm moving -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  
• I think I should look for the suitable noticeboard to report all of you. Why do you folks so readily and selectively pick on me? Thank God there are procedures for doing things on wikipedia. Ppdallo (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ppdallo: This is nothing personal. If I am being honest, I don't think you are the only one that could have done things a lot better. (Oramfe, you have been no angel in this dispute.) However, Ppdallo, you're contributions to this topic have been the most inflammatory; the most disruptive contributions I have seen.
  I do not come at this from the perspective of a Nigerian as I am an Arab-American. Things like this I find personally appalling and do not conform to Wikipedia's policies on Civility. You can blame no one besides yourself and your own words for finding yourself here (again). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ MJL are my statements any more inflammatory than the the Islamophobic and hate statements made by Oluwatalisman and Oramfe who, in addition, called a particular Tribe of people as "slaves, menial job doers, inconsequential, opportunistic vultures and willing tools"? Whoever or whatever you are does not matter here, I find your partial and selective reporting me to be even more serious than what you are accusing me of. By the way, how partial can you be on this issue when you are already involved in the dispute, by siding with Talisman and calling one of my reference as "citogenesis"?Ppdallo (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  It is what it is. I'm done responding here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - As an involved user, the current dispute is only the most recent I (and others) have had with Ppdallo and he has shown no sign that he would make any change for the better. He had previously engaged in an edit war over a map involving the Yoruba people [211]|[212] and my reply to that here[213] and here[214]. Even accused my person of "wanton expansionism and sowing seeds of ethnic conflict in West Africa" here[215] He has been constantly engaging in edit wars on the Yoruba people across various subsections. ^User:MJL that was the context of some of the exchanges you may have seen me having with him, until I eventually had him reported over failures to heed edit warnings. How can he turn around to accuse multiple editors of readily and selectively picking on him" when he is the only common denominator with the various people? #Pointing fingers. Oramfe (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Oramfe: What Ppdallo said to you is irrelevant and no excuse for comments like this where you indeed called the Fula people opportunistic vultures before immediately inquiring if the other editor in the dispute had any relation to that ethnicity (among other inappropriate things you said there). If I see something like that again, the next report will be about you.

  The reason I had not said anything sooner is (A) it was a month ago now, (B) Ppdallo's disruption is still ongoing, (C) I didn't want to overly complicate this report, and (D) I have not had a good opportunity to bring it up. Let this be your only warning to never make a comment like that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  

  @MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ this was his words (Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.) Why are you covering things up? For your information i am not disrupting any Wikipedia article, rather i am doing my best to correct misinformation on articles i have knowledge on. Just check out the current dispute here and you will see.[216] I might just as well add here too that It is what it is. I'm done responding here. Ppdallo (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per other supporters and the blatantly inflammatory rhetoric Ppdallo has used here. A T-ban will be getting off easy, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - although not involved in the current debate, previous interaction with Ppdallo showed that there was no reasoning with him once he was set on a path, and the above discussion shows no change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Mixed thoughts from someone who watched the dispute unfold: I became aware of this nexus of disputes a little while before MJL's first thread here a couple of weeks back, after receiving an FRS notice to a discussion on the Yoruba people talk page. When I arrived, I found the entire discussion an irreconcilable mess of confused argumentation and bad formatting. Essentially at that juncture it was two groups of less than perfectly informed editors lobbing massive walls of text without using indentation and without adequately premising their arguments in policy. There was plenty of suggestion of ethnocentric bias coming from both directions, with inappropriate "you people"-adjacent comments coming from both sides, as well as general incivility crossing the line into outright PAs; not every one of the editors who commented in those discussions pre-RfC behaved in this fashion, but it was certainly a two-way street between Ppdallo and some of their rhetorical opposition.

That situation has slowly but substantially improved now, following some strongly worded guidance from uninvolved editors on the talk page. The discussion is much more easy to track now and there is movement towards consensus building (if still widely divergent opinions between the two camps). I'll be honest: I don't think that Ppdallo has the right end of the stick with regard to the majority of the content still in dispute (some disputed issues seem to have found general consensus, but others differences of opinion remain). To be fair, I have not seen his most recent proposals yet (because of a miscommunication/tempest in a teapot regarding a meta discussion issue), so I can't say with absolute certainty that new sourcing from Ppdallo won't change the course of the discussion. But based on the current sourcing, I think Talisman-white(aka Oluwatalisman) and Oramfe are probably likely to be found to have the more policy-stable arguments on the remaining points of contention and therefore to carry the ultimate consensus. At that point, depending on how Ppdallo reacts, I think the proof will be in the pudding as to whether or not they are editing within the sphere of a strident (but barely within the bounds of process) editor, or if the WP:tendentiousness and WP:IDHT extend to a level where they are unable to drop the stick, necessitating a sanction of some sort. I have seen repeated evidence that Ppdallo is attempting to adjust their approach and work within process. What remains to be seen is whether or not they are capable of accepting the consensus result if it does not favour their preferred version of the content.

But if there is one complaint that Ppdallo has some reasonable claim to, it's true that the two recent threads here at ANI have focused upon some of his missteps a little bit more than some very similar issues coming from his opposition on the Yoruba article/talk page. That said, while there was plenty of blame to go around initially, the editors on the "other side" from Ppdallo have been very quick to accept feedback and to alter tone and form of their arguments. Ppdallo has been comparably a little slower to adapt to more appropriate strategies, as evidenced by the recent edit war to preserve alterations to another editor's talk page commentary (though even there, there are some mitigating factors that explain why they might not have seen why this was inappropriate).

So where do I land on the proposal? I'm rather divided on a sanction at this moment in time. Bluntly, I have seen a lot in Ppdallo's approach that suggests that this might just be an area they shouldn't be editing in. However, given three important factors--1) that there was plenty of initial problem editing on all sides, some of which prompted Ppdallo's own problematic comments, 2) that things are inching towards resolving the editorial deadlock on the talk page, and having Ppdallo present his evidence in structured fashion should resolve the question of whether he has a leg to stand on when it comes to the sourcing/content, and 3) thereafter we will have a better understanding of just how problematic Ppdallo is in this area--I'm kind of leaning towards a tiny additional extension of WP:ROPE here. I think erring on the side of a light touch/final warning here might also be warranted because of the procedural history here: I very much view MJL's decision to renew this discussion after the original thread was archived for lack of community action twice in the best possible good faith light (they were uninvolved in the original dispute and I believe they have no other objective but to act in the best interests of the project), but that said, any relatively inexperienced editor (Pdallo has just over 700 edits total) could find themselves facing a slide into the community's bad graces if we take enough bites at that apple and keep them under a microscope. I fully appreciate that there is a good chance that egg will be on my face here after I advocate for restraint and Ppdallo keeps plowing on with problematic actions, but I still think there's enough mitigation here arguing for a last chance/let's try to see resolve the content dispute and see what happens next approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: How I got familiar with this dispute was the same as how you did (seeing the three concurrent RFCs). However, I saw on your comment and felt optimistic it could be handled until I saw on your talk page you were only semi-active. It was obvious to me that Talisman-white was the newest in regards to Wiki discussion, so I offered them a bit of advice and left it at that.
From there, I got pinged a lot (as I am sure you have) which kept me up-to-date on the situation.
For me, WP:BITE cuts both ways. While it is obvious that I have more experience than Ppdallo, the same can be said that Ppdallo has more experience than Talisman-white.
I saw the dispute kept going for the entire month of October, so eventually I resolved to intervene. I don't think the community is generally well equipped to handle more than one problem user at a time, so I felt the need to initially focus on Ppdallo.
My original hope was the first AN/I thread would get closed with a warning, I was going to then follow-up on it later if I saw any further disruption come from Oramfe. Sadly, no uninvolved user came around to close the original AN/I report. As far as I can tell, nothing significantly has changed since I opened it, and with the edit warring just recently (which has yet to result in any action), I am less optimistic than I once was about this getting resolved whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough--and certainly there is no judgment here for your proactive approach, especially in the circumstances. Nor can I fault you for your skepticism that more rope would help. But the record is mixed enough here that personally I'm reserving final judgment/endorsement of a ban until after I see how the situation plays out, now that the situation is (I think) fairly close to having something that might qualify as consensus on the talk page. Of course, given the way the discussion is rolling, I doubt my hesitation is going to change the outcome of this proposal discussion. And for that matter, I do think there are very decent chances I'll regret advocating (sort of) for a benefit-of-the-doubt approach here. But in close cases I do like to err on the side of a last chance, even when there's opportunity for further disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• Comment. Per the outcome of the Edit warring report, Ppdallo was given a final warning and blocked. I'm fine with that being the end of this assuming that we see no further disruption. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically enough, after the continued IDHT at the AN3, on the talk page, and in the unblock request, I'm having doubts about the wait-and-see strategy that I was leaning towards above. Nevertheless, I've made one last effort on the article talk page to communicate to Ppdallo why the behaviour that got them blocked was problematic and that they need to take the final warning of the blocking admin (and the other concerns expressed by community members here) seriously. Given the !votes above, I'm not sure the TBAN will be avoided, even in light of the lesser sanction invoked at AN3. But in the contingency that it is, I can only imagine the forewarned indefinite block being avoided through a radical change in approach. I hope Ppdallo gets that at this point, because, even aside from the possibility of independent administrative action, the next time these issues end up here at ANI, I can only imagine the CBAN !vote switching from mostly to completely unanimous. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Havana syndrome

While considering a new RfC on this page which had been advertised at WP:RS/N, I noticed a thread in which accusations of off-wiki recruitment and meatpuppetry were flying, and requests for people to disclose their RL roles being made. I commented and attempted to close the thread directing people to a more appropriate venue (e.g. here) but my comment (and close) was reverted by Geogene who seems unwilling[217] to restore it or heed it. In any event, an admin eye or two would probably be useful there. Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with Alexbrn unilaterally closing a discussion with five other participants in it, and I reject the ultimatum he left on my talk page. I do agree though that that area needs admin attention. Geogene (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  You may disagree with my close. But why delete my separate comment? Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Your close was preventing me from replying to a remark there that was directed at me. If you want to leave a comment there that you feel it's an inappropriate venue, I don't object to that. Geogene (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  They why did you delete it?[218] You know you generally shouldn't delete other people's comments right? Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Are you asking me to restore the comment without closing the thread? Geogene (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Facepalm I don't think you are taking proper care in your editing. For the record, what you deleted was this:

  This has come up before and as I recall if GSoW is getting fresh editors into Wikipedia to improve articles in a policy-based manner, that is welcomed by the community in the same way as edit-a-thons, etc are. In any event, this article Talk page is not the appropriate place for discussing GSoW, off-wiki recruitment, or puppetry - take any further grumblings to ANI or similar, and be sure to ping Sgerbic in any such posting

  Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you don't close that discussion again, I won't revert. If any other editor want to close that, then that's okay too. I think you're being too aggressive in trying to control the talk page (and leaving ultimatums on my user talk). Geogene (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  What the hell are you even talking about? You reversed a close and deleted a comment, I asked you to restore the comment. You haven't. Are you in control of your actions? Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Alexbrn, you left a comment inside the discussion in the same edit that you closed the discussion. This illustrates why you don't do that; an auto-revert removes both. You could have either summarized the point you wanted to make in the space allotted for that in the template, or you could have made a separate edit. Participating in the discussion and simultaneously closing it is often interpreted as a Supervote. That's said, it's pretty clear that was not your intention. Similarly, it doesn't look like it was Geogene's intention to violate WP:TPG by reverting the close. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Are you in control of your actions? sounds like a PA. I think I'm done with trying to accommodate Alexbrn's demands. Geogene (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've actually been watching this discussion as it developed on the talk page today, and this is very clearly not a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. As far as I understand, off-wiki organization is not in itself against WP:PAGs. The editors in question are not newbies and have been careful to follow the rules. The closing user or admin should read the article being used as evidence in that thread prior to making any assessments regarding a potential violation. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  At WP:MEAT, the policy reads, High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. I don't understand this [219], which tries to recruit new editors of a particular POV as a form of activism isn't meatpuppetry. Yes, of course, they claim to be following all guidelines. Geogene (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Where's the high-profile dispute? Recruiting competent editors isn't meatpuppetry. Canvassing to influence !votes, for instance, would be. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  They're targeting people of a certain POV to teach them how to engage in what they themselves call "activism" on Wikipedia. How do you know if they're Canvassing or not when they use off-wiki backchannel communications for everything? Geogene (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It sounds to me like you're playing fast and loose with of a certain POV here. Wikipedia is biased toward science, toward reliable sources, and against conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific dogma. From the mission statement page you just posted, it sounds very much like Guerrilla Skeptics are following PAGs and improving the encyclopedia. Unless you have any concrete complaints for specific instances of even suspected canvassing, it doesn't look like there's anything more to address here. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Guerilla Skepticism doesn't seem to be about reliable sourcing, it seems to be about stuffing articles with as much Skeptic Movement POV sourcing (most of which is actually low quality) as possible. For example, this document [220] describes POV pushing I will describe the role I had in converting the story’s initially credulous Wikipedia article into its current version: one that makes it clear that the purported “sonic attacks” in Cuba and China all but certainly never happened more POV pushing Being a Guerrilla Skeptics team member, and having sworn a solemn oath to fight fake news and pseudoscience on Wikipedia (wouldn’t it be cool if we actually swore an oath?!) in October 2017 I set out to investigate what the English-speaking world’s number-one source of online information had to say on this subject and stuffing the article with commentary from hand-picked Skeptic Movement personalities in order to try to sway the readership to their POV The article still included all the injury claims being made by the diplomats, as well as the political finger pointing, but it now included ample skepticism that the medical issues were related to any attacks, and many statements made by sociologist Robert Bartholomew were used. Anyone reading this version of the article (or even just reading the revised lead) would hopefully come away with a very different opinion than they would otherwise have had. Robert Bartholomew isn't a random sociologist the Guerilla Skeptics found, he's a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which publishes Skeptical Inquirer. Geogene (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  The more you expound on your point of view here, the less convincing it gets. What's with all of this loaded language? Skeptic Movement POV? Referring to Robert Bartholomew as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and not as "an expert in fields such as mass hysteria and mass psychogenic illness... frequently consulted by media during... incidences of suspected mass hysteria or panic" as he is described in the article about him? Why wouldn't his work carry due weight in an article about a suspected psychogenic phenomenon, if quoted and attributed in a reliable source? As a reminder, in the timeframe we're discussing (2017-2018), that was still being debated by experts. The crux of my argument is this: Geogene, can you point to any specific violations? Any bad edits, including low quality sources? Any instances of suspected WP:CANVASSING on the talk page? Or do you just not like self-described skeptics promoting editing of Wikipedia? I don't think there are any policies against the latter. Personally, I would encourage it. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here's an example of a truckload of bad quality sources proposed just now by Rp2006 [221], he said he knew it would "piss me off" [222] because I believe in quality sourcing standards. Geogene (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see that Rp2006 added any of the more questionable sources to the actual article, and it sounds like the one you have a problem with (MEL magazine) was not a serious suggestion. Do you suspect that this person is associated with Guerrilla Skeptics? A meatpuppet, perhaps? AlexEng^(TALK) 06:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, he only proposed adding questionable sources to the article, and then admitted he did that in order to annoy me. You don't see the problem there, either? Perhaps debating this with you is not going to be productive? Geogene (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Geogene persists in bending the truth. It is disturbing that I can't tell if he does it intentionally or it is a matter of self-deception.[223] RobP (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the actual article and considering sourcing standards - yikes! It is crammed full of bold biomedical claims soured to non-WP:MEDRS sources and relayed as plain fact in Wikivoice. If some sceptics ("self-described" or not) were to bring some order to the article, that could be a very good thing! I have posted at WP:FT/N accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's a current event article, and the patients are all anonymous. What do you expect? The best sources currently available are JAMA (which I see you don't like, because you tagged it) and a report from the National Academies of Science and Medicine, that favored the raygun hypothesis. If you want to advance some other hypothesis, then you should publish it yourself. Geogene (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  We should use only reliable sources, and the JAMA sources ain't, for what they're being used for. Wikipedia is not a venue for original thought so editors' hypotheses (whatever they may be) are irrelevant. In any case, this is a content question best sorted-out at the articles. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Then that leaves the New York Times (which you also tagged as unreliable). Or nothing. So what then? That article is using the best quality sources that are available as it is. And I didn't say anything about editor hypotheses, I told you that you should publish your own papers if JAMA and the National Academy of Science aren't good enough. Geogene (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Don't be obtuse. WP:NPOV and WP:V are core policies and if we can't relay accepted knowledge we remain silent. There is no word quota for articles which mean they need to be stuffed with sub-par content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but you're arguing from MEDRS, which isn't a core policy but a guideline that should be followed with common sense. The New York Times, JAMA, and the National Academies of Science and Medicine all pass normal V and NPOV. If you think the article is a candidate for deletion, then you can always propose it. Deleting it would be a better option than stuffing it with Skeptic Movement podcasts nobody has ever heard of. Geogene (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? WP:RS is by its nature "only" a guidelines, but WP:V is the policy that requires us to use reliable sources, and WP:MEDRS tells us what those reliable sources are for WP:BMI. Articles should always be based on secondary sources. If Wikipedia is going to assert things about brain injuries in people it can't do so off the back of primary research, and especially not when that primary research has been questioned by other RS. I don't think your deletion idea is in good faith. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Again, the article already uses the best sources available for the subject. Deletion is what happens when an article doesn't have enough reliable sources available. I doubt you've ever been able to assume good faith, and am not particularly concerned about that. What annoys me is editors trying to use things like podcasts as sources so they can get their preferred POV in. Geogene (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  JAMA is a peer-reviewed journal, but neither of the two studies cited in the article support a "raygun hypothesis." At any rate, this is a content dispute and belongs on the article talk page. We can discuss the specifics there. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I told you earlier in this thread that it was National Academies of Science and Medicine that considered the microwave weapon theory the most likely explanation. Please pay attention if you wish to continue this dialogue. Here it is from the The Lancet, which is secondary for this [224] A US National Academies report concludes that many of the symptoms felt by embassy staff are consistent with pulsed radiofrequency energy. Geogene (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  The grammar in your post implies that the hypothesis is supported by both JAMA and NAS/M sources. I have not read the NAS/M report yet. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They have not revealed what they do off-wiki (if anything). I asked one person who is a member, no response yet. All we know is they claim over 100 members and have an off-wiki email contact to join. We don't know who the members are (specific Wiki IDs, not real names), nor notified if they become involved in a page, controversial dispute, or consensus discussion. We are told to trust them, they follow the rules and do good work. Possibly all 100 members are equally trustworthy all the time. Individuals are highly variable in their knowledge of rules, respect of rules, and pushing the interpretation of rules. If there is abuse of canvassing going on among some members, it would fester and grow with lack of community oversight. I would also be concerned with other forms of potential abuse such as COI pushing certain websites that have a connection to the membership. These are not accusations but concerns of problems that can often arise with secretive offsite groups. -- GreenC 07:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Very much agree with your assessment GreenC. The lack of oversight and accountability that a coordinated "international group of 100 or so" members have by not being a WikiProject (as mentioned in your linked diff) or a public list of members (such as Category:Eventualist_Wikipedians) is highly problematic, without needing to pass judgement on the actual activities/purpose/interests of such a group. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Most especially if, as they tout in the Skeptical Inquirer article on them, their articles receive over 26 million views all-together and are referred to by journalists. They also seem to be quite organized.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree that collective action should be coordinated onwiki not offwiki. That's what Wikiprojects are for. Everyone can see what's going on, and contribute if they see fit. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So you'd prohibit edit-a-thons, class assignments and so on? I'd say there is no problem if the "collective action" is to improve Wikipedia. If however the "collective actions" is (e.g.) to promote a product or organization against the grain of the WP:PAG, or if there is some shared COI in the group, then that would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but is it not the expectation that edit-a-thons are for a predetermined amount of time and keep a record of participants (such as First People Power Wikipedia Editathon - February 2021)? Also, I really don't see how the benefits of their collective action cannot also come from them being part of a publicly visible WikiProject (with WikiProject Skepticism being an obvious alternative). The biggest issue I feel is that we cannot determine if there are collective actions that go against PAG or if there are blatant COIs as all we can do is guess who the members are or are not. In essence,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If they like to chat on facebook instead of on a talk page, they can do that. By this logic we'd have to shut down the Wikipedia IRC channels, discords, and such. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there are not specific IRC/Discord channels for specific ideological alignments, and there are policies in place to strongly discourage anything that looks like collusion on on-wiki activities (the Discord moderators take a rather dim view of discussing ongoing AfDs and the like). jp×g 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'pro science' should be considered a problematic ideological alignment. A COI is only a COI when there is actually a conflict between the outside interest and the interest of Wikipedia. Any number of edit-a-thons and GLAM projects exist in that space. We wouldn't run a feminist edit-a-thon or an art museum off the project because they coordinated by talking around a conference table rather than in talk pages everyone can see, even if they had an ideological alignment that supported improving content about women or about particular movements in art. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the issue to me is not so much that the POV itself is problematic, but that it is being pushed by a large mysterious group whose membership is not disclosed. And my beef is not even just that they are doing things non-publicly per se, it's that they do that and their activity involves a lot of contentious editing and there isn't anything preventing them from running it as a wikiproject. It's not like the CheckUser Wiki or something, where there is a compelling reason to keep the activity nonpublic, or an IRL event, where it would be definitionally impossible to conduct on-wiki (although I suppose you could require editathon attendees to sit in separate soundproofed cubicles and only communicate using talk pages). jp×g 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, A._C._Santacruz, we don't need evidence of absence. We need to assume good faith and not cast aspersions without evidence. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, fine; let's hear it. Otherwise, I must confess I do not see any reason to badger the editors involved in that off-wiki project on the off chance that they might do something wrong. This whole discussion should be closed unless something new comes up. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we know who User:Sgerbic is, and her user page gives a decent introduction to the group and what they do. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's like saying if WP:MILHIST did not exist on-wiki, and then if Peacemaker67's page gave a "decent introduction" to a group that edits military history articles worth many millions of views, that the concerns mentioned by GreenC would not apply. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

In the post I was replying to you said above you didn't know who the members are or what they do, I was just pointing out some information available on-wiki. MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As one of those who said maybe ANI was the way to go. I also said I was unsure what can be done. This does not seem like canvassing, nor do I see any evidence of meat puppetry. what I see is a lot of unfocused accusation. In fact it all reads like a massive ABF and wp:pa's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• What have GSoW done wrong? Everything they do is out in the open on deadface. Bring diffs of their misbehaviour or go away. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  What? Did you even read what I posted?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe I was not clear I AM saying that those who have been accused of canvassing (they are not) and Meat Puppetry (without any evidence, or specific allegations) have done nothing wrong. I hope that is now a bit clearer for you, I am saying what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  And do not tell users to go away because you disagree with them (especially when in fact you do not, you have just not bothered to read what they have posted), it is rude and uncivil.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Roxy the dog: Seems like you put your comment in the wrong place? RobP (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I get it wrong quite often even after all this time. I was just following SS, indenting once more and responding to the silly accusations against GSOW made by somebody who just discovered the excellent work they do. Thanks for the ping. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Inconsistent formatting led to the first batch of comments in this section being indented with a bullet point and then another batch of comments not being indented at all. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  What work? We can't really analyze it as theirs can we. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I don't have a horse in the race with the specific article in question (the only "Havana Syndrome" I'm familiar with is "Havana couple beers"). But I think that a little skepticism is warranted for an advocacy group whose members coordinate off-wiki, especially when said group was previously involved with an unreasonably promotional article about their founder (which has since been drastically copyedited for neutrality and tone). The objection here seems to be that the things they're advocating for are good, so they should be allowed to go nuts and do whatever. This doesn't seem very compelling to me: ostensibly, every advocacy group is oriented toward something good. For example, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens will all say, if you ask them, that their purpose is to fight injustice and stand up for what's right. And, I mean, I don't think they're lying: they really do believe this. Nonetheless, it would (and should) raise eyebrows if any them assembled an opaque, off-wiki, hundred-strong group that edited to give the movement more favorable coverage.

In case you think I am being hyperbolic, note this passage from the original version of the article:

Gerbic states that the "We Got Your Wiki Back Project!" is a popular GSoW sub-project. The project's goal is to improve the Wikipedia pages of skeptical spokespeople, especially when they are in the media's eye and their Wikipedia page views tend to spike.

Whatever this is -- and, hell, it could be completely innocuous, for all I know -- I guarantee that if I got on IRC and convinced a hundred of my friends to make accounts to edit the articles of politicians/bloggers/etc we liked, called the organization "We Got Your Back", and refused to disclose a membership list, people on Wikipedia would not be saying "well, they're probably legit, no need to look into this further". jp×g 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There is more info on the GSoW at Wired. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with JPxG, but I think they're missing something: this is an anti-quackery advocacy group, and Wikipedia –because of its own crowd-sourced nature– has a special need for anti-quackery input. In my view, WP:FTN is an anti-quackery 'POV-fork' of WP:NPOVN, and basically functions as a canvassing club for anti-quackery editors. But then again, it is my impression that Wikipedia needs this. There are various side effects, some of which are pretty serious problems of their own, but on the whole it's a net-positive. I think that the "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" is being given a free pass by many editors (the name alone screams WP:BATTLEGROUND, and long-term off-wiki coordination by a network of undeclared editors around a certain topic is almost the definition of WP:MEATPUPPETRY), but perhaps for good pragmatic reasons. Maybe it would help if they would change their name and create a WikiProject to at least have an on-wiki presence? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• I can't see this being solved here. I think there is a significant potential problem - if nothing else, the Guerrilla Skeptics are not just a Wikipedia-editing group, but have also been actively opposing people outside of Wikipedia, running sting operations against individuals whom they are potentially writing about here. That creates a serious COI. However, if they are unwilling to self-identify, ultimately it will involve private evidence that can only be managed by ArbCom, not AN/I. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, so there is a group of people who are coordinating off-wiki to edit an article for the purpose of pushing a specific point of view which they assert is "correct" and people are defending them? This is absolute madness. Imagine how people would respond if this were a Scientology group. Mlb96 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  That would be bad if that's what is happening, but we don't have evidence of that, just a lot of speculation. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  That does seem to be what they say they are doing [225]. - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see anything that indicates they're colluding on individual articles. If we have 100 editors (or even, say, 5) that are showing up on a single article and acting in a block to shift consensus that is very different than 100 editors who are each assigned to 100 different articles that they edit mostly independently. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  I interpreted "We wanted to see how many different Wikipedia pages we could edit just by using this one issue of SI. Honestly, I had no idea how many we could do, so we set up a deadline of two-months (when the next issue came out) and using the GSoW Facebook Secret Cabal and a Google spreadsheet to keep track, we set to work" as an indicator that they were willing to coordinate editing of Wikipedia articles. - Bilby (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  That was coordinated in the sense of some people were using the same reference material (one edition of an RS magazine). Editors would individually find information there that could be used to improve articles. Is something wrong with that? Does it break any rules? How is that different from several other types of editing events we hear about? VdSV9•♫ 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's different because membership in the event wasn't disclosed on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  It also wasn't an event. Also, Bilby's quote leaves out the part that it was mostly two people, Susan and David (and a few others). But this sort of "coordination" doesn't break any rules. People say coordination, some think it is some sort of canvassing, while it is nothing of the sort. It is about people discussing off-wiki a way of adding well-sourced information and then doing it. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's a conundrum. Either it proves off wiki collaboration to edit towards a certain pov, or the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used in articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Just look at the talk page for the article, there has very clearly been a concerted effort to push the psychogenic theory. When there are posts on the talk page like this decrying the suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis, or posts like this using language like supposed attacks, it is not "speculation" to point out the coordinated POV pushing. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  This whole thing reminds me of how I first heard of the Guerilla Skeptics, when Rupert Sheldrake became convinced that they were controlling his article. It turned out that they hadn't edited it at all. Just because some folks think mass hysteria is more likely then secret microwave laser weapons, that does not mean they are necessarily part of a shadowy conspiracy. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  "Just look at it! It is clear!" and the thing they claimed was clearly so, was in fact not the case all along... @Mlb96: The fact that you find something wrong with the language "supposed attacks" just shows how poorly you understand what is going on. The claims of attacks with sci-fi weapons that have never been shown to exist or to even be physically possible are wild speculations. What you're doing is just casting aspersions. This is ridiculous. VdSV9•♫ 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is no scientific consensus on what the cause of Havana syndrome is. Therefore, any assertion that any particular theory must be correct, such as what you are doing in this very post, is POV pushing. Mlb96 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I may be wrong as I've not attended Gerbic lectures about Wikipedia editing, but my impression is that they attend an introduction, with an encouragement to edit articles including about notable skeptics (not necessarily them). I've sometimes noticed a few WP editors with a mention of the initiative on their user page. From what I see on WP at least, they took some course then appear to be independent editors working where they like. I've noticed that some drafts were sometimes written collaboratively in a user sandbox by two people. Some biographies initially appeared promotional and some suboptimal sources were used; it's something editors learn about when editing Wikipedia. This reminds me of students being assigned to edit Wikipedia, the result is not always optimal (however, those usually are listed as part of an assignment by a tutor, i.e. see WP:EDUP). If specific editors need WP:WARN or reporting, or have an obvious conflict of interest and repeatedly keep editing problematically (an article about themselves, about the org itself perhaps), that should be handled on a case by case basis... Similarly, if some create articles that should be deleted, there's AfD. As others noted, another similarity is WikiProjects. Some of them appear to be WP:SKEPTIC members. I see a claim that it's a large organization. Is it? —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  According to the group, they have 130 members who edit Wikipedia. [226] They have a private Facebook group and use that for continual training, mentoring motivation and coordination after editors complete the initial training program. [227] - Bilby (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  From their FAQ: Do I have to be on Facebook? Yes, we have tried many other ways of communicating, email and a forum. Nothing beats Facebook. You do not have to use Facebook for anything but our Secret Cabal. The way they use the word 'cabal' almost seems like a deflection. But I'm especially concerned about the next entry in their FAQ: I’m an experienced Wikipedia editor, can I join GSoW and skip the training? No. We have found that experienced editors have a very different experience as a team like ours. With very few exceptions we have found that they do not fit in well. We are not “just” editors, we have a different mind-set and focus than a normal editor. We are much more social, use Facebook to discuss, train and motivate. We follow all the rules of Wikipedia, and love normal Wikipedia editors, but we approach things as a team. If you would still like to join us, please do so, but you will not be skipping lessons, will still have to proceed through training like someone who has never edited before. So even if you're a very experienced WP editor who understands and knows how to follow policy, there's still something they insist on 'teaching'? If experienced editors do not really fit in their team, maybe they do not really fit in Wikipedia? To be honest, I get the impression that both their numbers and impact are being inflated by the team 'leader'. But in any case an editing team, in so far as such a thing should even exist, should never be allowed to organize strictly off-wiki. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  After reading Gerbic's long post and now reading the above, my impression is that this conveys that the target is less experienced editors or those who never tried before, the goal being to introduce them to WP. I share part of your concern about WP:CIR, if that's what you mean, on the other hand the WMF itself tries hard to make WP easier to use so it can reach out to less technical people and to most of the world I believe that there's an aspect of elitism felt about WP, its processes, community, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone point me to an actual problem as opposed to a potential problem? There is a page of "research" at User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW by A. C. Santacruz but I don't see anything there that warrants alarm other than the use of Wikipedia to construct a list of bad people. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Echoing Johnuniq, the evidence of actual misconduct is lacking in this thread, though speculation and suspicion is rampant. All the "cabal" jokes are variations of commonplace humor on Wikipedia. Off-Wikipedia communication is common at edit-a-thons, various WMF gatherings, mailing lists, IRC channels, Wikipedia related Facebook pages, and so on. There are some aspects of Gerbic's project that I do like very very much, but I do not claim the right to impose my personal preferences on others without solid evidence of actual misconduct. So, it is time for all the critics to furnish the evidence of the misconduct, or to be quiet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Ultimately, the only way to provide evidence is to prove that GSoW editors are involved. As they don't generally self-identify, that can't be done without evidence that risks outing. And that - as in a lot of COI cases - can't be made on-wiki. Then even if that is managed, somehow, can AN/I effectively sanction an off-wiki organisation of largely unknown editors? If this is ever going to be tackled it will have to be at the level of ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Expressing the view that off-wiki editorial coordination should not be allowed is not the same thing as speculation and suspicion. Evidence that this type of editorial coordination is taking place has been brought forward, and the fact that they call themselves a 'cabal' is not taking away anything from that (it's a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on WP). Evidence of negative (or positive) effects on actual articles is all but impossible to gather given the fact that no one knows who is part of the 'cabal'. However, to demand article-related evidence to allow speaking of a "real problem" or "actual misconduct" is special pleading. If (and only if) coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways is misconduct, then this is misconduct, regardless of whether the editing activity has a positive or negative impact. Verifiable impact on articles isn't always a central criterion for conduct issues, and in this case it isn't. Finally, though it may be a genuine question whether coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways should be okay or not, comparing it with edit-a-thons or WMF gatherings is inaccurate and disingenuous. As for whether something can be done here or by regular admin action: the leader of this group is editing here, and could be approached with proposals for more transparency. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I want something much simpler. Is there an article which has had bad content in the last month and where any of the potentially problematic editors have contributed to the problems? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You know I can read right? You all are talking about GSoW and myself as if I'm not right here, you can ask me if you have questions. This happens from time to time where editors learn about our project and freak out, not over what we do, but over the idea of the possibility of maybe some people might be doing something wrong one day. Really? Listen to yourselves. BTW this challenge happens when some other editor does not like our editors pushing the science narrative on a page, you know, following the rules of Wikipedia. It's "look over there at that person they are a Cabal" not "don't pay attention to me who is trying to add nonsense to a page". Go back to the talk page of Havana Syndrome to see what started this recent drama. You can't stop people from gathering together off Wikipedia to talk about editing Wikipedia, we aren't changing our name either, so what is the point of this discussion? And A. C. Santacruz seriously? You are going to make a list of GSoW editors? What are you planning on doing with that list? Just research? Really? Just FYI you have about two thirds of that list wrong, a couple people on that list are now dead, and some haven't edited with GSoW in years and years but still edit Wikipedia. People come and go, are you going to follow them around Wikipedia and do what, out them? For what? If you have a problem with an editor on a specific page, then deal with them on that specific page. Just like you normally would, cause guess what, we are you. And Bilby , Seriously? Sgerbic (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• How about this interesting remark from User:Sgerbic, the Guerrilla Skeptics' founder on BLPN from April. Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page it would have been rewritten years ago ... correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys. Diff [228]. I presume that's Gerbic referring to herself in the third person. Complete archived thread [229] (which is an interesting read). I believe that this notion that she has a team of editors that will or would attack articles on her command is something that the community should be very interested in, whether AN/I is the perfect venue or not. Geogene (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we've reached peak ANI when there's a call to consider the grave matter of whether somebody has (not) used their space monkeys to correct their biography? Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You mean, merely possessing an acknowledged army of meatpuppets that you could use, but claim you haven't yet, is just fine and there's nothing to see here? Geogene (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Geogene, what you need to produce here now, is persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Bring it forward for evaluation. If you are not able to do so, then please do not persist with unsupported allegations of misconduct. I hope that you understand your obligation to provide persuasive evidence in support of your recent allegations. Once you have provided your solid evidence as opposed to speculation, the community can evaluate your evidence. Maybe you are right. Produce the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • As I understand it, statements like I have a team that would descend on any editor messing with my BLP like rabid space monkeys is persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Saying that you have meatpuppets at your disposal is evidence of meatpuppetry. Geogene (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
          • It seems that you understand incorrectly, Geogene. In this case, the editor was using routine Wizard of Oz humor to say that other editors would protect her BLP from attack by the type of people that Jimbo Wales called "lunatic charlatans". I hope that you do not deny that these charlatans exist, or that they target Wikipedia biographies like this? Where is the evidence of actual misconduct? Please furnish it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
            • You interpret that very differently than I do, then, Cullen. Geogene (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Yes, Geogene. I am doing my best to interpret things based on persuasive evidence presented here. In my opinion (I could be wrong based on evidence yet to be presented), you are relying on speculation and innuendo. Please prove me wrong. If you do so, I will be happy to concede your point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
                • What are some examples of things that you would find persuasive enough to take action on? What sorts of on-wiki evidence would you reasonably expect a meatpuppetry campaign would leave behind? Geogene (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • We don't normally debate what is inside people's heads—we don't know if it was a joke or an actionable threat. The important point for Wikipedia is whether anything actually happened. Apparently nothing has happened apart from moral outrage. It's up to the accusers to produce an example of bad content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
                    • By "bad content" do you mean article content only, or is proposing bad content on an article talk page sufficient? Geogene (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What I am asking for is quite simple, Geogene. Please provide diffs of the meatpuppet edits with convincing evidence of meatpuppetry, or refrain from further accusations. I already said that I am receptive to evidence. Please provide it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If there were any evidence of meatpuppetry, it would have been provided already – perhaps on one of the three occasions when I asked for it in this thread. Instead, we're treated to repeated accusations and vexatious reiteration of the same evidence-free suspicions. Was I asleep for so long that I missed the time when WP:AGF ceased to be a guideline? This discussion has long since run its course and should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Small reminder for everyone to please remember using Template:OutdentA. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the people that are demanding "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" are unable to define what that might even look like, I will simply remove the conflict area from my watchlist instead. I believe the community as a whole will deal with this problem in due time; it's not my responsibility to demand that now. Geogene (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

    You want us to speculate on what the evidence that you presuppose exists might look like? How would we know? If there is an evidentiary basis for accusations of WP:meatpuppetry, then you can just lay out whatever you have gathered. If there is no evidence, then why make an accusation in the first place? If I were to come to ANI to discuss an instance of meatpuppetry, then I would be here with diffs and timestamps of 1) specific discussions or RfCs that look like they were influenced by meatpuppets and/or 2) specific edits to articles where it looks like meatpuppets are tag teaming an edit war and/or 3) an influx of new users and SPAs with a specific common goal arriving around the same time with no other reasonable explanation. Did you come to this discussion with any of that prepared? Do you have a different idea of what "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" would look like that you would like to share with the community here? If the answer turns out to be "nothing," then what was the point of all of this, Geogene? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

    The kind of evidence you're asking for is the type that would be appropriate at WP:SPI, i.e., where there are indications of collusion between different accounts without any indication of which organization is behind it. But here we have the exact opposite: we have an organization explicitly declaring that they exist in order to collude on specific Wikipedia articles, but no indication of which accounts are doing it. It is one thing to say that the evidence given is not sufficient to be actionable, and a wholly different thing to say no evidence is given at all. I've already argued above that there may be special considerations to allow an anti-quackery group to do something which we would never tolerate from, say, a pro-fringe group. But it would be incredibly helpful if it would be admitted that the existence of an off-wiki facebook-only editorial group focused on a specific set of controversial articles is a topic worthy of discussion by itself, and not in any special need of SPI-like evidence. Such a discussion may quickly come to the conclusion that it should be allowed, especially if the group's goals align with those of Wikipedia, but at least that would be an honest discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

    The whole Wikipedia editorial corps is (or should be) "colluding" to improve the encyclopedia, and every Wikipedia editor should be "anti-quackery" in line with the relevant PAGS (so yes, we do treat anti-quackery groups differently from WP:PROFRINGE ones; that's one of Wikipedia's best features). It's just GSoW seems to have this particular focus. This has come up from time-to-time over the years, and the pattern this time is the same as before. If there are specific problems (and there may be, such as an in-group bias towards sourcing which would have been okay 10 years ago, but isn't now) - then let's see some specific examples. Wikipedia cannot prevent people communicating on FB. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Cavansing must be "come to this page and make these edits" or something similar, I have seen no evidence they have done this. No direct accusations have been made against any user for being a meat puppet. As such, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, but a lot of "I do not like it" (so actually there is, these accusations violate wp:npa).Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem with off-site collaboration is it's difficult to investigate or prove, especially when WP:OUTING is taken into consideration. In this situation the difficulty is compounded because of the fact that the POV, in general, aligns with the views of most editors. I think that we can ignore the possibility of meatpuppeting and collusion until it becomes obvious, and instead just make sure the articles that could be affected are edited in a neutral manner. The biggest problem I've seen is over-reliance on primary sourcing to insert negative content into BLPs. I don't know that this is a concerted effort by GSoW, but it also doesn't matter. Just removing the material and watching the articles often works well enough. If a problem arises from that routine editing, then we can take action in specific cases. I think that looking at Skeptical Inquirer on WP:RSN in relation to it's use on BLPs would be a great step. It ends up being used as a primary source for investigations and sting operations on BLPs. This is a decent example of over-reliance on SI as a primary source, quoting someone who spent her career photographing babies at a department store[230] as an expert of the level necessary to add negative content to BLPs. I think we can all agree that psychics are woo woo bullshit, but that doesn't excuse violating our editing standards. Pinging Sgerbic and Rp2006, as I've mentioned them.

In conclusion, discuss Skeptical Inquirer on RSN, especially for use on BLPs. It may also be worth discussing if something only covered in a primary source is WP:DUE. In some cases SI's investigations have been covered elsewhere, but if SI is the only source discussing a thing they did, is it really due? Also keep an eye on articles, and clean up as necessary. Doing such will cause problem editors, if any exist in the topic area, to become apparent, at which point they can be dealt with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a great example of the poor editing in this area. This was created as a hit piece in 2018, calling him a convicted felon in the lead with no sourcing, then continuing to assert that in its own section, still without a source that actually supports it. I've cleaned the article a bit in the past, but it still reads like a hit piece. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not discourage editors from investigating

User subpage has been deleted, collapsing tangent from main discussion

Hi. Just thought I'd leave a comment outside the above discussion. Some users have linked to a user subpage I have created called User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW. I am highly offended by users trying to rope that into the current discussion. As I see it, the discussion above is about principles. The research I wish to do which is by far not complete and will take quite some time before it is is to see if I can find overlaps between different users to see if there actually is some level of coordination between skepticism-interested editors. It is most absolutely not a "list of GSoW users" or some kind of witchhunt. Notice I myself am in the list of users, as well as highly unlikely GSoW editors such as Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Did I share that page here? No. I definitely did not. Did someone go through my contributions in order to find it (as I hadn't linked it anywhere)? Most likely. This is a blatant offense to my ability to interact on Wikipedia independently through harassment. Let me do my work in silence if I choose to do so in silence, and once I find it is worth sharing I will. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) For clarification, I decided to make the page as a subpage of my userpage rather than do the work off-wiki because I believe in making such work transparent, both for peer-review of my methods and as a principle I hold to be as transparent as possible with other editors in this Wiki. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Smells of WP:NOTHERE - and maintaining personal lists of users for possible later busting is something the community can take a dim view of. Conversely, reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine, especially at ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) A cursory look through my user page should dispel any claim that I'm all bark no write. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Creating and maintaining a page with a list of editors which could result in tying them to an off-wiki group or to real-life identities without their consent is in my opinion much more offensive than having somebody draw attention to your public edits in userspace, which you presumably understand you do not own. If I were you, I would ask for the page to be deleted to prevent any unintentional harm. AlexEng(TALK) 08:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) AlexEng there is no intention on my part to post private information on editors or tying them to an off-wiki group where I cannot verify their membership. Users above kept asking for evidence that some level of canvassing has happened. This is what I thought was the best way to do so. What others would you suggest? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I read your silly little list. You might wish to note that Susan, bless her, refused to marry me. Her loss. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Roxy the dog please there is no need for such language. Why belittle me like this. I don't understand. Its not a silly little list, I wanted to do some mathematical analysis on user contributions in skeptic areas but needed to gather a large enough set of users for it to be meaningful. Why is everyone taking it as a personal attack of some sort when even my name is there. I don't understand. I'm just trying to help give some clarity to the whole situation but I get such jerk-like comments from you. Where's the need. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Not all harm done is intentionally done. You can just use the user interaction tools available to find suspected instances of canvassing. I think examining actual edits in RfCs and other talk page discussions for evidence of suspected canvassing or meatpuppetry would also be more productive than maintaining a list of users who participate in a specific area of interest. AlexEng(TALK) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Fair point, I'll look into that :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Why dont you just join GSoW on bookfarce (now deadbook) and you can find out all you want. I believe they are an open group, and all their discussion is open. Susan seems to take newbies like yourself and turn them into decent wiki contributers. You could do worse. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) One of the reasons for caution here is that FB's "real name" policy combined with sleuthing about Wikipedia editors there is a recipe for WP:OUTING and opposition research activity which is likely to be career-limiting so far an editing here is concerned. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Please stop making such derogatory comments. It doesn't help the discussion. It doesn't contribute anything. It just serves to make me feel bad and for you to stand on a pedestal. It's completely unnecessary. Please please just stop and find something else to do than entertain yourself at my expense. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Unless this is being used to build a case it may well violate wp:userpage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC) It was being used in order to build a case to show evidence of GSoW coordination, but I have since G7 deleted the page. Don't think the attention it is receiving is worth the effort, especially as it is distracting from the main discussion above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC) It that case continue, if there is meat puppetry we should know about it (and it should be stamped down upon), but it has to be pretty clear.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Decided to take it offline and will move it to a new user page once I'm done. It's getting some weird attention and weird requests so it's best to build the case and then show how I built it once its done. The thorny replies from roxy, Sgerbic, and others in SGoW do indicate that perhaps there is something to gain from poking around a bit, but I'll wait until I have a very detailed case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Perhaps the fact that you have pre-decided that you'll have a "case", and that there is "a massive problem"[231] might have led people to suspect this wasn't an entirely impartial endeavour? Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I'll help you ACS. I am not and never have been a GSoW member. Therefore, please remove my name from your post above. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF Ironically, it's only two days since an admin warned ACS that your actions at ANI... are becoming disruptive, and need to remind you that we are here to write an encyclopedia. And yet, here we are again. ——Serial 16:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Please, why are y'all scrutinizing me like this. Roxy was incredibly insulting above in this same thread and now you also begin with ad hominems. Please stop. There is no need for all these personal attacks. Stick to the discussion at hand. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) I have no idea what Roxy said up there. But making unsupported accusations of personal attacks is itself an aspersion; please be mindful. See WP:WIAPA for details. ——Serial 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Right! This thread is about scrutinizing people who may possibly violate rules some day in the future, not about scrutinizing people who actually did violate WP:AGF and WP:POLEMIC already. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC) To be fair to ACS, both situations were good faith attempts to help, and that didn't sound like a formal warning that Ritchie333 issued in his capacity as an admin so much as an expression of concern—though he is free to correct me if I'm wrong. My point is that it's not probably not fair to conclude that both events are part of a disruptive pattern. AlexEng(TALK) 19:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC) An alternative suggestion might be that ACS may need to be encouraged to find their editorial feet before attempting to wade themselves into these murky waters. Not only will the purpose of the project become clear, but they will gain experience of consensus building, action through discussoin, and find themselves able to contribute rather more usefully to meta areas such as this. Unfortunately, we are not at that stge yet. Cheers, ——Serial 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I p-blocked A. C. Santacruz from ANI for 3 months. El_C 23:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion about GSoW

From the Wired article GW posted above:

GSoW editors have collectively created or completely rewritten more than 630 Wikipedia pages, which together have garnered over 28 million page visits. They’ve worked in multiple languages in addition to English, including Spanish, French, and Arabic. A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next.

That's an off-wiki canvassing club. That is not like an edit-a-thon or Discord or anything like that. This is a problem because there is no transparency and thus no accountability. Instead of a private Facebook group, they need to set up an on-wiki WikiProject, and have their discussions there. Also I'm wondering if this group is contributing to the overzealous anti-woo we've seen arising over the last couple years, currently being discussed at the Village Pump. It's hard to say without a members list. Levivich 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That does read like it might be meat puppetry, but we still need names of people who are clearly acting in that way, not vague assertions. But this does raise some concerns about breaches of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Nothing in the quotation that you provided supports or even implies an off-wiki canvassing club. Maybe you could re-read WP:CANVASSING and point out the exact part of the guideline that you think is being violated based on the quoted text. Otherwise, I think you should strike that remark. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Levivich 17:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: maybe I missed something, but I am not grasping where you got Contacting users off-wiki ... to persuade them to join in discussions out of what you quoted in your original comment. Perhaps you would be kind enough to connect the dots for me? Is there another section of the article or some other source where you can see that they are claiming that they canvass their users into discussion threads? Discussing edits off-wiki is not against guidelines. Collaborating off-wiki to decide which articles should be edited is not against guidelines. Stealth-canvassing users to bias and sway discussions to create a false consensus is obviously against guidelines. I don't see anything to support the perspective that that is happening. If you do, please share that with the community. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

(after tiresome edit conflict - why can't we just use a decent free off-the-shelf forum package that has room for an extension for Mediawiki markup?) "A private group on Facebook ... where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next" would certainly seem to violate WP:CANVASSING#Stealth canvassing. How can it not, if it is private? That canvassing is done in a cause that I support doesn't stop it being canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little unconvinced that they have as many regular editors on enwiki, to be honest. I have a lot of woo on my watchlist and I haven't really noticed any new editors suddenly appearing on multiple articles - though, perhaps, many of the ones I do keep an eye on have restrictions in place already. To be honest, I wouldn't have a massive problem with a group which was simply dedicated to removing nonsense from fringe subjects, but I'd be far more concerned if they were - as it appears - editing BLPs, especially of those who fall on the "woo" side of reality. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's only canvassing if they're doing it to influence the outcome of discussions. That's the crucial bit that's missing in this discussion - some pointer to a discussion that they've tried to influence. For all we know they're just critiquing each other's grammar. It would certainly a bit weird to do that on facebook, but we don't have any rules against it - nor could we effectively enforce them if we did. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes we do have rules against it, it's stealth canvassing. "For all we know..." is exactly the problem: because it's a private Facebook group, we can't know. GSoW sounds like a laudable group with a laudable goal, but they need to move their activities on-wiki and use WikiProject pages just like Women in Red and Milhist and all the rest. Which articles to tackle should be discussed at the WikiProject page, and how to edit articles should be discussed on the article's talk page. A private Facebook group is not an appropriate forum to coordinate editing, and that's per our canvassing and meatpuppet policies. Levivich 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It does all smack rather of something to hide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a proponent of everything-on-Wiki and scrutiny, I have email disabled and other than my personal notes, my username isn't used anywhere else, I don't use chat, social networks or WP-oriented websites in relation to Wikipedia, I don't even blog about it. I understand that this is not necessarily policy, but for this reason I too encourage members to favor WikiProjects and on-wiki processes. —PaleoNeonate – 22:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

See, these comments are illustrative of my problem with the argument being made, and I haven't seen any supporters of this point of view address it yet. We don't need to know what they're talking about off-wiki. It's not our problem. We need to assume they are acting in good faith until shown otherwise. It becomes our problem when they coordinate off-wiki in an attempt to violate or circumvent PAGs. Nobody in this whole ANI section has pointed to a single violation of WP:PAGs caused by this group – with the pointed exception of suspected meatpuppetry – again, with no proof. "That's suspicious" is not a policy-based argument against off-wiki editing interest groups. If you so badly want this to be against PAGs—it is not currently against PAGs—then you should consider making a reasoned argument for why this behavior should be barred in a policy proposal at WP:VP. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this argument is pedantic, as it's suggesting that it's not OK to canvass people off-wiki to discussions on-wiki, but it is ok to have the discussions themselves off-wiki, which is nonsensical. And AGF is one thing, but I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in zero on-wiki discussions along the way. Levivich 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but we still need actual evidence (not assumption) of wrongdoing. I agree it is odd, but without evidence, it is also not actionable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a minor example, but does it help? Health Freedom Idaho: the article is created by a GSoW editor, then when a new editor disputes the content, three separate GSoW editors revert in minutes of each other, even though none had edited the article in the past, while another asks for protection. - Bilby (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that might well be a good example.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's helpful to have at least something to look at that may be evidence, and I appreciate you providing that. Which of the editors are affiliated with GSoW? The only one I know of is VdSV9, as he chose to disclose that here. Perhaps you could provide some clarity on what happened here, VdSV9? AlexEng^(TALK) 19:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No it is NOT a good example. This seems like a no-brainer. Gerbic already said that her team work on articles together to support one another to produce the best quality material. So once such an article is published, I would think those editors, as well as other skeptics and friends alerted to a new article from Gerbic's social media posts about it (she says she posts often and in many venues), would put it on their watchlists. The Idaho one I think I discovered due to such a FB or Twitter post (or maybe stumbled upon earlier in the year - I don't recall), saw the vandalism by a SPA (HFITruthBeTold), did a revert, and asked for page protection. I have email notices turned on and get notices about edits for HUNDREDS of articles on my watchlist - many I may have not yet edited yet. Why do that? If the topic is of interest and I like the article contents, I take an interest in battling vandalism on it. And BTW, claiming "three separate GSoW editors..." seems to be a claim based on @Bilby: knowing who is on Gerbic's team. Citation Needed! RobP (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, the announcement that they had created the article, reverted the edits, and were organising to have it protected is here. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like protection was accomplished based on one editor's report at RPP. In what sense did they organize to to have it protected? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

All I know is that they described it as "We got this - so don't panic, we should be able to get the page locked so they can't keep doing this" in the announcement. I assume that this was a reference to the request for protection. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If I read the diffs correctly, a GSoW member created the article, and another GSow member reverted POV pushing vandalism to it by an anti-vax SPA. I would say that's a net plus for Wikipedia. The fact that they might have communicated with each other on Facebook isn't concerning to me, since all editors have email and can potentially communicate with each other. I'm not affiliated with this group, and I dislike excessive userboxes, but if there was an "I support the work of GSoW" userbox, I would be tempted to display it on my user page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If the difference between two actions is the difference between a rule violation and a non-violation, then it's not pedantic to point that out. Re: I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in zero on-wiki discussions along the way. – that's a fine opinion to have, but it's not fine to assert it as fact with no proof. It's also not improper for individual editors to participate in on-wiki discussions if they are not in violation of WP:CANVASSING. To wit, a solitary GSoW editor participating in an on-wiki discussion is not a violation. Agree or disagree? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is how can we be sure that people in this discussion are not undeclared members of this organisation? There is history of off-site coordination of efforts to dictate content on Wiki, which has resulted in colossal and continuing damage to the project. How can we be sure that this is not another EEML. A secret group of self-selected "special" editors who are trying to force there own views on the project is just as damaging as spammers or state-sponsored disruption of the project. GSoW should either move completely on-Wiki or be thrown completely off.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad I picked such a scary name for our off-WP group, The Secret Cabal oooooooo you make us sound so ominous. As I have stated in interview after interview (remember I've been running this for over ten years) I first tried WikiProjects and found them to be overly technical, lousy places for conversations, and dead or dying. And BTW many GSoW are on various WikiProjects, just nothing really happens there.

I created training for people who have no skills in editing any kind of code. Instructions here on Wikipedia are just giant walls of text to my little brain and freak me out when I encounter them. Plus this weird language you all use, imagine what that looks like to new people trying to make their first few edits. And "new" can mean someone editing for a long time if they are attempting something different than they tried before. I have training assignments that are the ones I would have liked to see when I first starting editing and was nearly banned because I didn't know what the heck I was doing. Tears people, you don't understand how scary you are and how frustrating understanding the culture and rules are.

Before they join the Cabal they are asked to make an account and make a user page, why is that first? Because I'm training them to be you, to be awesome editors, who exist here for years and years. One of the very first instructions my new people are to learn is how to use Ctrl-F Ctrl-C Ctrl-X then they use Hatnote, which is to listen to Wikipedia, so they learn they are in a world of other editors working to create this amazing website. Next it is to learn how to add a photo to a Wikipedia page, (I've written at least two non-Wikipedia articles explaining this) I am always asking people to upload photos to WMC of odd museums, people ect. I keep a spreadsheet with all the photos waiting to upload, and my new people select the photo to add to the Wikipedia page. SCARY - They move on to learning how to hyperlink, to understand what R/S is and is not. How to cite a source and how to use it multiple times in an article, how to write a lede, how to add an info-box, what do the categories mean and what is a talk page. Common terms that you all use all the time so they can understand this language.

Training can take up to four months, I work with people one-on-one, in person, over zoom and over whatever social media they are most comfortable with. Along the line I have trained some people to be the most amazing editors that have been here for years, you work with them nearly every day, others have moved on, we work in lots of languages. We have lost many new people because they weren't a good fit, sometimes life interferes, we are real people, just like you all are. Babies, elderly parents, sick significant others, job changes and more. They edit when they can, or not at all, some leave the project, but still edit. Some quit because some of the "senior editors" are brisk, curt and downright rude to new people. Many of you have been kind, helpful and wonderful people.

Some of my people spend their time here on Wikipedia teaching others, answering newbie questions, others work in other areas of WikiMedia, and remember we are in many languages because it's not just about English.

The very last assignment for one of our new people is to rewrite a stub, usually something that has been abandoned. I prefer biographies because they have a beginning middle and ending, some but not all are BLP, this really puts all they have learned to work, photos, audio, citations, info-boxes, categories, hyperlinks. We discuss all kinds of things in our Secret Cabal, you would be amazed at the nefarious communications between people. OMG we discuss American English vs Australian English, commas before the citation number or after which is one of my pet peeves, looking now ... someone is discussing an article from WP "Verifiability, not truth" another Cabal member is talking about a critical thinking class they are teaching and the use of WP. Here is another scary discussion on the Afrikaans Wikipedia page for Leflunomide which is a treatment for rheumatic and psoriatic arthritis. Scary stuff.

Some of these conversations I'm reading here on ANI sound straight out of 2013-2014 when Chopra, Gary Null and Rupert Sheldrake were freaked out that the "Guerilla Skeptics" were changing their Wikipedia pages. OH NO! Editors editing, what's the world come to! The majority of the conversations at the Cabal are from new people who are looking for feedback on how best to word something, and get feedback on the page they are currently working on.

We are a community of people who enjoy joking with each other, talking about our pets, sharing a coffee or beer when we are in their town. The social aspect that is missing from Wikipedia is strong in our community. I can't prove any of this, except from all the interviews, articles and almost daily postings I do on Facebook and even Twitter talking about it. I have long and short interviews with my team members talking about their training and what it is like to be a GSoW editor, they talk about how important Wikipedia is, following the rules and more.

So lets get this straight, 25 million page views? Seriously you don't have much Google foo do you (hey that rhymed). I have been all over the social webs talking about how incredible the team is, how I want more people to learn to edit, how basic the training is, and how incredible it feels to improve a Wikipedia page. We have written 1,899 pages so far. Over 45% are in languages other than English. I think I see a couple more finished now but I'm over here dealing with this conversation of people who can't bother to ask me questions and instead are coming up with shadow conspiracy's. Those 1,899 pages have been viewed ... checking now ... 101,189,830 times. So that 25 million is a bit wrong.

Instead of freaking out on what we might, maybe, someday, possibly, kinda could do, maybe try learning from us. What an idea! Learn from other people! Talk to people, ask questions and assume good faith. You know that is a Wikipedia pillar right?

We can communicate off Wikipedia so just get over it. And guess what you can also as I'm sure some of you are right now. What about it? Transparency, what does that even mean? We could be writing on Wikipedia Projects and then having a email conversation with another editor at the same time, how would you know? We are as transparent as any other editor, we use the same talk pages you do. You want to make lists of who our people are? Spend hours trying to find one maybe something that sort of sounds like canvassing to throw in our face out of the thousands of edits we make? Really you want to do that with your time? Damn people, I have better things to do. Even this wall-of-text is sucking the life out of me trying to explain to editors something that has been discussed over and over again and there are recent off-Wikipedia sources.

So, seriously people. Look at who is trying to stir up trouble, draw attention away from what they are doing, point at the scary Cabal people. You got a problem with someone editing a page, take it to talk and deal with it there not making wild accusations over a group that you could understand if you really wanted to, that have been working beside you for ten plus years. You want to talk, I'm here, I'm on Facebook, Twitter and here is my email [email protected] we even have a website and t-shirts. Sgerbic (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I take back what I said about a laudable group with laudable goals. Levivich 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I take this comment to be basically in jest, but I thought I would double-check: is there something substantive (rather than stylistic) in Sgerbic's (rather ranty) post that makes you think the goals are not laudable? --JBL (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: previously I had thought the enemy was POV-pushing fringe/pseudoscience but after reading more, I wonder whether the real enemy is Wikipedia. The elitism was surprising: "my people" and "my team" vs. "you people" and "you all". Asking if we know what Wikipedia is like for newcomers (as if none of us are/were newcomers), acting as if ordinary editors are a different species of person from "my people". In reality, both GSoW editors and non-GSoW editors come from the same pool of internet-connected English-speaking Wikipedia readers. Dividing one group of editors from another--acting as if we need an elite team of editors because the ordinary mob of editors can't be trusted to edit without supervision--that all reminds me of, well, several other wiki-organizations. That's "walled garden WikiProject" stuff, except it's worse because it's off-wiki. If the group is about making a better Wikipedian via secretive off-wiki training, and then deploying the trainees to edit stuff related to the trainer, then that's not really laudable in my eyes. Levivich 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've said this before, but yeah the parallels to stuff like EEML is obvious. This should be a Wikiproject, there is absolutely no good reason besides evading scrutiny it isn't. Complaining about Discord is valid if you want to keep everything onwiki, but at least Discord has public archives (and from what I've seen the moderators are generally very good at telling people "this needs to go on-wiki". But again, if that's a problem, it should be dealt with too, not used as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny here. Frankly the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Wikipedia page was, until the late SlimVirgin valiantly cleaned it up, full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is not the person I want teaching others how to use Wikipedia, especially regarding how cavalier they are above about the concerns listed here. It's corrosive to consensus-building, and their contributions thus far are subpar. Bring it out into the open, or shut it down. We absolutely wouldn't tolerate pseudoscience Facebook groups doing the same thing, because we understand innately the problem with the practice, not just the ideological goals. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And yet another comment here "their contributions thus far are subpar" that implies not only is there a list of GSoW editors, or at least all the pages that the team has written/edited (and additionally, now the claim that some unbiassed panel have judged their work's quality.) Citation please... or withdraw the arrogant, uninformed claim. RobP (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the wall of text above, but one minor note. @David Fuchs: are you implying that Sgerbic wrote her own page in violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO? the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Wikipedia page was... full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is not the person I want teaching others how to use Wikipedia AlexEng^(TALK) 21:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group calling itself a "secret cabal", whose membership is undisclosed, came through some unknown process to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are (for all anybody knows, I could myself be a false flag agent provocateur of the GSoW sent here to foment FUD). jp×g 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, we must not joke about the secret cabal. It's deadly serious.

Anyway, we can all suspect each other of nefarious deeds done in the shadows and call each other double agents and triple agents or whatnot, or we could just assume good faith and not let largely evidence-free suspicion of wrongdoing turn this into any greater a time sink than it already is. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how what you've said relates to the statement you're formulating it as a response to. Is your claim that some entity having a silly name serves, ipso facto, as proof of whether or not it engages in behavior related to the name? That is to say, if someone's username was "Sloppy Sawbones", would this constitute proof that they are not a surgeon in real life? jp×g 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhh... I think you got that backwards. The fact that an entity has a spooky name does not serve as proof of wrongdoing. It's an obvious reference to a long-standing inside joke on Wikipedia. How one could consider that convincing evidence escapes me. Or if you don't consider that part of your argument, then why did you mention it? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will make my comment again without referencing the name: I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group, whose membership is undisclosed, came through some unknown process to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are. jp×g 03:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's address the meat and potatoes. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred ...... and therefore, what? Therefore we should assume that Sgerbic did it? Or summoned her minions to do it for her? Where does this argument lead? AlexEng^(TALK) 07:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, the argument is that we have no way of knowing whether Sgerbic' team was involved or not, whereas, if they would be operating on-wiki, we would. There are some who argue that not having a way of knowing is a problem. It's unhelpful to keep answering that by "but do you know of any actual evidence of malfeasance?". We don't claim malfeasance. We claim it's a problem that we would have no way to find out. That has nothing to with assuming bad faith, either. It's been said here that this group may be perfectly innocuous. There's just this thing about their not being open to scrutiny as any other wiki editing-team would, and should. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki.

Seems like a productive conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You all forget that there is another danger which may equal that of GSoW. It is me. I know people offline, and some of them agree with me about stuff. Theoretically, I could coordinate with them and canvas them to support me in discussions on Wikipedia pages. There is not a shred of evidence that I did do that, but I could! So, the situation is pretty much the same as with GSoW. I clearly need to be restricted.

To all those who are suspicious of the "cabal" name: I think I know the reason why that name was chosen. It was to make fun of you. They did not know it would be you specifically, but anybody who finds that name ominous is fair game. There was a chair with a whoopie cushion on it, and you saw the chair and the cushion - which was clearly labeled "whoopie cushion" - you willingly sat on it, and made exactly the noise that was expected. And probably did not even notice it was funny. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware that anyone has used the "cabal" name other than supporters of this group. I deliberately omitted it from my edit above in order not to get sidetracked into a straw man argument about this irrelevance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of page search function avail in browsers. User Apaugasma referenced cabal as ominous just above. RobP (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You may not yet be familiar with the long history of Cabal jokes on Wikipedia. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: as I pointed out above, GSoW's labeling themselves a 'cabal' is a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on Wikipedia. Saying that you're a cabal, on Wikipedia, is practically equivalent to confirming you aren't. Except that this group is really being intransparent. I tend to understand it as doubly ironic, which like a double negation points to an affirmative. The fact that you're so quick to make fun of me in order to sidetrack any possible real issue also speak volumes. Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is dumb, because pro-fringe types are typically dumb, and because only pro-fringe types would disagree with you (right?), is unfortunately fairly typical of multiple fringe-busters around here. I would ask you to take it slower with such assumptions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe it is not just a deflection, but a deflection of a deflection of a deflection! Or maybe there are even more layers! O noes!

Come on! This exegesis-based speculation will lead nowhere. You are just hopping on the cushion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Another thing. Pro-fringe types are not "dumb". They just lack one specific skill you can learn: they are bad at knowing if a specific way of reasoning is valid, and they offer one bad reason after another. Since there is no valid reasoning supporting their worldviews, they have no other option (except silence). You may be in a similar situation now, but I have no idea if you are a "pro-fringe type". It simply is not relevant. The only relevant thing is that your reasoning is bad. And the strawman fallacy (I would ask you to take it slower with such assumptions when I did not make any such assumptions) is just another piece of bad reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not "ominous", but it is certainly funny. I mean, it's obviously possible for anyone who works at a company to steal office supplies, and any person is as suspicious as any other if there are fewer cartons of printer paper and staples than we expected to have. Additionally, coming up short on printer paper and staples is a fairly normal thing that happens all the time: oftentimes they are just misplaced, or there was a big project that printed a lot of stuff, or management inaccurately estimated how much printer paper would be necessary in any given month. However, let's suppose the following situation: we find out a hundred employees working in that building had formed a disc golf team called the "Office Suppliers", refused to associate with any of the company's other disc golf teams, had monthly meetings and "training programs" for otherwise experienced disc golfers to learn "a different mind-set and focus than a normal disc golf team", and (unlike all the other disc golf teams), and conducted all their business on an external mailing list. If, in this situation, it turned out one of the team members' desks was right in the middle of an area where there was a perpetual inexplicable shortage of printer paper and staples, I think it would be reasonable to at least speculate that something might be going on with that team, or maybe ask for a list of its members. And if it turned out that the team had an extra-secret subgroup called "The Printer Paper Bandits", it would not make them seem less suspicious. jp×g 21:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this invalidated by the fact that no office supplies are missing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess my question here is what would constitute convincing evidence that the group should be looked into further, since nothing that's been mentioned here seems to move the needle at all. jp×g 20:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason to try and tackle this at ANI instead of Arbcom? If we tried to do an examination of the diffs provided here and then worked our way to other interactions between those editors and possibly identified other editors along the way... well, that's a two-week evidence phase right there, before we can even come to any conclusion. And it's highly likely to include some off-wiki evidence anyway since we're talking about off-wiki coordination. So it seems like a job for arbcom to me. Levivich 21:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'd be inclined to agree; the issue ought to be addressed by people capable of interpreting large volumes of evidence and rendering a neutral decision. I think the only possible outcomes from an ANI thread this large are "sounds confusing, no action taken" and "sounds bad, everyone involved with the group is dramatically defenestrated". Neither seem terribly good for anyone involved; this seems to be a group of otherwise productive editors who have some issues, not a group of aggressive malefactors who all need to be c-banned etc. jp×g 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't see any way this doesn't have to end up at ArbCom, although a lot more legwork is going to have to be done to demonstrate the problem in terms of diffs. Likewise given the whole "we 'train' people off-wiki" even if a bunch of people get sanctioned it's likely only going to be a temporary fix unless they are defanged via other means (like a proper appraisal of whether their favored sources are really RS for our purposes.) I didn't get much useful input at the last RSN post I started. 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally the only thing that needs to change here is for them to create a WikiProject so that their discussions occur on-wiki. The absolutely ridiculous amounts of pushback on this, alongside the screed posted above, just make me even more skeptical that this group has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart.

I'm also pretty appalled at the course of the conversation above regarding User:A. C. Santacruz. Editors kept asserting that there was no evidence, but when someone tried actually collecting some evidence, those editors then attacked that user. I find it especially ironic that User:Alexbrn stated that reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine, when that seems to be exactly what A. C. Santacruz was attempting to do. Mlb96 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there is something a little confusingly circular about the argument that "no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because the group's membership is unknown, because trying to find out who its members are is an act of bad faith, because no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because..." et cetera. jp×g 03:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That's why standard procedure is to focus on problems regarding article content rather than hypotheticals (what if this group did something bad). I asked for examples of related bad content but haven't seen any. This entire discussion is pointless unless some examples can be produced. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It remind me of those endless futile discussions on WP:COIN based on the misunderstanding that a COI is a problem. It isn't, but inappropriate editing rooted in a COI is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The idaho example was literally part of the discussion. And y'all are refusing to consider our reasoning of Probatio diabolica as long as members aren't disclosed on-wiki due to OUTING. I don't even know what examples y'all want outside of sgerbic literally saying "yo guys lets canvass right here right now" and 10 people being like "sure boss". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Anything skeptics would be interested in" since 2011 is a large area to search. If we had an account and/or topic list it would be a lot easier. But as Black Kite commented above, maybe there isn't much to the story. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As at COIN, the speculations about off-wiki life is futile and possibly self-destructive. It boils down to showing editor A did bad things X,Y and Z with evidence and pursuing action on that basis (the recent ARS thread here also makes an interesting parallel). Wikipedia isn't going to start maintain lists of prohibited organizations or trying to shut down FB groups. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The main issue I am aware of is editing with a COI without declaring the COI, in particular editing BLPs of people they are actively opposing off-wiki. It is possible that there is coordination of edits on-wiki, but unlike EEMP there's no smoking gun to show this. As with COIN, the reason why I really don't think this is the correct forum is the only way to give examples is to identify the editors as members of GSOW, and that can't be done without outing. Thus I guess the only likely outcomes are that one day they will choose to self-identify and follow COI, so that this becomes moot; it will one day progress to a point where it has to be handled by ArbCom; or we will never be able to tackle this, and we can hope that the practice doesn't expand to other organised groups. (I note, on that score, that I have seen attempts to make similar groups on the other side, based off this model, and at one stage there were ads on Upwork asking to hire WP experts to train Ayurveda practitioners, so I guess that's just a matter of time). - Bilby (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Presumably any such COI would only apply to articles on GSoW and its members, since being properly skeptical ins't a COI, but just an indication of being able to think rationally. Frankly, I give zero fucks if GSoW want to write exposés of fake cancer cures or other kinds of woo, but reviewing some GSoW contributions, something which does concern me is where it the activity crosses over into political hit-pieces. As you know Bilby I am a firm supporter of upholding WP:FRINGE-compliant treatment of fringe matters in BLPs - but it must be done scrupulously and something like this looks like it's gone too far. Since, for maybe understandable reasons, all the political editing traffic from GSoW is one-way (insofar as I understand USA politics, this seems so) - this could also have the effect of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute since the story that a group is organizing to take down certain politicians via Wikipedia could be widely resonant. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bilby. What COI do cabal members have exactly? You never said. (Note to cabal members, the brown envelope in the gents at Victoria Sation payment method appears to have beeen rumbled. Suggestions? PayPal anybody?) Remember, Tinc. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yes, I completely agree that simply editing on skeptical topics would not be a COI, and I have no issue with them writing about fake cancer cures or similar. My comment only concerns their "sting" operations which they have run against mediums and articles about direct GSOW members or major friends/supporters of GSOW. I had not specifically considered the Heidi H. Sampson situation, but I agree that you have a point there as well. - Bilby (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think this needs to go to Arbcom as we do not have the tools to look into this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

All we can do without access to private information is see if there's a consensus that off-wiki organizing that could be done transparently on-wiki should be done on-wiki. If the community is okay with that type of organizing, why even go to Arbcom? Also, is there any indication that anyone has private evidence to be submitted to Arbcom, because they won't do the investigation themselves. I think the best bet, for now, is to monitor the articles for NPOV issues, and seek action against individual editors that are editing poorly. I've pointed out this diff upthread, which is an NPOV hit piece with a HUGE BLP violation that remained in place until I removed it a few months ago. That is the type of NPOV editing in this area we should be focusing on. Just look at the history of that article and see all the NPOV trash that was removed. There's plenty of bad editing in the topic area that we can deal with now, that doesn't involve private evidence or off-wiki sting operations, or clandestinely joining an off-wiki group to discover the membership. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

For an NPOV puff piece, consider Peter Gleick, who was a keynote speaker at a conference sponsored by an organization Sgerbic founded (Monterrey County Skeptics). Large amounts of WP:SPS citations and the weird sentence in the lead "In 2014, The Guardian newspaper listed Gleick as one of the world's top 10 'water tweeters.'". There's more I'm working through compiling but this one really shocked me with how much it breached the non-notability concerns raised in the talk page in years prior. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what this article (which has existed since 2006) has to do with GSoW, but Gleick is easily notable. There appears to have been an issue in the past with the article subject editing his own bio. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic runs GSoW, and an organization she founded sponsors a conference he was a keynote speaker at. She participated in the talk page for years before that fact. I'm not saying he isn't notable, but large parts of the article are SPS or vaguely related academic papers (such as the UN part). The list of honors is similarly unnecessary, with many of them seeming completely unnotable (Xylem 25 water heroes, for example). These parts were added after his participation in the Skeptic conference, so some connection with GSoW is quite likely. He is most definitely notable. Many things in his article? Not so. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

'connection with GSoW is quite likely' - see, this is the kind of thing that is weakening your argument. We can't assume that sort of thing without evidence. In this case, the Xylem Water Heroes line was added in 2012, years before this 2019 conference you're concerned about. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of recent, problematic edits at Gleick. Here is an example of a GSoW edit I find problematic [232]. It's Gerbic adding (likely with UNDUE emphasis) astronomer David Morrison's co-hosting an episode of Nova, a very high profile PBS program with no connection to the paranormal or skepticism. It's sourced to that astronomer's piece in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, which is published by an organization called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Morrison and Gerbic are both Fellows of that organization [233]. Are Guerilla Skeptics overusing Skeptical Inquirer magazine articles written by other Fellows of the CSI in other articles to the point of UNDUE, or is this an isolated example? The addition was recently contested on the Nova talk page by a random editor, and here is Gerbic's response [234]. Geogene (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that section. There's no reason for a single episode review, especially when added by someone with a COI regarding the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Nova has been around for many decades now, imagine if every episode needed that much detail. Geogene (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

this diff shows all that has been added to Gleick's article since the conference, with the major source of my complaint being done by JohnMashey in these edits, who is a technical consultant for the parent company of Skeptical Inquirer and a colleague of Sgerbic. The sources are overwhelmingly SPS in majority. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that the right diff? Because the sourcing isn't "overwhelmingly SPS in majority" in it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that account as being a major contributor to the article. [235] I do see a lot of IPs though, and I doubt those are part of GSoW's activities. Geogene (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

He has contributed almost 40% of text per the xtools you linked.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how I misread that output, but you're right, he's #1 by authorship. Geogene (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Re Geogene's question above Are Guerilla Skeptics overusing Skeptical Inquirer magazine articles written by other Fellows of the CSI in other articles to the point of UNDUE, or is this an isolated example? Yes, they absolutely are. It's what Gerbic calls "backwards editing": starting from reading a skeptical source and then finding a WP article in which it could be cited. From an article she wrote about this in the Skeptical Inquirer: This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work. Normally an editor will start with a Wikipedia page and look for citations that can be used on it. Backwards editing [...] can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. I call this preaching beyond the choir. [...] We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. [...] This style of editing is really just a matter of browsing through notable magazines, podcasts, books, and journals, and then finding a way to add them correctly to an existing Wikipedia page. If you can manage to do as the examples above and insert skepticism onto a page that would normally have no ties to the world of the weird, then even better. Skeptical Inquirer has a potential of hundreds of Wikipedia edits in each issue. It just requires someone to add them in. Of course this might be overwhelming for most people, the GSoW project teaches this skill during training. Basically, Gerbic in this article, and apparently through the GSoW group, is calling for WP:UNDUE WP:SOAPBOX editing on a massive scale. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I call it a possible violation of wp:not, as this seems to say they are using Wikipedia as a means of promotion (and maybe wp:linkspam).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree to both. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Try this one on for size. COI with the source? Check. Poor sourcing for a medical article? Check. Tangentially related to the section it's in? Check. Makes sure to mention the author's name and the publication name? Check. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was going to raise the possibility this also creates a clear COI as they are adding material they (or those they know) have written to promote themselves or publications they have written for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Which would lead to it being a COI GSoW to use the source, as she's basically training editors to linkspam for her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Note Radford is (was?) the editor of Skeptical Inquirer and so would have had a role in approving Sgerbic's articles and contributions to the site. Ignoring GSoW, should some kind of sanction be proposed towards Sgerbic for this kind of editing behaviour? I don't really know how situations of COI like this one that extend over years are dealt with. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be utter madness. Are you seriously suggesting that if I, for example, insert a source that was written by an editor of a journal in which I've published that I have a conflict of interest? I smell a witch hunt. You are advocating an extremely shameful position, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Well first off that would be (in effect) an SPS, the editor writing for the magazine they edit. Yes (by the way) A COI is one in which you add material that is by (or about) "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships".Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Lets say there's a magazine run by Group A. You're a member of Group A, as is the editor of the magazine. That editor publishes your work in the magazine run by the group you're a part of. You run around Wikipedia inserting links to the magazine that publishes your own work, run by the group you're a member of and edited by a member of the same group, who also is in charge of publishing your work in the magazine. That seems like UTTER MADNESS! (lightning flashes, thunder crashes) Extremely shameful!!! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's give you an example. I am a member of the American Astronomical Society. They publish Sky & Telescope, The Astrophysical Journal, and a number of other magazines and jourals. I run around Wikipedia inserting links to these pieces. They have published my own work, they are run by AAS and they are edited by a person who knows me personally (are we friends? Well, we've had dinner). Are you scandalized by that? jps (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That depends, do you edit to improve the exposure of publications like ApJ? There's also quite a bit of daylight between a peer reviewed academic journal and a magazine published by a skeptic group. I would have to review your edits in relation to those publications to form any real opinion, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly would like to include more ApJ articles in Wikipedia as I think that improves articles. So, yes, I edit to improve the exposure of ApJ. I'm not sure that there is "quite a bit of daylight" here between peer review at ApJ and the review at SI. After all, most of the material SI is interested in is not related to peer-reviewed academic work but rather debunking and popular approaches to topics. So, per WP:PARITY, they tend to be a pretty damn good source in WP:FRINGE articles. The fact that you are even entertaining that this is similar is indicative of how ludicrous this discussion is. It is essentially the cult of the amateur. jps (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you ever say to your students, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like ApJ as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

jps you can't be seriously accusing me of a witch hunt, are you? Is your comment above serious? Due to neurodivergence I'm bad at understanding sarcasm so I need some clarification here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely am. If that was not your intention, that's understandable. But I see this as the impact especially of the claims above. jps (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous and officious reading of COI that has been roundly rejected by the consensus of Wikipedians over the years. A conflict of interest needs to be direct. It does not arise when you simply are writing in a field in which you are an expert, for example. If I write about astronomy, am I hamstrung from adding sources just because I'm friends with many of the authors? That's an outrageous position to take and one that is not even close to being reasonable. Moreover, there is no sense in which a piece published by a journal editor is ever considered "self-published". I cannot even believe I have to write this. C'mon Slatersteven, I thought you were getting better with these competence issues. jps (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a COI if, just purely hypothetical. You were a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who's magazine is Skeptical Inquirer, and maybe you also write articles for the Skeptical Inquirer too. And you trained people to "backwards edit" to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer? Would that, maybe, possibly, be a slight COI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that I do something equivalent to that. It just happens to not be in a topic area that is (right now) particularly controversial on Wikipedia (though there was a time when editing articles like redshift and Big Bang was subject to much controversy and this conversation very much feels like a throwback to those discussions). So I don't know, if you think that improving the encyclopedia in such a fashion is a "slight COI", then I'm duly disgusted by this line of reasoning. It's equivalent to saying that experts are no good at being editors because they get paid to know about the subject they're editing. jps (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think someone can say This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. and not think that their adding it to articles and training others off-wiki to add it to articles is proof of a conflict of interest, I just don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I find absolutely nothing fucking wrong with promoting reliable sources. It's not a proof of "conflict of interest" to encourage people to consider reliable sources. jps (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• GSoW is no different than a class that meets, discusses Wikipedia editing, and gives assignments to edit Wikipedia. We are not equipped to do anything about that sort of off-wiki action. Unless and until violations of WP:PAGs are actually documented with something like diffs (as they were in the EEML case), this is a nothing-burger. If you suspect canvassing, show where it has happened. If you suspect tagteam editing, show where it has happened. But complaining about the editorial philosophy or off-wiki coaching or facebook groups is eye-rollingly absurd. jps (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  A class that meets, someone who works for a magazine gives out a copy of that magazine, tells people to find articles where they can insert references to it, tells skeptics in the same community that they have their back and will work to edit their Wikipedia articles when they're going to have media attention.

  If someone who worked for any other publication had a class where they handed out copies of their publication and trained people to "reverse edit" and find places to insert cites to their publication it would be utter madness and extremely shameful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  This happens all the time as I pointed out above. I tell my students to insert citations to ApJ all the time. Should I be banned? jps (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Are you a Fellow? Do they pay you? When students edit, do they identify themselves as taking part in a class? Do the students edit the article about you? When one student's edit is reverted, does another student come along and reinstate it? Do students !vote in discussions together without disclosing they're students from the same class? These are key differences. Levivich 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have received fellowship money. Does that make me a fellow? It makes me "paid", I think. No, students do not always identify themselves. I can't control what my students do. Inasmuch as an article may be about research I have done, I suppose they may be editing articles about me. I have no idea if one student's edit is revert if another comes along to reinstate it. Do you have any evidence whatsover that this is what GSoW is doing? I also don't know about !votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is happening with GSoW? So I see no key differences here... only mild dissembling. jps (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  See [236] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seen and scoffed at for being unimpressive. If we were to follow your blinkered vision of COI, then I would be banned from adding content to astronomy articles, I'm sure. Your position that we are talking in circles isn't born out by the fact that I'm presenting myself as the case study. Go ahead. Make the case or explain how it is different at all. jps (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  What is ApJ?A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  That depends, are you also a fellow of the group that owns and publishes APJ, as well as being commonly published by ApJ, and do you tell the students to find articles where they can insert the citations so they can improve the exposure of publications like ApJ? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  ApJ = The Astrophysical Journal. I have received fellowship money from AAS which publishes ApJ. I definitely tell students to prefer articles published by ApJ over many other kinds of sources and have pointed out which articles may benefit from citations to ApJ... in hopes of improving the citations in Wikipedia and, yes, hoping to convince others to use this level of quality citations. Is that bad? jps (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Gerbic has been citing Radford often lately. Apparently he's being presented in Wikipedia not just an expert in the epidemiology of anorexia,[237] he's also an expert in explosives detection.[238] And as mentioned, he's also a Fellow of CSI [239] and Sgerbic is #3 in authorship at his article [240]. Other times she's cited him on the same day [241], [242], although those last two are legitimate Fringe/Paranormal domains (evil clowns and psychics). Geogene (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In at least one instance I will deal with here, you are essentially engaging in WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. Pretending that adding a source debunking dowsing is claiming that the source is written by an "expert it explosives detection" is a misleading canard. Radford is an expert in detecting cons and scams like dowsing. You don't need to be an expert in explosives detection to identify the issues there, and the source included in that instances is about as good as it gets when WP:PARITY is concerned. Now, would I necessarily include a quote and phrase it that way? Maybe not. But that is a WP:STYLE question. It is not a substance question. However you seem to have assumed that the only way to know whether dowsing works is whether an "explosive expert" can confirm/deny its efficacy, as your final clause seems to argue that dowsing is not legitimately included in the Fringe/Paranormal domain. jps (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (GSoW)

Seriously People - I can't even find the edit on this thread that goes on forever! I just wake up right now to see three messages from Santa Cruz proposing deletion of Wikipedia pages I've worked on, the same Santa Cruz that only yesterday started a hit piece of proposed people who might be or might have been involved in GSoW. This is okay by you all? Really Santa Cruz? What are you all doing? Is this how you act? Who are you people? I wake up to this conversation and it reads like people from some 1950 Gladys Crabiss peeking out the window at your neighbor nightmare. I'm so disappointed in Wikipedia, in you, this is wrong.Sgerbic (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

For reference, the pages are Taner Edis, Dave Thomas (skeptic), and NZ Skeptics. I have also speedy-D tagged Skeptics in the Pub. That work is not part of a discussion on your editing behaviour. I am just tagging pages which do not seem notable as prod under notability criteria. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh REALLY you just happened upon those pages huh? Wow what's the odds of that happening, maybe something paranormal we should alert James Randi? Sgerbic (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is I did not tagged them as PROD because of your editing behaviour but because of their worth as articles in-and-of themselves. They are not cited to non-biased sources as notable. They are filled with partisan sources. I expected thus PROD to be the best way as the deletion criteria are clear. However, Roxy the dog has deleted those tags so I will now go on AfD, where I expect a WP:SNOW close as to their current state.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Roxy the dog should call in the article rescue squadron to help prevent the articles from being deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: For clarity, I should point out that I also removed a PROD, as did an administrator, with the edit summary don't use SD for ANI drama. Another admin warning... ——<spanstyle="color:blue">Serial 16:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sorry, I thought that when people above said we should instead of discussing here we should deal with articles on a case by case basis that I should do that. I'll wait a bit then. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That is twice Santacruz within 24 hours that you have gotten "messages" from this thread about what YOU should do. I think you need to stop listening to your third eye. Obviously you are putting up pages for PROD and AfD in the hopes you will draw out GSoW editors so you can add to your little list. Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How many times have you gotten "messages" from this thread about what YOU should do? Levivich 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I make mistakes, I am called out, I apologize and learn, and move on. I don't believe I've made the same mistake twice and greatly appreciate feedback on my editing. You on the otherhand are immensely dismissive of any feedback or concerns about you and your group's editing to the point of insulting me and others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, my name is Santacruz not Santa Cruz. I'd appreciate you calling me properly Sgerbic. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The last two days has been a non-stop attack on me and GSoW, one of you was talking about how I shouldn't be training, and how we do shoddy work, funny that considering we have written 1,900 pages now and that person seems to have evaluated all that work in such a short time. I opened my heart to you all and explained how we work, how I train, many of these people come from the beginnings of using computers, people who don't know how to use ctrl-f shortcuts, and how text instructions are confusing to people. And I guess that went in one ear and out another with you all. I explained how new editors are run off because of this weird language you use with them, and how your actions can appear to be curt and rude when working with new people. You didn't say anything about that at all, just more and more and more attacks on me and the people I've trained. What is wrong with you people? I can't even get a comment in here without a edit conflict, is this a Twitter thread?Sgerbic (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A few times today I have had edit conflicts, which is part and parcel of cometary here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If this was a fully peer-reviewed magazine of a widely respected professional body that was only used for information about its area of expertise (written by acknowledged experts, in those fields), we would not be having the conversation. This does not pass WP:MEDRS yet appears to have been used in medical articles (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

One place we do relax sourcing standards a bit is in responding to fringe material from trash journals (WP:PARITY). Of course Skeptical Inquirer should not be cited for medical claims aside from that limited circumstance. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Huge section noted. Trying to cut through to twoish key questions:
  1. I've seen many threads above the GSoW, and cannot recall any self-identified members other than sgerbic and the handful identified in articles about the group. I cannot recall any definitive articles improved other than those mentioned in said articles. I cannot recall any evidence about any coordination outside of speculation and insinuation. Could someone summarize what concrete evidence there is not just that the group exists but that there is off-wiki coordination? Any evidence that anything happens off-wiki other than training, conversation, plans to improve articles, etc. (which can be said about absolutely ever Wikimedia chapter and many user groups, by the way)?
  2. Any talk of off-wiki coordination, especially large-scale coordination, and especially in controversial topic areas, is absolutely a legitimate concern. We're a [relatively] small community of volunteers, with ever-decreasing numbers of admins. We're fighting against the odds against outside several things. Other than the influence of money (not an issue here), our most glaring weakness is off-wiki coordination. We wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't investigate any such claim. That the framing and communications around GSoW are provocative doesn't help. Whether or not it was really intended as provocative is sort of beside the point, as it makes a point of being secretive, it has a name drawn from warfare, and at least in this thread its only spokesperson is largely dismissive of concerns expressed. I get that Wikipedia isn't actually a very good platform for new users to communicate on. When I train new users, it's inevitable that they become comfortable editing articles long before they feel comfortable using talk pages and otherwise communicating with others. That said, while I may have missed it, I haven't yet seen what reason there is not to list members' pseudonymous usernames on-wiki. Given how much concern has been expressed, what is lost by encouraging people to preserve their anonymity but to disclose their username/membership? There are enough good contributors active in these topic areas that attempts to smear someone just because they're a listed member would almost certainly fail or backfire, unless there were [again] concrete evidence of coordination to influence a discussion. I suppose I may be too optimistic, but it would probably go a long way towards building trust. There will still be those who think Wikipedia is too hard on crystal healing and telekinesis articles, but that's a hassle all of us get when editing those articles... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, as for your point no. 1: according to GSoW's FAQ, you can only be a member if you're on facebook, and all communications are strictly on a private facebook group. According to the same FAQ, an experienced WP editor can only become a member if they follow their full training program. Ever heard of a Wikimedia chapter that trains experienced editors? But Wikimedia chapters are also organized locally or geographically, while this group is organized around a certain POV (scientific scepticism). Elsewhere, part of what they insist on training editors in appears to be "backwards editing", i.e., a style of editing that is really just a matter of browsing through notable magazines, podcasts, books, and journals, and then finding a way to add them correctly to an existing Wikipedia page. If you can manage to do as the examples above and insert skepticism onto a page that would normally have no ties to the world of the weird, then even better. Skeptical Inquirer has a potential of hundreds of Wikipedia edits in each issue. It just requires someone to add them in. Of course this might be overwhelming for most people, the GSoW project teaches this skill during training. Naturally, any experienced editor would immediately recognize this as WP:UNDUE WP:SOAPBOX editing, so perhaps that is why the GSoW has found that they do not fit in well?

  But really, what would one expect from an off-wiki group organized around a certain POV? Isn't it natural for them to be at the wrong side of WP:NPOV at times? Why should such a natural expectation be dismissed as speculation and insinuation? Are there other strictly off-wiki groups organized around a certain POV? Would we tolerate them, say a strictly off-wiki group focused at 'improving' articles related to Israel and famous Israelis? Wouldn't some alarm bells go off? That's really all that's happening here: some editors think it obvious that such a group should collaborate on-wiki rather than on facebook, while some others ... do not seem to want to see the point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Go write on the blackboard 1000 times, "Our community cannot control what people do off-wiki". Then come back. If there are on-wiki problems that are documented, then let's see them. So far, I've seen a lot of noise and concern over off-wiki action and not a lot of diffs presented that are demonstrably problematic. Oh, Sgerbic inserted a reliable source in an article? Great! Oh, someone else didn't think it was a good source and they removed it and she didn't revert war? Great! Evidence needs to show that the encyclopedia is being harmed or else it's not evidence of anything except a vain hope to control what cannot be controlled. jps (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  jps, regarding go write on the blackboard 1000 times: I would like you to stop for a moment and reflect on how you would feel when other editors would address you this way. That's not cool.

  Aside from that, I think in general you may be right that there's something of a vain hope to control what cannot be controlled at play here. But there's a crucial difference: normally, when off-wiki groups on reddit/facebook/et al. (the ones we can't control) are campaigning for something, it is automatically assumed to be a problem, and editors, admins and CU's alike are on the alert for puppets, both meat and sock. It's not because we can't control them that we approve of them: in most cases, we definitely don't. But GSoW is not like that: some of their editors (notably, their leader) have declared themselves on-wiki, and we do generally approve of them. Now we would also like to control them, which should be perfectly possible: they just need to take their collaboration on-wiki. They, or Sgerbic, doesn't want that because she doesn't like the way the wikimedia software works, and because of the toxic atmosphere between editors. Both are valid objections, but the question is whether that weighs up against the problematic nature of editorial anonymity. I think it doesn't, you may think it does. If we could only have had a civil discussion about that, this thread wouldn't have been so long, and we may have actually gotten somewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Wikimedia chapters are also organized locally or geographically Yes, but they are ALSO organized thematically, such as meta:WikiProjectMed. Being a thematic organization is not evidence of a POV in Wikipedia terms, and has been well established for many years, "believing in science" and "believing in medicine" do not qualify as viewpoints that violate the NPOV policy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

TL:DR An editor on Havana Syndrome wants to keep mass psychogenic illness from the lede of the article, felt that I and others have a COI and after a lot of drama on that talk page, eventually made its way to ANI where it has become a hell of attack on myself and the GSoW. Editors hearing about it for the first time are freaking out, though we have been working alongside as normal editors for over ten years. A new English account heard that she was responsible for investigating who is a part of GSoW and made up a list of people, dragging in a lot of names that have nothing to do with anything other than lots of editors have the same interest in pages. Now that same editor is attempting to out GSoW editors to add to the (now hidden) list by PROD and AfD articles she thinks are associated with GSoW. Other editors are upset because they don’t understand humor and think we really are a cabal. There is a lot of nastiness and attacks on the quality of my editing and how I train new people and the work GSoW does, but they know this somehow without knowing what pages GSoW has edited. All the while the first editor from Havana Syndrome is hopping around having the best day of their lives seeing this happen and no one is paying attention to their edits. And it has so many posts that even you can’t read through it, I can’t find the edit button quickly as we are on page three and we have edit conflicts and misunderstandings every few paragraphs. That about sums it up. Sgerbic (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality has been an active contributor to Havana syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so I hope they don't mind this ping to ask them if they want to chime in with any thoughts about whether there's anything happening at that article worth discussing at ANI. Levivich 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the recent action by Santa Cruz in the last few hours explains why GSoW isn’t going to be providing them or anyone else with a list of who is on or not on the GSoW team. This isn’t the first time we have been hounded, right Bilby? Why make it easy for someone unhappy with people who edit pseudoscience pages trying to make sure they reflect the scientific consensus? We list our names and we will just be further attacked as has happened today. No thank you. Sgerbic (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider. Moving the group on-wiki to a WikiProject (where editors could still be pseudonymous) would be better than having an arbcom case opened about COI editing by editors who have already identified themselves on-wiki as GSoW members. Better for Wikipedia, better for GSoW, better for everyone. Levivich 17:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been reading my posts here Levivich. Wikipedia is a horrible place for training, no socializing, no fun, and just attacks by other editors. Plus then if there is a list of us, then we will be attacked further. Editor Santacruz just in the last 24-hours has tried to list us, drawing in other editors who would have to disprove that they are GSoW (proving a negative) and now this new move. WE are normal Wikipedia editors and are also listed on many different WikiProjects, they are text heavy, require a lot of editing skills that new people don't have yet, and they are almost all dead. All we do is what Rhododendrites just stated in their first paragraph. I'm not going to ask my new people to claim GSoW when they are going to be attacked. What planet are you on? Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've had half an eye on this ever-increasing thread. Can I just say that my experience has been very different from your own, in terms of the training/socialising side of things? I've been through a number of training courses here on-wiki. When I was a newb, I did the WP:CVUA course, and starting training other people. I then did WP:NPP school. I became an WP:SPI clerk, and was trained in that, and since I was given WP:Checkuser privileges, I have received training in that too. Some of the actual training for the latter two was conducted off-wiki, for reasons that should be obvious, but they were coordinated through relationships I'd built up with people on-wiki - partly through training, partly through collaborating on articles, and partly through friendly talk-page discussions. As for the social side, I've forged real-life friendships with people I've met here. I've been to social events formally organised on-wiki, and less formal ones where two or three of us just email each other and go to the pub. One editor I met here has even stayed in my house, while on a visit to my town. There's a lot more to this site than ANI drama, if you start talking to people. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I've been reading your posts. I was surprised to read Transparency, what does that even mean? coming from a skeptic. Transparency means accountability. For example, knowing whether anyone editing a BLP has any personal connection to the subject. Or knowing whether two editors !voting in the same discussion have a connection to each other. What I'm trying to convey to you is that a page like WP:Women in Red is a far better option for GSoW than a page like WP:EEML. Levivich 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic, re: edit conflicts/replying: turn on the "Discussion tools" beta feature (Preferences>Beta features>Discussion tools), which adds a [reply] link to each signed comment. You won't have to scroll up to find the section header to edit, and usually won't run into edit conflicts. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

My involvement in various pseudoscience articles (Ayurveda, COVID-19 lab leak, Shiva Ayyadurai, etc.) should speak to where I stand on these issues. I'm not particularly perturbed by the existence of an off-wiki group aimed at improving fringe articles, per se. If the edits are consistent with PAGs, what's the problem? However, the segment Apaugasma cites regarding tactics—We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.–is completely at odds with our COI guidelines, e.g., WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:SELFCITE, and seriously runs the risk of introducing WP:UNDUE content. I think addressing this major concern is essential. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Girth – I adore socializing. I also adore Scotland and loved York, would go back today if I could, I have great friendships in the area. Wikipedia frankly does not make socializing easy. You have had great experiences editing and learning here. You also are an engineer. I have trained a lot of those, and they pick up the coding very quickly but a lot of the nuances not so quickly. I specialize in training people who can use a computer somewhat, but have never attempted to do anything as big as edit Wikipedia. This is a very scary place for a lot of people. You don’t run into them often because … they aren’t here because learning to edit Wikipedia is a scary task. When you open your second eye to read this nightmare of drama thread, you will probably notice that I keep making this point. Who wants to be threatened and attacked if found to be on an editing team?

Sgerbic, I think it's great that you enjoy spending your time teaching people how to edit, and that you've been doing it for so long. When I skim through this thread though, if I filter out some of the more extreme positions a few people have taken, I get a general sense that quite a few people are... unsettled by the fact that there's no way of seeing who you're training, or how you're training them, and they feel that it would be better for some at least of that activity to be coordinated on-wiki. Now, I can completely understand why a complete newb, who can't write wiki-markup at all, would need to start out off-wiki. I've spent time with total newbs off-wiki doing that exact same thing - this is how to go into edit mode, this is how to make a change, this is a talk page, etc. That's all good. Since you are in effect though running an off-wiki WikiProject, it really might be worth considering setting up an actual WikiProject, where people can register an interest, your objectives are spelled out, articles of interest are listed, etc. You say "Who would want to join that?", and I'm thinking "Well, me, for one." I'd love to help enthusiastic people, with an interest in keeping our articles grounded in reality. If it was on-wiki, all out in the open and above board, I'm not seeing what anyone would have to complain about, and you might find that some experienced editors would be willing to join in and lend a hand. There'd be no reason why you couldn't start out your training off-wiki, but once people were up to speed, they could start communicating on-wiki, and take part in the rich and enjoyable social world that I promise you really does exist here - you just need to engage, and find your niche. Maybe it doesn't need a whole Wikiproject to itself; there's already WP:WikiProject Skepticism, so it might be better to become a subsection of that: I don't know, I'm just spit-balling. Something to think about though? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I don't have time to reply to everything now, but just to take one point: "Other editors are upset because they don’t understand humor and think we really are a cabal". What is your evidence for that? I see none at all, which is a bit strange when the statement comes from someone who, like me, claims to act on evidence rather than supposition. And please don't imply that your opponents are to blame for edit conflicts: everyone suffers from the antediluvian system that Wikipedia uses. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that you are being threatened or attacked, people are simply concerned about your group's activities because we don't have enough information about it. Wikipedia is susceptible to off-wiki coordination by POV pushers because there is no way for us to know whether or not it is occurring, so editors are instinctively wary of all off-wiki coordination. It's entirely possible that the POV pushers on the Havana syndrome page have no connection with GSoW and are not engaged in canvassing or meatpuppetry, but the problem is that we simply don't know. That's why I, and other editors, suggested that you make a WikiProject so that we have no reason to be concerned anymore. Mlb96 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not being threatened? What is this about topic banning me conversation that just started? You don't topic ban people for "we simply don't know" concerns. I've explained over and over why a WikiProject isn't going to work and why having a list of editors is only going to draw people to attack us. PROVE meatpuppetry and then maybe we have something to deal with, four pages and growing and there isn't anything but "concerns". Sgerbic (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, the topic ban is independent of the GSoW issue. You're engaging in clear COI editing, as a fellow of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry and a columnist for Skeptical Inquiry you should not be adding these as sources all over the encyclopedia. Especially as you've written This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[243] Any editor describing their motivations as such should be topic banned from the area of their COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

100% agree with Girth Summit. I'd also join such a community! JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, thanks for the ping. I am indeed rather concerned about some of the activity at Havana syndrome, especially attempts by some users to give "equal time" to the best available sources (a JAMA study about injury and a National Academies of Sciences study about both injury and cause) and to very weak sources (older reports, podcasts, blogs, websites, non-peer-reviewed sources). There is a fundamental misunderstanding by some folks about due weight, which is really unfortunate. The fact that this activity is (at least in part) the outcome of a coordinated, off-wiki campaign involving possible aspects of self-promotion is even more disturbing. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As I have said multiple times here, many of us are already using WikiProjects, including WikiProject Skepticism. You might consider joining us, I personally have been there for years as you can see my name is on the list. ALSO as I have said many times, we post everything we work on, on our Website, Facebook, my open Facebook page and sometimes even Twitter. And many of the team, more senior editors also post on their Wikipedia user pages what they have written, their to-do list and other activities. Some even have GSoW clearly written on their user pages and they have done so for years. Just because a few of you have just learned of GSoW for the first time, does not mean we have not been transparent for years. I’m not going to provide a list of editors just so they can be attacked in the manner I have for the last two days. People are talking out of two sides of their mouths, it’s okay for me to train new people outside of Wikipedia, but it’s not okay to talk with them after they have finished training. And I just explained my training methods, waaaaaay up above in one of these threads, if I showed you our training then there would be some people who would challenge me and say where is the rest of it? I can’t win this. You want to abuse me (sorry if from your reading it does not sound abusive, it is, I am under attack) and so what do you think my next move is going to be? Stop editing Wikipedia? I hardly edit at all these days, mostly I train. So should I tell everyone to go under cover and remove any mention of their involvement in GSoW. Remove ourselves from the WikiProjects? Stop posting on social media or our website of the pages we write? Really is that what you are telling me? Cause it sounds like that is my only alternative, hide. Because the only other alternatives are to quit or to set my team up for abuse. And we believe strongly in the mission of Wikipedia, and you all are showing me how even more Important it is. This is just impossible, I can’t keep up with these conversations and attacks. I am here by myself and you are coming at me from multiple sides and threads. I don’t even know who most of you are, and you don’t know me, also keep in mind that people here seem to have an opinion and then in the other breath say they haven’t read the threads because it is too big. How do you think I feel? Sgerbic (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that @ScottishFinnishRadish: is not only at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe. They removed pertinent criticism info from the BLP of "medium" Thomas John Flanagan, including the summary of his felony conviction from the lead. ("Single issue over a decade ago.") I suppose they will next remove the similar info from the lead of skeptic Brian Dunning? Want to bet on this? And I will note that, although Dunning is a high profile figure in scientific skepticism, no one on Susan's team has done that in teh almost decade it has been there. RobP (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Find a source for the felony conviction. I removed it on BLP grounds, as it was not mentioned in any of the sources that had been there since the articles creation. I'm not "at war" with anyone, nor am I "actively supporting fringe." I'm actively supporting WP:BLP, since we really shouldn't be calling someone a felon with no sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. I already added it back... I reused the citation from the main text where this was reported (which was left intact). RobP (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Which doesn't mention being convicted of a felony. So you restored a BLPvio that you were told about here, AND was clear from edit summaries, AND mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You gave the edit reason that it didn't belong in the lead, not that the citation of the material it was summarizing in the article's main text was insufficient. Good call. I copied one of the two citation from the main text to use in the lead, and maybe that was the wrong one? I will investigate that now. Either the info should be removed from the article entirely, or not from anywhere, RobP (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited in your edit does not support the claim you made. jp×g 21:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes... as mentioned above I will check that... and the other ref. RobP (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrected - I think. RobP (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A proposal, for now

Premature, unlikely to productively move discussion forward. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Tbanning Sgerbic from editing Skeptic and Pseudoscience articles Center for Skeptical Inquiry and Monterey County Skeptics. Starting a discussion on Skeptical Inquirer and other Center for Skeptical Inquiry publications on RS A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Discussion (GSoW) I am unsure about a TBAN right now Support TBAN for COI areas, per amended option.. I think rather they should be told to do all this in the open, and not in secret. I agree however we need to discuss if these are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I do think they should be banned from adding any (as indeed should any member of guerilla skeptics) from adding Center for Skeptical Inquiry publications as sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I agree, I'm also unsure about the TBAN, and if there is a TBAN I'd rather see it more narrowly confined to writing about Center for Skeptical Inquiry, it's fellows, and Skeptical Inquiry. That would address my concerns about COI without greatly reducing her editing in her primary topic of choice. I think any discussion about them as RS should also break down their use in woo woo big foot getting acupuncture on a ufo articles, BLP articles and more or less unrelated articles, like anorexia or explosives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Agree with above. Appending proposal accordingly. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I would rather you had just stuck it and started again, as now I have to change my choice.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I think a TBAN for A._C._Santacruz from administrative boards may be more helpful. Sure, there are issues here but they are complicated. An editor who seems to have got yen to be witchfinder general without the necessary experience/competence, is a hindrance, and is amplifying the drama unnecessarily. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Feel free to make an additional proposal if you feel that way. Please keep this discussion about Sgerbic and SI, though. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC) He can discuss that idea right here per WP:BOOMERANG. jps (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose and possibly boomerang This is like banning an expert in a subject from editing on a subject for being an expert. jps (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC) How are they an expert, an expert in what?Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC) She is certainly an expert in skepticism and pseudoscience having been duly published in reliable sources discussing these subjects. jps (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC) This is part of a wider problem in the fringe area: that opinionated skeptics publishing in skeptic magazines edited by equally opinionated skeptics are being presented as if they were dispassionate expert scholars publishing in blind-peer-reviewed academic journals. Yes, if there's truly no better source then WP:PARITY applies, but WP:PARITY does not somehow 'upgrade' opinionated activists to independent experts. Whatever you make of Sgerbic, she's not an academic, scholarly expert on anything she ever published about, and both her publications and the sources these are published in broadly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Given the opinionated and activist nature of her work, she definitely has a COI problem when editing anything on WP related to the subjects she publishes about (by which I do not mean to say that a COI problem automatically merits a tban, just that ... there is a COI). This applies to someone like her and not to scholars because scholars work in a disinterested way and do not engage in activism on the subject of their expertise. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether someone is an activist or not for our purposes. All that matters is that the person in question is doing good work on Wikipedia. I have not yet seen a diff that indicates that her work is particularly problematic in any way, and whining about WP:INDEPENDENT seems bizarre as SI is often one of the bellwether WP:FRIND sources we avail ourselves of for good reason. The work that someone does outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. All that matters is what the effects on Wikipedia are. And to claim that an identity as an activist activates the WP:COI policy is a kind of hellish position I can only hope you are arguing for as an object lesson. Should we declare that COI applies to every religious activist just because they are activists? I would hope you would say "no" to that one. jps (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Support TBAN from COI areas per their own words on how to edit Wikipedia. This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[244] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs) MY STARS -- imagine editing Wikipedia to encourage people to consider reliable sources like the Skeptical Inquirer! What will be next? Encouraging people to read other reliable sources? Improving the exposure to such horrible sources as Scientific American? If this is a "bad thing", I fear we have totally lost the plot. WP:ENC refutes it completely. jps (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Imagine editing Wikipedia to improve the exposure of the publication that you work for and is run by a group you're a fellow of, hoping to drive traffic to your site so readers can learn about your people, publications and podcasts. Just because you like the source doesn't mean the behavior is good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Wow! I think I actually do that myself as I encourage students to cite ApJ when they edit WP. Maybe I should be banned. After all, even though I like ApJ doesn't mean my behavior is good, right? jps (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Do you have a direct connection with Apj?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I know how to contact the editor in ways that are not available to many others. I am a member of the organization that publishes it. I've received funds from said organization. What constitutes a direct connection? jps (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Working for it, being its head. And again SI is not in the same league as APJ. We are not talking about a major professional journal. But yes if your worked for the APJ, or you edited it or you owned it and you encouraged its use that would be COI.19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) What does "working for it" mean? Getting money from the organization? Sgerbic is certainly not the "head" of SI. And saying that it is "not in the same league as ApJ" can be interpreted weird value judgement. The two publications have markedly different mission statements and epistemic communities. But they both work as WP:RS in context. Did Sgerbic work for SI? Did she edit it? Did she own it? If not, then she and I share the same level of COI with respect to the two publications. And I find that such "conflictedness" would be enough of a motivation to warrant consideration of a topic ban to be an outrageous perspective. jps (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Oppose This seems very premature - I confess that I haven't read through the entirety of this ballooning thread, but before we talk about TBanning somebody, I want to see evidence that someone has had the chance to discuss the potential COI edits in a non-adversarial way. Like, a conversation where we talk about COI guidelines, look at their connection to the subjects at hand, determine what the COI is and discuss ways that they could be editing in-line with the guidelines. I don't think this has happened here - we have a drama thread where someone is coming in for a load of criticism, reacts (perhaps understandably) defensively, and we're straight to TBan? In a case like this, I'd like to hope that we'd at least attempt to deal with any issues without reaching for sanctions. Girth Summit (blether) 19:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Strong oppose A. C. Santacruz has a personal grudge against Susan Gerbic and GSoW. On A. C.'s talk-page is a section "Collaboration on a case regarding the Guerrilla Skeptics" where this user is obviously canvassing to unite people who dislike GSoW [245]. This user has commented on their talk-page "I think that the loosest thread to pull on to untie this knot is activity related to Skeptic Inquirer-associated BLPs". She pinged ScottishFinnishRadish who has now joined her crusade against GSoW. Please note this user is now removing Susan Gerbic and the Skeptical Inquirer as a source from various BLPS such as Matt Fraser [246] and at Loren Coleman [247]. I do not approve of this anti-skeptic agenda removing reliable sources just because they are skeptical from Wikipedia. A. C. mouths off like she runs this website, she forgets that Gerbic and GSoW have improved hundreds of articles. These new users criticizing Susan Gerbic have been on Wikipedia less than a year and have hardly any page creations between them. This is definitely an oppose for me. I do not agree with banning experienced productive Wikipedia users who do good work on this website and have fixed hundreds of articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC) My account was created in 2014, I've made over 46,000 edits, and eighteen of the 157 pages I've created are GAs. I do not think these aspersions are relevant to the discussion, am confused about why you have brought them up, and would appreciate if you struck them. jp×g 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) You aren't mentioned in Psychologist Guy's diffs. I think you can presume that he is not talking about you. He mentions precisely who he is talking about. jps (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Agree, I was not referring to JPxG who is an impressive editor. The only two accounts I was referring to were A. C. Santacruz and ScottishFinnishRadish. I will even retract my comment about ScottishFinnishRadish as the user seems have made decent edits. I believe this user has been mislead by A. C. Santacruz. If you want my blunt and honest opinion A. C. Santacruz is a troll account merely trying to cause disruption - you only need to read some of the nonsense they have been claiming about Susan Gerbic they are loving all this drama. For me, this whole thing is a time stink and waste of productivity. It's sad people have been sucked in by this even an arb case is a waste of time and will no got anywhere. I will not further respond here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Oppose and boomerang. We don't topic ban people on the basis of insinuation. Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Request an arb case. I really think this should be settled by the Arbitration Committee rather than an AN/I thread (which is currently an unreadably massive 26,000 words). The fact of off-wiki collaboration by multiple hitherto-unknown editors means that it's best addressed by an actual investigative process over the course of weeks, rather than a repeatedly-branching argument on an extremely active noticeboard over the course of days. I mean, maybe the group will be totally vindicated by a thorough analysis -- we're unlikely to learn anything new from continuing this clusterfuck AN/I thread. jp×g 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I agree. I made the proposal so that this discussion wouldn't continue unnecessarily, but agree that this needs an arb case. I jusy think both my proposal and an arb case should be done.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Honestly I've never been involved in ARBCOM so I'll let one of you more experienced editors take initiative on that, but always remain on call for any input I can provide :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Hey no problem, we can discuss how best to take Gerbic to ARBCOM over on the page you have started with the list of all the people who oppose Gerbic. I'm really looking forward to the discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._C._Santacruz?fbclid=IwAR0JLqdnKDtQCL84oFi51DNTPhMEGm-HM7CDm0tZcnPHNqCPw5lnrpqT5oc#Collaboration_on_a_case_regarding_the_Guerrilla_Skeptics Sgerbic (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Close this embarrassment of a discussion

The biggest problem I have with this discussion is that people are talking cross-purposes. On the one side, we have people whoare afraid of any organization that does not work entirely on-wiki because of fears over EEML. Of course, EEML had diffs and evidence of tagteaming and !vote-stacking which I have seen not any evidence of.

And we further have paltry evidence of any bad faith actions on the part of GSoW or Sgerbic. In fact, taken at face value, the "smoking gun" quotes some of the accounts above are tut-tutting about are in reality some excellent agenda items to have with respect to WP:PAG. We should be encouraging people to spam Wikipedia with reliable sources. We should be celebrating that a group of people are interested in putting content in that shows what is accurate/based on empirical data and what is not. Occasionally, do I disagree with GSoW or Sgerbic? You better believe it. Sometimes they seem to be interested in including some content that may not rise to the WP:NFRINGE level. You know what we do? We have a discussion. Sometimes there is an AfD. Sometimes I am on a different side. Sometimes articles are deleted. Sometimes they are kept. WHAT THE HELL IS SO PROBLEMATIC HERE?

I am reminded of [248]

jps (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the issue at hand here is a person who runs an off-wiki group explicitly devoted to advancing a specific POV, which mysteriously -- perhaps through astral projection, since its leader refuses to disclose its members' pseudonyms -- results in extremely flattering articles being written about its leader, who jokingly threatens that "my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys". Meanwhile, the same mysterious paranormal coincidences -- through the use of a Ouija board, perhaps -- result in heavy editors of that leader's page also writing BLPs about people who have had personal disputes with the leader that unsourced accusations of felonies in the lead. Even the current version of that article features a whopping 896-word blow-by-blow of the man's personal disputes with Gerbic, in an 1852-word-long article (which is over half of its content!) Again, it's possible that this is occurring through supernatural mechanisms beyond our understanding. However, much like James Randi, I suspect that there is no such paranormal influence here, and the edits can instead be explained by a perfectly straightforward sequence of mundane events. jp×g 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Totally agree, this has gotten way out of hand, I'm exhausted dealing with it. Comments I have made are being cherry picked to make me look bad with a flippant attitude which sometimes happens. I speak frankly and appreciate it when others do as well. But before this thread or any thread goes anywhere, I want to know what you all are going to do about this group that has gathered to attack me over on Santacruz's talk page? This is the third time within 24 hours she has done something like this, each time saying that this is what she thought people wanted her to do. Each time she says she will do it later. What does that mean, I have to wait for her and her growing list of conspirators to come after me? I would use my ouija board but at the moment my cat is sleeping on it. I'm being attacked, and what is ANI going to do about it? I think you might want to reread Good faith and remember that I'm here alone trying to deal with these escalating attacks. And over on a editor's talk page she is gathering a group to take me on. It's confusing and frustrating. Sgerbic (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  It seems more and more that we are dealing with a totally irrational personality cult here. Can't people just drop this (and Susan drop her extreme narcissism) and get back to thinking clearly about things? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Oh Gee thanks for the compliment "extreme narcissism" you aren't the one who have been piled on for two days. Sgerbic (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  So just make some sort of rational reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you have specific issues with specific articles, have at them. But making insinuating accusations that somehow Wikipedia is irreparably skewed and damaged by this *gasp* "off-wiki group explicitly devoted to advancing a specific POV" (which I, myself, have been accused of doing) is heat and not light. It's just a stubborn argument over whether one article is too flattering and another article on a con artist psychic has his debunking too lovingly documented seems a question of WP:STYLE rather than one of the substance of the accusations being leveled here (both overtly personal and absurdly conspiratorial). I have yet to find an instance where I've tried to fix something and found any problems with GSoW or Sgerbic. Have you? jps (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support closing - I agree that if this matter is to be settled, it will not happen here, or at least not now, so we should close this discussion. However, I'm skeptical about taking it to WP:ARBCOM (as has been proposed multiple times above). I'm pretty sure that if this was anything other than a scientific skepticism-focused group, the demands to take their activities on-wiki would receive almost univocal support. But there are just too many editors here who like GSoW so much that not only are they willing to make an exception for them, they won't even admit that it's an exception. Apart from the fact that the defense they put up makes these editors prickly and at times tending to personal attacks [249], the view that GSoW should get a free pass is a respectable view to hold, and there seems to be enough of that to say that there's no consensus on the matter. One would need to go on a veritable diff-digging crusade to make the connections between editors whose anonymity is so fiercely being defended here, and I think such crusades are a really bad idea. If GSoW is allowed to edit as an anonymous team, so be it: that will be what the community has decided for now. Probably a more fruitful way to go about this would be to craft an RfC to put up at WP:VP with regard to how the community should deal with strictly off-wiki editorial teams in general. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Or... or... NOW HEAR ME OUT? We just go back to writing the encyclopedia? I kinda feel like there really is a lot of nothing burger here. There's a bunch of people who want to, I don't know, pass judgment on GSoW. The topic ban discussion went nowhere. But one thing we can all do is work to improve articles. A few people have claimed that a few articles are problems, but diffs of them trying and failing to fix those problems are not something I've seen. So try and fail to fix the problems and then our cup will overfloweth and the diffs will be as manna from heaven! jps (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Policy-skirting inflammatory userbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Junglecat has an anti- same-sex marriage userbox on his userpage. It’s hand-coded (i.e. without a template) so I can’t exactly nominate it for deletion, but since there’s a clear precedent that such userboxes are considered homophobic, inflammatory, and inappropriate for Wikipedia (see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination - Wikipedia) I think it should be removed as an attempt at gaming the system. Dronebogus (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed it and warned Junglecat that if they re-create it, I will block them. If any other admin thinks that Junglecat's actions actually deserve a block now (I was musing on it myself) then please go ahead and do so without informing me - I'll be AFK for a while shortly anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think the warning is sufficient for now. If Junglecat reverts I will definitely block. If he gives a ham-fisted response, I might think about it. If he apologises or says nothing, I would take no action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite and Ritchie333: there are 51 more users who are currently displaying this userbox by substing it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ I'm going to guess that most of those were created before the userbox was, and haven't been edited since before the userbox was deleted... will have a look though. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, most haven't been edited (and the users have been dormant) for years. Obviously not ideal, but they're not being displayed in violation of the MFD. I've removed a few that are on the pages of currently-active editors. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't be so restricted, in what userboxes they can have on their userpages or user-talkpages. PS - Yes, I'm aware of the community-enforced restrictions, on certain userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• So they should be allowed to display userboxes that were deleted by the community because they were divisive and non-collaborative? Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  We shouldn't twist ourselves in knots, over what somebody has on their 'own' userpage. But, that's what the community wants, so... GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  We're not "twisting ourselves in knots", we're removing material that doesn't contribute in any way whatsoever to writing an actual encyclopedia and may actively put off others from doing so. And why did you post on the original editor's page and basically repeat exactly what I said? That was completely pointless. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reading "Don't fight it", from an editor who doesn't support his userbox being eliminated, has more bite to it. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  IMO, all that userbox does is tell me to question every edit they make to Wikipedia. Best not to have it. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 02:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  That may be a good argument for letting them keep it, rather than for deleting it. If we all publish our biases it allows us all to be held to account for inadvertently letting them affect our editing. JeffUK (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've read this argument many times and it is poor logic that rests on three faulty assumptions: that people are aware of their biases to begin with, that people will disclose them fully and honestly, and that people will check other people's userboxes when reviewing their edits. Levivich 16:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay the last time you tried to defend this type of userbox you were informed the correct venue is WP:DRV. Though I highly doubt that the community has changed its mind on the matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is still Wikipedia policy, and GoodDay is going to first have to get that policy revised or overturned before anything else. --Jayron32 16:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll consider (someday) going to WP:DRV & WP:POLEMIC. Just blew off steam here, that's all. The userbox-in-question has been deleted, per current community consensus. PS - I appreciate the civility being shown me, here'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive & Offensive comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wish to report abusive comments made in comments in the View History and in the Talk section of the Longford Senior Football Championship page in recent days which make unfounded allegations against my user profile, allegations relating to changes made on 2nd November which are not related to my user account and includes a personal attack on me and my character. The comments were added on 29th October and 2nd November and are deeply offensive and abusive. On 29th November, my user profile undone changes that had been made by another user on 22nd October, because the reason they had cited for that change was unsourced and unverified. The user then undone my action later on 29th October and inserted an abusive and offensive comment with their change. Other changes took place on 2nd November but not by my profile, and the response to that was abuse and allegations against my user profile when those changes were undone on 2nd November. This was then coupled with addition of new text in the 'Talk' section which continued this abusive theme. The user did not cite a source for their fundamental change to the records on on 22nd October, and the comments they have made in both the 'View History' and 'Talks' section are abusive, hurtful and completely unnecessary. Please remove these comments from those locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadialongford (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Do be careful here: when you lean so heavily on the language of "defamation," you risk running afoul of the policy against legal threats. Just a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I do need to ask though, what is your connection to the club? Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dumuzid I appreciate that advice and have revised my input accordingly. Canterbury Tail I don't hold any position or role within the organisation which is subject of that page nor do I hold any position or role within any of the clubs which are referenced within that page. I am a team supporter originally from that county who voluntarily researched some of the stats which appeared on that page.

Now that the user responsible for the comments has been blocked, can I please request revision deletion of the items which included abusive and offensive 'edit summary' comments, namely the following revisions... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1052461395 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1053268203 ... so that those unsavory comments can be removed from the History tab completely and removal of the last entry in the 'Talk' tab by that same author on 2nd November, for the same reasons. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadialongford (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries were revdel'ed as purely disruptive material. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marcorubiocali

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Marcorubiocali (talk · contribs) seems to have a monomania for George Cervantes and has dedicated their entire Wikipedia career to seeing his article in mainspace, hideously poor sourcing be damned. His first attempt - which bypassed AfC due to him moving the article into mainspace from draft, against the advice of another editor - was stymied at AfD, with the sources specifically cited as a concern. Another attempt was made in draftspace, but the sourcing, again, is poor. When I explained to him, yet again, why all his sources were poor, a bit of a back-and-forth ensued. Once I countered his last argument, he responded with "I'm starting to believe there is racism going on here... I know what you go by here which will be plenty to share with the news".

Given the accusation of racism, his threat to pursue off-wiki action, and the complete refusal to listen to any form of criticism other than to find loopholes in them, I am seeking a indefinite block for Marcorubiocali as WP:NOTHERE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed that the username closely resembles a notable living person, but the user is clearly someone else. Might there be an issue here with WP:MISLEADNAME (first bullet point)? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  I imagine that's why "cali" is in the name, as the notable Marco Rubio is from Florida. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand. I'm really not sure how this applies to the username policy, but I figured I should point it out. I realize that it's not the issue that you raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano: Their cross wiki contributions are pretty telling, especially this edit to the Spanish Wikipedia (written in English) [250] 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting - Janis Spindel is another article with a good selection of shoddy sourcing (she's marginally notable, but the article is terrible) that's been peacocked by a selection of SPAs over the years. Meanwhile, I would consider blocking Marcorubiocali purely for his accusation of racism - WP:CSB is an issue at Wikipedia, but it isn't here - the problem is terrible sourcing, as the excellent summary at the AfD showed. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

In need of a WP:NOTHERE block, indeed: the disclosed COI shows the basis the editor is here on, but they are unable to understand either that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a collection of adverts) and that Wikipedia is a community (and not somewhere you can scream and shout your way into getting what you want). I have a longstanding disagreement about the seriousness with which we treat "accusations of racism" as if they're akin to being called Hitler. However, here the accusation is unfounded and a textbook case of an empty threat (I see people threaten to go to the press all the time, and let me tell you the press are not interested), and it's part of a pattern of very obviously unconstructive behaviour. (Comment edited a bit from its initial incarnation.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion, threats to go to the news media, although usually completely empty, should be treated as seriously as legal threats (which are often also empty), because both are intended to have a chilling effect. It doesn't matter whether the block is for not here, competence, or chilling effect, but I agree that a block is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you block me or not. The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof. I stand behind the fact that I believe that the editor has racist intents. I will expose and if he had problems related to racism in the past, thne that will come out too. This isn't an attack or an empty treat. This is what I believe is going on. The fact that you want to block me instead of getting to the bottom of the issue speaks for itself and further strengthes my point that there is racism going on here. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Treats to go to the media could be empty for regular people, but not for someome who works at a church organization where a lot of media people volunteer on Sundays. I will share my opinion with them and see what can be done. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist. Making belittle remarks is enough to be considered racism and he has been putting me down since day one. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Blocking me instead of investigating the issue will be the cherry on top. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Well, at least that rant made the decision a lot easier. Also, since you refuse to stop casting aspersions, I am removing your talk page access. Black Kite (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof. – Not so impressive on a website where every edit to every page is public by default... You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist. – Literally a repetition of my point. — Bilorv (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User on successive Jakartan IPs engaging in year-long disruptive editing of the same articles

Since at least March 2021, a supposedly single user on successive IPs out of Jakarta, Java, Indonesia, has been engaging in edit warring and disruptive editing on articles mostly related to the politics of post-Soviet states, such as elections and presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Armenia. They are reverted, warned, contacted for resolution and even blocked, but they never respond and continue on their next IP.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#139.192.151.122 reported by User:ZaniGiovanni_(Result: Blocked).

Whilst it was an edit war on Serzh Sargsyan that started that noticeboard discussion, one persistent edit they have been making is Russifying non-Russian names of Tajik politicians, and I was going to start an edit war noticeboard discussion on this before I decided this issue was beyond a simple edit war.

This is one example of the user's edit warring on Tajik president Emomali Rahmon, repeatedly Russifying his name despite being reverted every time:

The following table contains a list of suspected IPs of the user (the IPs that made the above edits) followed by their ISP, location, mostly successive edit histories and block history. All of the IPs resolve to Jakarta, Indonesia, about half on the First Media ISP, half on Telkom Indonesia (presumably, according to the table, the user's proxy for block-evasion) and one on LinkNet:

I don't know how this is to be solved. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, since they have been already blocked earlier for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Large unexplained addition and subsequent removal in article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• Greek Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spahh00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 스테 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really can't go through all of the edits' content because there's so much of it here. The first user edited the article 6 times, 3 of them added ~48 thousand bytes each, with the last edit a removal of ~16 thousand bytes. The second user shortly came in and removed content tens of times, many of them removing thousands of bytes. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to revert, but there appears to be a technical issue...?-KH-1 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The second user has now blanked the article entirely. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 04:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Tried the same thing as KH-1. No dice. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a link on the blacklist that was preventing a restoration of the article text. I’ve reverted to this revision of the article minus the blacklisted reference ([251]). I don’t know what either user was trying to do, but if I wiped out any constructive changes, they can try adding them again, preferably without duplicating the entire article multiple times. clpo13_(talk) 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Those two editors are likely the same person. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Indefblocked both accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review : Raquel Baranow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 just over a year ago. A request to unblock has since been declined by Yamla and more recently by myself. As well as the justification given by Cullen328 and Yamla, I have seen evidence that Raquel is an open advocate of Holocaust denial, and I believe people with those beliefs cannot edit Wikipedia in a neutral and responsible manner, per the justification set out in WP:NONAZIS. I am also unimpressed with the full-frontal nude self-portrait on her user page, and question what message that sends out to the general readership.

In response, Raquel Baranow has complained that I have posted on Wikipediocracy to canvass support for the ban and am engaging in cyber-bullying. It is true that I wrote a procedural remark on Wikipediocracy's forums : "Just declined another unblock request from Raquel." and posted a follow-up comment to a user who thought I was being unnecessarily draconian : "The diff (plus edit summary) says "My opinion, which led to this block, was not asked for". So she still thought the block was unfair. Plus "I stated my opinion on Jimbo’s talk page about the WP: NONAZIS essay." - no, she peddled right-wing Holocaust denial conspiracy theory weirdness. Are we quite sure she's not a sock of Marjorie Taylor Greene?"

I admit that ranting about a particularly disruptive (and indefinitely blocked) user, particularly in an off-wiki forum, is not acceptable conduct for an administrator, and that I have a real problem with Holocaust deniers, and so I apologise for venting and sarcastically comparing her to a well-known conspiracy theory advocate. However, I take accusations of cyber-bullying seriously, as it is something I would never do.

So, I would like to ask the community at large to review Raquel's block, confirm that the block was justified, and address the accusations of canvassing and cyber-bullying in a non-partisan manner. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was actually considering moving for a community ban on Raquel Baranow, given their behaviour. But, to the topic at hand. While I can't tell what is in people's minds, I do not believe Baranow would be unblocked without a topic ban, given their prior behaviour. With the additional information here, I think that's doubly true. I'll refrain for now from commenting on the nudity or the off-wiki comments on Wikipediocracy, but may post more once I've got my thoughts in order. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Menacing intro: I, Raquel Baranow am a Grad Student of Holocaust Denial. And then... Hitler sought to remove irrational Jews from German living-space who did not want to assimilate much like Thomas Jefferson and many politicians today want to remove Negro's and Mexicans from America or Muslims (another irrational religion) from Europe. Yikes. BTW, I'm no fuckin' prude and I agree that nudity and sexual content ought not be censored in articles. That said, many of our editors are minors, so for them to interact with an adult woman who displays herself in full frontal nudity on her userpage... Some bad WP:CHILDPROTECT vibes from that scenario. I don't like it. El_C 11:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  The photo needs to be removed. While we aren't censored, there's not a place for that on a user's talk page. Also, that intro, nope. We are MUCH better off without her here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Doug for removing it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Move to ban Raquel Baranow for the reasons expressed above, appealable no sooner than 1 year from the date the ban is enacted. Their behaviour, including but not certainly limited to antisemitism, is incompatible with Wikipedia. Let's make this official. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Support fully. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ban-and-forget. El_C 13:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Support. There's no room here for that. Tiderolls 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Support - I fundamentally think that holocaust denialism is incompatible with collaborative editing. Ideologies and stances that dehumanize other editors make it impossible for the user to edit collaboratively. Nor can we trust them to edit neutrally on any topic related. Still, I don't think even a topic ban would be enough, as the fundamental issue stretches deeper then just the topic area. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  No commentary on the NSFW pictures by the way, the holocaust denialism on its own is plenty to convince me to vote to support a cban. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ban Any user who introduces themselves with the quotes that El_C lists above has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Support RB has long been a civil POV pusher, whose POV is completely at odds with Wikipedia's purpose, and they have removed all doubt about their intentions with the plain bigotry quoted above. Without going into a meta-discussion of gender in depictions of naked people, do we seriously think that a man who put such an image of themselves on their userpage would not be insta-blocked? Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Endorse block - its one thing to be a holocaust denier on your own spaces, its another thing to bring that nonsense onto WP, causing obvious disruption. Not to mention the appalling poor taste putting full frontal nudes of yourself on your user page with no encyclopedic value, the apparent unwillingness to listen to editors, and a mess of other disruptive activities. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 16:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Support I was in the midst of declining the appeal yesterday afternoon but was running short on time and didn't want to rush my decline rationale. I had intended to finalize the decline this morning if the appeal was still open; a formalized ban works just as well as far as I'm concerned.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• As the blocking administrator, I will refrain from supporting an additional sanction. I will express my opinion that Raquel Baranow seems to be a nice person who has beliefs and engages in behaviors that are incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I support the block, but for expressing views such as Holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories. I guess that there are national differences in the acceptability of nude images, but I see nothing at all objectionable about the image in question, in which she was not engaging in any sexual activity and just happened not to be wearing any clothes. I would have no problem with any child or grandchild of mine seeing that image, and the same would go if it was an image of a man who wasn't visibly sexually excited. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  RE: the naked pic — what's objectionable here is context-dependent, Phil Bridger. That image wouldn't be viewed in isolation on some article for educational purposes (which I support). And if someone wants to upload nude pics of themselves, I really could not care less. But to have such an image displayed at the top of their user page as, basically, its centre piece — that is not the same thing. Thus, as mentioned, to minors who might end up interacting with her in the course of normal editing, at the very least it'd be weird. I'm not so much interested in an ideal type as I am in the here and now. El_C 19:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban: Holocaust denial is not compatible with editing Wikipedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support ban It seems highly unlikely that this user will edit in a non-biased manner in the future. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support ban Realistically, the editor is never going to be a productive member of this community. (see also: previous indef a decade ago). To be clear, it seems the editor linked to that offwiki blog post in the OP themselves. A skim through their user talk page in the years after their 2012 unblock makes me surprised it took until 2020 for them to be indeffed again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per everyone else. This editor is unlikely to be capable of contributing here anytime soon, and any unblock should have to be approved by the community. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Pajfarmor makes poor edits and has never communicated with anyone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Pajfarmor makes edits which are very often harmful to the articles concerned. They rarely leave an edit summary, and rarely provide a reliable source for their changes (eg: [252]). Often, they mark significant changes as minor (eg: [253]). When they do provide a source, I have observed that their edit is often actually contradicted by the source, or the source contains nothing of relevance (eg: [254]). Quite often, they add text that is convoluted, ungrammatical, and even nonsensical (eg: [255])

The user has been editing Wikipedia for 15 years, but in that time has responded to a talk page message one single time only, 11 years ago (see [256]). When their edits are reverted, I have never seen any response or recognition of any issue. They just keep on making poor quality edits to other articles. It is thus impossible to understand what their motives are, and whether their contributions are really made in good faith or not.

Communication is required, but this user refuses to communicate. I see plenty of precedent for users being blocked until they acknowledge the need to communicate with other editors, so I wonder if this remedy is required here too. 46.208.236.206 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment A user User:Andesitic was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Both User:Andesitic [[257]] and OP (User:46.208.236.206) [[258]] made almost identical additions to User:Pajfarmor's talk page. JeffUK (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So your only thought, on reading my report, was to assume bad faith and try to undermine it? 46.208.236.206 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 76.69.87.247: Severe incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 76.69.87.247 is attacking other editors, mainly Ahunt, and calling them "Nazis," particularly at the page Harsha Walia. I heard it was ANI tradition to provide "diffs" for proof,^[Humor] so here they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053477622&oldid=1032293624
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053551358&oldid=1053518670
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&diff=next&oldid=1053551655
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAhunt&type=revision&diff=1053550321&oldid=1053462760

If I forgot any part of the ANI process, let me know! /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JesseRafe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor has crossed the 3RR line here. Don't they get blocked?--Wikitikitengo2 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikitikitengo2, JesseRafe seems to have asked you to discuss this on the article talk page. Why haven't you done this? And can you explain what you were trying to achieve with this edit? [259] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Filer was blocked by Bbb23 as being a sock; unblock request pending. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Can this be administratively closed? 1. 3RR is on its face a false claim as my 3 edits were over 4 days, 2. After looking at the ref (needed Wayback so didn't bother initially) there's literally nothing to support the claim which the location of is the dispute (entire para pasted in last edit summary, 3. This editor turned out to be a sock of an account blocked for abuse and attacks directed at me (and others) and this is nothing more than a poor revenge ploy to goad me. JesseRafe (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.