Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tai Po Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the range ([1]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:V

is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See

WP:RS

to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow

dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.

124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide
  WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 .....Admit your own fault and stop pretend that you are always right. Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As of November 17, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. the use of the name Butterfly Beach to describe the entire surrounding area within Tuen Mun) without reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP is also
  stalking the most recent pages I have edited. For instance, I have most recently edited Shek Kip Mei fire and Eastern Express (newspaper). Immediately thereafter, the IP edited the same pages, making changes that I have objected to on other pages in the past (e.g. adding the obscure place name "New Kowloon" and changing the spelling of "Hong Kong" to "Hongkong"). Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of you come out of those two spats very well, to be honest. But I don't see anything worthy of admin action. Can we keep the ARS drama away from ANI for a few week unless something really egregious is happening? Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d like multiple opinions first. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BK, this is at least the third time this has come to ANI since I've been here, and you said something like this the last two times (last year, this month). What's he gotta do, kill somebody? :-P I don't get why this one is different from the other two (against whom you supported sanctions last time). Seemed obvious to me that if we tbanned two out of four, the other two would continue. But more to the point, your thesis that "some admin will handle it/community's patience is clearly not endless" gets undercut when you're more-or-less against an admin handling it ("not worthy of admin action") and in favor of extending the community's patience ("unless something really egregious is happening"). After however-many years, maybe it's time, you know? Levivich 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this isn’t enough evidence he just wants to feud with and
      WP:HOUND me I don’t know what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=1054689154&oldid=1054687222 Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do. Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later? Isn't that a bit disruptive? Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen rapid renomination labelled as disruptive in the past. If it is okay, then what is the point of

    talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. [2] I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at [3] He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members". Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations. Dream Focus 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I literally presented evidence about one member above. With links. What more do you need, fingerprinting? DNA tests? Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidence about this ridiculous and relentless canvassing accusation is what I meant. Dream Focus 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn’t about the earlier ARS drama. This is about 13’s recent antics. This doesn’t involve you or the two tbanned ARS users. Stop dragging this away from the topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is about you arguing with him at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Is_ARS_still_here? and both got a bit unpleasant towards each other, and over at the AFD I mentioned [4]. You don't just make accusations about him but the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look we’re obviously never going to agree on the ARS but the main issue is 13. And yes I may have gotten a bit snippy with him. But based on his reaction to this ANI issue he’s clearly interested in making this a matter of personal “honor” and not a professional dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is about
  WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Read the whole pages and the AFDs. User:Dronebogus is not alone in this. But his part and intent is clear and unmistakable The WP:Harassment has got to stop. Do your duty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by

WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • This isn’t a place to get revenge on rivals! I opened this because I wanted an admin to look over this matter and see if anything needed to be done, not because I want to start a grudge match! Even if you believe my behavior to be out of order you’re not going to correct it by coming in here eagerly calling for heavy sanctioning before even a warning or significant admin comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "I'm (Dronebogus) making fun of your (7&6) group (ARS)". We can see that. They disrupted a neutral question by "making fun" of people. Maybe the connection between ARS School and WP:ARS is "funny", or not even by accident, but I'm trying to solve a puzzle (finding more sources) and when a user disrupts that process with mockery it shuts down the process and becomes, as they say, "drama". -- GreenC 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for that. But that isn’t topic ban material. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to point out that that was my joke [5] and Dronebogus stole it. Can he be blocked for that? EEng 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I observe [6] and [7]. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (And no one better say that ARS regulars post there to draw attention to discussions where they hope like-minded editors will look. Heavens, no!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is just a bad faith discussion from Dronebogus after reviewing the AfD mentioned. Extremely
  WP:DROPIT. – The Grid (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I’m probably going to get topic banned again for posting here but I’d like to ask why everyone is focusing on whatever crap I’ve done wrong in my brief time here when LB is violating their topic ban and 13 is behaving uncivilly after multiple warnings over a multi-year basis. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because your behavior is obviously disruptive and problematic in various ways, and your response when people point that out is to argue instead of introspect and change your behavior. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And their behavior somehow isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Dronebogus, I mean this with all due respect and in sincere good faith, but your continued participation here is actually detrimental to your cause. Do with that opinion what you will. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What Dumuzid said ^. Both "sides" increasingly have unclean hands, and both "sides" should take a good look at

  WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for providing a clear-cut illustration of exactly my point. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen

This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between Dronebogus (talk · contribs) and 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I propose that
  WP:ARS page. And his participition at AFDs likewise. He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in. I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush. That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School
  demonstrates the problem.

And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Might help if you didn’t just assume everyone knows what you’re talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with ARS sanctions because I want to work on reform efforts but that’s for an admin to decide. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reform as in spread rumors when a new comer shows up then arguing with others? You aren't going to reform it, you just insult it constantly, and did nominate it for deletion even. It would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to be bothered this way. Dream Focus 17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could say “no you” but this is obviously going nowhere so sure topic ban me from ARS. And set up n interaction ban between me and DF since we always just end up fighting. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps that might be the wrong person to topic ban, assuming this is needed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not quite at the stage of suggesting an interaction ban, but to be quite frank I feel like blocking the next one of Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen who slings mud at the other. Please, just calm down, both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • blocking is more reasonable than an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It means I would like both of you to stop arguing and thinking that the other one is "the enemy". I'm off out in a mo, but on my return I would love this thread to be closed as "The two parties have agreed to disagree and avoid each other voluntarily - no administrative action required". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes please. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here because I was of this edit: [8], and was going to request 7&6=thirteen not to change discussions without timestamping: (The case of the additional sentence here was likely minor and inconsequential, but the fact I noticed it meant it was disruptive). However from their talk page I note this ANI drama. Given
  WP:SEALION attempt, which looks very likely to succeed in bans/blocks for one or more other editors. The ARS acronymn in the title is likely to allude to "Article Rescue Squadron", so the article selection here looks very POINTy. But I agree with Richie/JBL, this has to stop, so I hope people listen to what they say. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban?[9] This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. The wording of that topic ban is "Lightburst is banned from deletion-related activities for 6 months. This includes but is not limited to XFD, deletion review, PROD, and CSDs that are not covered by WP:BANEX." and this isn't a deletion related discussion. As someone with no prior knowledge of this topic ban, coming across this ban criteria wouldn't make me think they cannot participate in this particular discussion as it's about user behaviours, not deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: The topic ban included things related to ARS. Which this discussion has to do with. Also, [here] he commented on an AfD. Even if this isn't technically a violation the other comment clearly is. I still think it is though. Plus there a few other things like him participating in an ARS discussion and comment about deletion related topics on his talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining text of the topic ban was "Two important caveats. This does prohibit Lightburst from notifying ARS members of deletion discussions as it is "deletion-related". That said, it does not prevent Lightburst from improving articles that are nominated for deletion as long as Lightburst does not participate in the deletion discussion." I don't see that this is constituted in that. It was not generally related to ARS, and doesn't prevent them from participating in improvement discussions etc. I make no comment on their edits elsewhere, and I'm not looking at this, just on this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I'm surprised your reading of the TBAN discussion is that the community wanted to ban LB from from deletion-related activities but still allow him to comment in a thread about how a fellow ARS member behaves in AFDs and suggest sanctions against the reporting editor. That reading doesn't make much sense to me. To me, this is a deletion-related discussion because it's about an ARS member's behavior in deletion discussions. I can't think of another example when someone was TBAN'd from "Foo" but allowed to comment in ANI threads about someone else's behavior in articles about "Foo". The more I think about it, the clearer a tban violation this becomes. Levivich 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no other way to interpret this discussion then being "deletion-related" and there's zero reason he would have participated in this if it had nothing to do with ARS and (or) AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes you're right, looking to the top section. I didn't sleep well last night, so this is probably my que to exit this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail is correct that I am not banned from discussing any matters in this "community". I am not surprised that Levivich and Adamant would want me

shunned or would want to remove my voice from this "community". I am not participating in any deletion related activities at all. I am free to comment on sanctions for editors who have been entirely unproductive, and have been following, needling and harassing me on talk pages. DB has brought me into ANI twice in a week just to be disruptive. But they already caught a one day block today I see. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Canterbury literally just said it did apply. You need to take this seriously Lightburst. Keep in mind you are also engaging in

WP:ASPERSIONS at this point without diffs. You can be blocked for that. If you truly want to make accusations, then provide diffs relevant to this ANI. Keep in mind since you are posting in an ANI about behavior behavior in deletion and ARS topics you should already know that providing diffs related to that would also be a violation of your topic ban. It should be clear as day to you that you should be avoiding discussions like this with your ban, not jumping into them. KoA (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:ASPERSIONS. I've defended him and other ARS members multiple times since this whole thing started. Apparently it's harassment to not show 100% undying deviation to them and their cause in the interim though. Otherwise I'd like to see some evidence of the harassing behavior and the agenda that he's repeatedly accused me of having. I'm not sure how I could have an agenda when I've been defending them, but whatever. I'm willing to see his evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Definitely a TBAN violation per Levivich. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into
  DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{yo:Dream Focus}} You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August ☎ 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way." So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing. I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent. Dream Focus 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on

WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I agree with those who dont yet think topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn’t trying to “win” anything, imo, but I agree I’ve been wasting time with these further squabbles. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 13 called me thin-skinned a few days ago on the Article Rescue Squad talk page when I was making a good faithed effort to discuss the problems they have been having. Which was after the civility warning. Also, LightBurst posted multiple messages on Jimmy Whales talk page related to deletion discussions after he was tbanned from talking about the subject. He's also participated in this ANI complaint against the t-ban. Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't? In the meantime "Is ARS still here?" is a perfect example of 13's continuing poor behavior and attitude about this. In it he compared ARS to Jean d'Arc and accused other people of being part of the Inquisition. He also said people who have issues with his behavior are gaslighting, and making deliberate hollow threats to disrupt the project. Is all that really acceptable behavior for someone who was just warned to be more civil? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure, we could all just ignore it, but then there could also be consequences for their actions. Seriously, which one of those is good for the project and which isn't?" Ignoring it allows you to forget about the problem and concentrating on improving the encyclopedia. In your case, Adamant1, I notice you have made one edit to the entire mainspace in the last month (at least that one edit was a good one!) while, conversely, you have spent quite a bit of time chatting at

WP:JIMBOTALK. My advice is for you to ignore 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst, and in return I'd like 7&6=13, Dream Focus and Lightburst to ignore you. We might then be able to get on with more interesting things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to be rude, but that seems like a rather dismissive handwave of serious problems. For one I haven't been involved in 99% of the problems that 7&6=13 has had. Including his comments on the ARS talk page that I added a reference to where he said this whole thing was an inquisition. So it's ridiculous to act like me ignoring him has any bearing on his uncivil behavior or resolving this. Nor do I have any issue with DreamFocus. I didn't even mention him in my comment. So I don't know why your bringing him into this. Outside of that, I find your insinuation that working on AfDs doesn't improve the Encyclopedia rather insulting. If you really want us to get on to more interesting things then sanction 7&6=13 for his lack of civility and LightBurst for discussing an area he's t-banned from. Then we can all get on with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happily editing main space. I am improving Tuskegee Airmen articles, and I even started three articles this week. I am not missing the friction. You on the other hand are seeking friction - the proof is in the pudding. My talk space conversation at JW is about this ANI process and not as you say. Your own involvement at JW is needling and following and essentially NOYB. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I empathize with Adamant1 and would also like to state that it’s hard to edit in mainspace when you’re in the middle of a long in-depth discussion, heated or not. I understand I’ve been uncivil lately and should stop

bashing the ARS but 13 has been warned about this multiple times over several years and shouldn’t just get away with it yet again because the’ve been around longer and “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Gosh if only there were some way not to keep starting or joining or commenting in long discussions .... --JBL (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related activity. That's not a TBan proposal, but really: go make content, do something else on Wikipedia that you find enjoyable. There will be articles to delete later after you've taken a break from the activity, and other people will likely be less tense and AGF-strained than they are now. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support this. I have civil interactions with most other users at AfD; it’s just I don’t get along with 13 and the ARS. A functional “voluntary” topic ban, especially one-sided against me and for six months, seems drastic for such a narrow issue. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course you don't, and no one would expect you to, but that's what external input is for--to encourage things that you're not seeing. Everyone takes voluntary, informal topic bans if they linger around Wikipedia long enough: interests change, people give up, admins ragequi... err, retire for a while after their decisions are questioned. That's a natural part of the interest lifecycle, and if you want to hang around for a while, you need to develop a sense when doing something else is necessary to help you rediscover your joy in volunteering here. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just sanction the person that's already gotten a recent warning for civility and be done with it. Outside of that, it's ridiculous to sanction someone for bringing his behavior to ANI just because the warning was recent. 7+6=13's behavior was an issue long before Dronebogus got involved and will continue to be after Dronebogus is sanctioned. By not dealing with 7+6=13 now we're just kicking the can down the road. Are we going to T-Ban everyone going forward that he gets into it with? ARS isn't an exclusive club or fraternity house either. Anyone should be able to participate in it, without having to worry that they will be T-banned from doing so if they don't kiss the rings of the main contributors. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a six month timeout for Dronebogus from deletion-related and ARS following activity. Dronebogus has been following, harassing, needling, grave dancing and engaging in POINTY behavior. Dronebogus has been especially disruptive. Also as Ritchie has pointed out Adamant1 is heading in a similar direction with unproductive following. Neither editor is contributing to the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wait, why you are trying to cancel me and Dronebogus? I thought you were against that and ANI because it's unfair and just about trashing people. I guess that whole thing only applies when your being sanctioned. Go figure. I knew I should have created some G7 articles before commenting on this. Darn it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm just a part-timer that got pulled into Dronebogus' deletion frenzy. Their behavior has been
  WP:HOUNDING on talk pages and running to ANI when people get miffed, including several significant editors who make enormous contributions to WP (just search the archives for Dronebogus and you'll see how aggressive this person is). I echo JClemens suggestion that they find a project where they can actually contribute to WP, rather than simply tearing down others' work. There is a need for weeding out bad articles, of course, but it's been an exhausting few months in the AfDs because of this user. I, for one, had to step back from WP because of how much time it was eating. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose taking action exclusively against Dronebogus; insufficient evidence of a long-term problem to justify something like this, especially since it's clear the problem is not one-sided. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose banning Dronebogus from AfD. They seem to be one of the very active members, like Lightburst, and just because they are very unpopular in some quarters and have done their share of whatever they are accused of doesn't mean they or anyone else should be cancelled without totally grievous cause. As a wise man once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: While I fundamentally disagree with you that anyone is being canceled, I respect that your consistent in the believe and don't just use it as way to excuse one sides behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support timeout from AFD. As confirmed by others, Dronebogus has been disruptive at AfD recently. Their first edit to Wikipedia was a "gnome" userbox template, then began noming articles for deletion. From the start they showed in-depth understanding of NOTE. They are obviously a very quick study of how Wikipedia works, with a focus on controversial deletions and user blocking. They can leverage that intelligence to do something else for a while, such as content creation/improvement, AfC needs help. -- GreenC 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to state that this seems like a biased party-line vote since GreenC and LB are both ARS members and I reported TM for disruptive behavior a while back after we had a dispute. I explicitly supported an interaction/topic ban from ARS but a one-sided “restraining order” against one of my primary interest areas for scattered fights with certain users (who I repeat are now voting against me) feels vindictive. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanction, support warning - I agree there is battleground behavior per above, but as I believe this is their first time being at ANI for it, it should be a warning and not a sanction. Levivich 00:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and warning the problem here is 7&6's battleground behavior as detailed below. Dronebogus has been drawn into that battleground behavior but should receive a warning as it is their first time at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like no one is commenting on the original proposal in this section? I think there are several reasonable proposals above to deal with Dronebogus's highly combative approach; I think a topic bad would be more effective than an i-ban, but I would support either. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban, support one week block I'd support a one week block to allow him to cool down and let this and the ARS Public School AfD work themselves out without his involvement. 99% of his AfD participation is perfectly fine though and a topic ban due to one issue is rather extreme. An iban isn't really going to solve anything either. Especially if 7+6=13 is topic banned. Also, as a side to that it looks like the ARS Public School AfD is probably going to close as delete. Two people from India have said it isn't notable. Given that all the haranguing that was done about it being re-nominated turned out to be a massive time sink I think Dronebogus' push back of it was totally warranted. Although he could have done it in a less bludgeoning way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanction, support warning. Also, support moratorium on ARS related posts at ANI, broadly construed, for the rest of 2021. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Boomerang sanction on Dronebogus - This report comes across as Dronebogus using an ARS witchhunt to get the edge on 7+6=13 in a mutual dispute, and that doesn't sit right with me. I don't oppose the IBAN, however. Darkknight2149 20:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interaction ban - This seems the best way to curtail the drama. I'm surprised this is ongoing. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for dealing with AFD disruption at ANI

From this point forward, let's handle ANI reports of AFD disruption thusly:

• 3 recent diffs of disruptive edits in AFDs brought to ANI = warning
• A 4th diff for anyone who's been warned = 3-month tban
• A 5th diff for anyone who's been tbanned = indef tban
• Editors who make these reports can just post the three diffs (or the 4th or 5th with a link to previous warning/tban), and editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive

Same rules for everyone; doesn't matter if they vote "keep" or "delete", are an ARS member or not, or how many great edits they've made elsewhere. Levivich 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I'd TBan (permanently) any editor who persistently votes "Keep" or "Delete" at many AfDs with continually shitty rationales. It shows they're not here to actyally improve the content on Wikipedia , but to push a POV, whether that be "inclusionism" or "deletionism". Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that would be an example of "disruptive edits". Under my proposed system, five times would get an editor indef tbanned. Under our current system, as it's worked historically, editors have done it many more than five times before being tbanned. Levivich 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And how do you define a "disruptive edit"? Bear in mind you may have editors making "bad" arguments simply because they're not aware of the guidelines, or interpret them differently to yourself.

    talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    If it occurs repeatedly then the person should know better by then. No one is going to be sanctioned for making a single ignorant vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DE defines "disruptive edit" and as stated in the OP, editors reviewing the reports can just comment whether they agree/disagree the diffs are disruptive, meaning whether or not the diffs are violations of WP:DE. Levivich 21:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • I feel like we might want to define that somewhere and reach a clear consensus on it, especially if we're going to make it a guideline that a user !voting similarly on large numbers of AFDs without reasonable individual rationales should be considered disruptive and merits a ban from AFD if the behavior continues. That's the real crux of the debate - editors should approach AFDs on an individual basis, and if there's a reason to think they are approaching them as part of some larger battleground over the nature of AFD or deletions in general, then they need to be told to stop and shown the door if they refuse. Given that this is such a long-running problem and has caused so much bad blood, a guideline to try and put it to rest seems reasonable - it'd just be a guideline at most, so people could (and would still have to) decide on an individual basis, but a guideline would be important both to establish the general consensus and to warn people who do that sort of thing that their behavior is generally viewed as inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be best to let AfD closers evaluate whether a 'keep' or 'delete' vote, should be dismissed. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated bad voting can still be disruptive to the process if the closer ultimately disregards it. I don't think the good faithed users who are here to improve the encyclopedia should have to suck it up and deal with the ones who aren't just because the closer will eventually ignore them. Closers disregarding bad votes does nothing to curb the behavior either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about this specific proposal, but I have thought for a while that there needs to be some kind of neutral mechanism for addressing misconduct at AfD. The main problem with dispute resolution, to me, seems to be that the main venue for it AN/I; threads here tend to be created about one person (or a couple people) engaging in the same type of behavior. That is to say, there are no AN/I threads about rapid-fire, low-effort "keep"s and rapid-fire low-effort "delete"s, so people will participate mostly along "party lines". Of course, both forms of drive-by voting are obviously bad for the deletion process, and both cause people to become extremely mad. One idea I had was to simply write a tool that performs database queries (similar to the ones done by AfDstats.py) and indicates the interval between each !vote. This would make it very easy to tell if any given !vote was made, say, thirty seconds after the user's last edit. Perhaps there could be a version of the {{canvassed}} template automatically applied to AfD !votes made in less than a minute. Of course, there are other ideas: per my analysis of all AfDs, the rate of deletion discussions has declined markedly over time, from a peak of 54,000 in 2006 to around 18,000 in 2005 (i.e. from around 149 per day to around 50). Perhaps it would cool things down a bit if discussions ran longer -- it would certainly make it less important to argue quickly and forcefully before the close. jp×g 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see the rapid fire nominations as that problematic or anywhere near on par when it comes to being disruptive as low effort, party line voting. Maybe some research multiple articles ahead of time. I do that myself sometimes. If so there's zero reason they shouldn't nominate them all in one go. It might also be possible that there was already a discussion about the articles as a group that would warrant it. I think that happened with the articles about Tuskegee Airmen. Whereas, there is no legitimate reason to do low effort, party line voting. As far as resolving disputes goes, I've always thought the AfD guidelines make it sound like are suppose to be self-regulating to a degree, but that clearly hasn't been effective. So something else is needed. I'm not sure what the best solution would be though. I like Levivich idea, but then I'm not sure if a random ANI complaint is the best venue to decide on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It takes seconds to make an
  WP:Before is ignored or poorly done. A statement of fact when that occurs. But I've been told that pointing that out is a "personal attack." Responding and doing article and source improvement takes a lot of time. Figure it out. You think that deletion discussions are being instigated and voted on in a "party line". We agree, but your accusation is misdirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I could really care less if you say the nominator didn't do a

WP:Before as a generic vote rational and cheap way to discredit nominators then I would really care less about it. I don't think anyone else would either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I added the sources to the articles, which proved the statement. And the deletionists remove them, which does not evaporate them. It is a fact. And I don't care how you "feel". Your open hostility is admitted here and elsewhere. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You finding a reference or two isn't evidence of anything except that you found a reference. It's almost like your so paranoid and prejudiced against people who nominate articles that your unable to accept basic facts like that people get different results when they search Google. I can use the main Google sites search right now and will get different results then if I click the links in an AfD. It doesn't mean the nominator lied and didn't look for references. As far as your accusation of "open hostility", I've defended ARS and it's members, including you, multiple times since this whole started and I made suggestions to improve the project that were ignored. Sorry I committed the heinous crime of not throwing palm branches at your guys feet in every single message wrote. The only thing you and other ARS members will accept is 100% undying deviation and adoration or the person is out to get you and destroy the project. Seriously, get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the source of apathy, not antipathy.

If you defended ARS and me, thank you.

Otherwise, own what you said. And give it a rest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll own that I defend people when it's warranted and I don't when it isn't. That's it. I'd expect the same from everyone else here. Otherwise, we are just playing a quid pro quo game of hide the ball. I rather not. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Against, AfD is not a closed club or shut to the rabble. Myself, I only vote Keep, and only enter discussions where I'll keep. Just my style. And my style would qualify for cancellation? Ridiculous (Harry Potter reference). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Against also, but like Randy, I only vote Delete, and only enter discussions where I'll delete. The Keepers can deal with the obvious keeps, and now that we are in a post-brouhaha era, I note that ARS members are behaving a little better, having had some casualties, and a few close shots across their bows. I still think that it is too soon to evaluate ARS' new behaviour, but community eyes are on them like never before. The community should be commended. Barnstars all round. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Against just a handful of extraordinarily stubborn and zealous users, not a documented contemporary phenomenon. Making a systemic solution for an individualized problem. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I generally vote delete, and (apart from times when I'm among the first participants) almost exclusively enter discussions that are controversial and where I don't know where my !vote will land. I think it would be helpful if closers explicitly said they ignored the low-effort cookie-cutter !votes and closed against numerical consensus more often. This would encourage better AfD behavior in the long run, hopefully... JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That there is such a thing as "disruptive editing" in AfD to begin with suggests that the problem ultimately lies on those responsible for closing the discussions. Per
  Avilich (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Along with

  Spartaz, and Seraphimblade make well-reasoned, against-numerical-consensus closes in athlete and other BLP AfDs. This should be the norm everywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thank you. Whatever we can do to improve conditions I'm all about it. AfD closing is a thankful task and I've been disrespected by newbie and experienced editors repeatedly and I think I do a very good job - even if I have occasional slip ups (I am human, gasp!). It causes burn out and is one reason so few of us participate in the closure process. (It's even worse on Commons...!!! The closure backlog is like 3 months LOL) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the proposal is too subjective and political. Decisions to block would depend on how many deletionists or inclusionists attended the board at that time so it could unfairly effect both deletionists and inclusionists. One solution to poor afd votes would be to make participation subject to confirmed status as there is an increasing number of brand new editors speedily voting keep or delete in order to reach confirmed status so they can in many cases publish a third rate promotional article into mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been into that idea for a while now. It would also help deal with the sock voting. Although, it wouldn't have helped with the current issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose wrong place for this discussion. Though it might apply, this would require a much wider audience in its own separate topic thread, not buried in a discussion. Move to close. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal closure: Wrong place, borderline off-topic. Darkknight2149 03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Look. There's certainly a side I'm on in this. AFDSTATS has me at 84% Delete, and somewhat amusingly, when I do vote to Keep, I'm much more often doing it against the eventual consensus. And I get there are a number of constituencies here: the jihadists certain that their opponents are the wellsprings of evil on Wikipedia and must be put down no matter the cost, the ones who are tired of the whole mess, the ones who want someway to idiotproof the deletion process against kneejerk, biased and/or inaccurate voting, the ones who want the closers to rule only on policy, the ones who want the closers to rule solely on headcount. Most everyone's destined not to get their way. Me, here's where I'm at: drop the damn stick already, everyone. Whether you think that the crusade's been thwarted, completed, or halfway done -- whatever you do think the "crusade" is all about, anyway -- can we at least have a little bit of peace for a while and, y'know, go improve some articles with all that energy? Ravenswing 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked Dronebogus for 24 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the debate, despite being asked not to and after being advised that a block might occur. I want to emphasise this is not an endorsement or criticism of any other editor's behaviour, which I have not looked at. As per usual, any administrator is free to lift the block without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that per xtools Dronebogus has about a fifth as many edits to ANI alone as to all of mainspace and a grand total of 5% mainspace edits this month compared to 63% projectspace (70% WP+WT). There seem to be some priority considerations here. Vaticidalprophet 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should do the same for LightBurst since multiple people agree that his involvement in this is a violation of his topic ban and he is still contributing despite it being pointed out. I guess I could start another ANI complaint for it, but I rather not be straw manned for grave dancing, harassing him or whatever other nonsense people on his side decide to invent to excuse his behavior. Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors meaning you and Levivich? Got it. I will leave you to it. Lets all go back to main space now. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Lightburst aficiando and I think his chart could be a lot healthier too, but hell, so could yours (0% mainspace twice this year?). I think you could all do with finding something better, and in the specific case of Dronebogus, a relatively inexperienced user (2.5k edits), a pretty serious warning that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write articles and not to make 63 comments in one AfD. Vaticidalprophet 22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the whole thing about how many mainspace edits someone has made a rather pedantic way to dismiss someone's opinion by citing meaningless credentials. I'm sure if I had a bunch of mainspace edits people who are acting like it matters would just move the bar to something else. In the Jimmy Whales discussion Lightburst tried to say I had no room to participate in the discussion or have an opinion about his behavior because I haven't created any G7 articles like he has. So there's always going to be some arbitrary bar. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, You only need to search for "Malleus Fatuorum" or "Eric Corbett" on this board to see that having a large total of mainspace edits lets you be excused or justified for a hell of a lot worse than any behaviour on this thread, up to and including throwing the "c" word at Jimbo Wales. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet I am certainly going to very quickly back out of here after I said my piece. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Multiple editors meaning the user who first made the observation, the one who agreed it was a deletion related discussion, and then yes me and Levivich. It wasn't just me and Levivich though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was myself and Canterbury Tail you allude to from the above section initially pointing out the violation. I'm pretty sure we're both relatively uninvolved too with myself mostly only being around from the last ANI (Lightburst's topic ban) when I commented after seeing how much space it was taking up on the board. It's definitely not just heavily involved editors "out to get" Lightburst who are concerned here. KoA (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it is an obvious topic-ban violation as well; obviously the ban was intended to cover Article Rescue Squadron (as the crux of the deletion-related behavior that led to the ban), and clearly discussions about the actions of one of Article Rescue Squadron's most active members, taken as a part of Article Rescue Squadron's activities, with Article Rescue Squadron mentioned at the top of the section would fall under that scope. --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how broadly this line is define: "banned from deletion-related activities" ...commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. I am not debating the merits of any content which is what a deletion-related activity is. I am not making deletion rationales. The TBAN does not extend to discussions on this board as long as they are not discussing deletion of content. But as I said at JW talk, all you need is enough editors with grievances and you can further an agenda. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commenting here is not a deletion related activity. This is a TBAN discussion. TBANing from what? From deletion. Levivich 23:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock all of them, that's my two cents. As for Lightburst, they're looking more and more like a hero, wounded but not fallen. I can see why some want LB gone, a voice quieted. I literally heard of (or at least got my attention drawn to it) ARS very recently. Seem like a fine bunch who've done a lot of good. If they enter en masse sometimes to save an in-their-eyes worthy page, good for them, because that doesn't put more than a dent in the seemingly daily waterfall of deletion attempts of articles, categories, templates, and other Wikipedia user creations. AfD is certainly the tar pit of Wikipedia, and if a few of the herd can be saved with concentrated effort, nothing spectacularly wrong with that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I agree that Dronebogus had to step back (block or not) as it was clear they were getting too riled up by other pot-stirring going on. That said, can we get enforcement of the existing sanctions here as Aquillion points out? This is an ANI about behavior in deletion and ARS articles. Those like me who've seen this on the periphery at ANI have been getting exhausted from seeing this subject repeatedly, but when already topic-banned editors like Lightburst jump back into it, that only exacerbates issues (and blows up the ANI boards even more).

The whole spirit of Lightburst's topic ban is that they stay away from these deletion-related behavior disputes whether it's AfD itself or commenting on behavior in those discussions on other boards in any plain reading of normal topic bans. I've seen editors try to test the limits of their topic ban or thumb their nose at warnings they were crossing the line with much less and still get blocked. Like Dronebogus not stepping back, skirting topic bans like that is just destabilizing this topic even more for those of us trying to sort through this all. KoA (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KoA, I have dropped a warning on Lightburst's talk page to stay away from ANI; for now, that will suffice. If he comes back here and continues badgering, a think a block would be justified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Ritchie's issuance of a warning, but I also think that we are getting to the point where the testing of the limits of the deletion/ARS tban, noted by others here, is getting to the point of just about no "rope" left. I've had some discussions with Lightburst just before this newest ANI began, about what I see as stepping over the line, where I attempted to treat it as AGF and tried to give helpful advice. But Lightburst took a pretty clear position of thanking me but disagreeing that the deletion restriction was "in the broadest sense". Here are the relevant diffs: first, at ARS: [10] (later revised, after my advice), [11], and [12]. Then at his user talk: [13] and [14]. And then at my talk: [15] and [16]. It's all very cordial, from my reading of it, but nonetheless there's a real resistance to accepting the extent of the existing restrictions, and if compliance does not end up happening voluntarily after Ritchie's warning, I think that a block will be inevitable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this block was insufficient in getting the message across, which is exceptionally disappointing; since the badgering has continued, perhaps something broader or of longer duration could be applied? --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic ban 7&6=Thirteen from deletion related activities

7&6=thirteen received a final warning on 3 November. Recent inflammatory comments on the ARS talk page after that date demonstrate an ongoing battleground mentality and continued unwillingness or inability to participate in a civil manner.

1. [17] - Decribing ANI thread as a "purge"
2. [18] - Comparing delete !voters to great white sharks in a feeding frenzy
3. [19] - Calling someone "thin skinned"
4. [20] - "There are a lot of folks now participating in this talk page whose avowed objective is to kill off those who might oppose them at AFDs. And euthanize
   WP:ARS
   ."
5. [21] - The "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" comment mentioned above, along with a comparison to the Inquisition
6. [22] - Something about firearms on the table?
7. [23] - When an editor discusses revisiting prior AfDs potentially affected by ARS, 7&6 accuses them of seeking "do-overs" because they didn't like the results.

These comments show that 7&6=thirteen has repeatedly assumed bad faith and failed to remain civil, hindering the efforts of other editors to refocus ARS in a more positive direction and repair some of the damage that has been done. This is the same attitude that Andrew Davidson and Lightburst were sanctioned for. It's also not limited to their interactions with any particular editor, so an I-ban will not suffice. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the history and what's happened since the last time:
  • 2019 ANI, 2020 ANI, 2021 ANI (closed 10 days ago), and now we have our second 2021 ANI. Each of these was brought by four different editors, and involved 7&6 having disputes with different editors. The common thread here is 7&6.
  • Canvassing the Arabeyes AFD [24]; discussed at User talk:7&6=thirteen#AfD notices (7&6 notified everyone except the two editors who !voted delete)
  • Canvassing ARS Public School AFD: [25];
  • Canvassing this discussion at ARS with a non-neutral heading (see
    WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN
    : no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading)
  • Reverts when an editor hats a discussion: [32]

Combined with the other diffs linked above in this proposal and the OP, and the prior history, it's a pattern of persistent disruption surrounding deletion, for years. Levivich 00:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that less than two days after the previous AFD ended, Dronebogus started ARS Public School (3rd nomination). Everyone who participated in it should've been told it was restarted again. As for the section heading being changed on a talk page, after someone pointed to where the rule is about that, he didn't change it again. And there is nothing wrong with unhatting something if you are one of the people who is still having a conversation in the hatted section. Dream Focus 02:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, take everything you're pointing to out of the equation, and what's left is still a pile of problematic diffs from the last ten days. Between each of these ANI threads over the last two years, there has been little or no improvement in behavior; the only thing that changes is who is complaining. Levivich 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We are not discussing Dronebogus' behavior in this section, nor should we. We are discussing 7&6=thirteen's. Whatever the antics of Dronebogus or any other editor's, 7&6=thirteen's obligation was to walk away if he felt incapable of the level of civility he was told two weeks ago was expected of him. And in fact, per
  WP:CIVIL, that's the response expected of any editor as a matter of course, no matter the alleged provocation. Ravenswing 10:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37] Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Today he left this message on the ARS talk page in response to me saying that we should try to find a clearer consensus on the more contentious AfDs that have closed as no consensus and were posted at ARS. I've been clear in multiple places that I could really care less what that consensus is, but that we should find one. His response to that, as well articles that are closed as no consensus chronically being called "keep outcomes" by him and other ARS members, makes me think that he is trying to use no consensus outcomes as de-facto keeps. Which is why ARS members (including him) always have an issue with articles being re-listed, the ARS Public School AfD being one of many examples. Treating no consensus closes as de-facto keeps is battleground behavior. It also shows an utter lack of caring for the notability guidelines and AfD process. Plus he called me thin skinned after receiving a civility warning, but that's not my main issue or why I support this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an indefinite topic-ban from AFD, ARS, and any discussions related to them, broadly construed. Looking over their history they have been a consistent source of AFD-related
  WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for literally years. Given the confusion Lightburst seems to have had about their topic-ban above, the wording should place a particular emphasis on extending to discussions of ARS, its activities, or any sort of allegations of misconduct related to AFD by any user, in any forum - that ought to be obvious, but it doesn't hurt to be sure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Evidently has not taken the final warning seriously as demonstrated above. This was probably a good opportunity to take a break from deletion activities but the battlegrounding has continue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also add that if 7&6 does receive a topic ban I would support a strong warning to Dronebogus who has engaged in activities no less problematic than 7&6 since that massive AN/I. The difference here being that Dronebogus has yet to receive a warning (although returning back here straight after a 24h ban isn't a good sign). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I consider myself a moderate inclusionist and the evidence for that is the list I maintain on my user page of articles I have learned about at AfD and helped save by improving then substantively. But I consider extreme inclusionism and extreme deletionism to be disruptive editing behaviors if they continue after warnings. This editor should spend a year or so actually improving articles without any participation in deletion discussions, and then explain to the community how they are prepared to contribute to deletion discussions without engaging any any knee-jerk and poorly reasoned inclusionist misbehavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen honestly I can't imagine anymore who has done much more to improve articles than 7&6, their work has been prodigious. They take on the really hard AfD projects that require deep research and days to find sources, build out articles and take through DYK. The lack of recognition for his work in this regard, and blinkered singular focus on Keep votes is mostly a fun-house mirror view. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is truly the case, then participation in AFD, or the lack of it, will not be needed for them to continue improving articles and their work to improve sourcing and quality can be done independently of that process, which would alleviate any concerns of battleground mentality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is the third attempt in 10 days, if it fails there will be a fourth until it succeeds. Mostly by the same users. Nothing significant has happened since the last topic ban failure, 10 days ago.. 2 days ago. The diffs presented are old, or ARS talk pages, elective reading, for many a place to vent including for non-ARS members whose history of disruptive behavior there is long. Come on, if 7&6 was really that bad he would have been blocked long ago, would not have support from other editors. When you deconstruct what happened in these diffs, they are complex multi-page multi-editor interactions. There are provokers and provoked and he is often responding to provocations. -- GreenC 07:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His "The firearms are on the table" comment was made in response to Dronebogus alerting him of the ANI complaint. Can you point to anywhere that Dronebogus has made similar analogies? Because there's a point where this whole "both sides are at fault" nonsense doesn't hold up to scrutiny anymore and he's long past it. Same goes for your assertion that this doesn't have any merit because he hasn't been blocked yet. No one is blocked until they are blocked. You should really have more valid reasons to oppose this then the same circular talking points that ARS members have repeatedly given to defend each others behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any block t-ban longer than 6 months. The only reason I don't oppose a 3-6 month t-ban is just to give the community a break. As GreenC says, if this attacks fails, we'll very likely see round 4 very soon. 13 is clearly too honest to do the tactical thing and bob & weave in the face of the persistent baiting they've received since two of their colleagues were taken down. To be clear, I don't see merit in the diff pile here. If anything 13 is to be commended for their apt use of figurative language. To address the first diff: The original Halloween ANI sought to take out all four of the squads active article defenders. How was it not a purge? I've never seen such poor conduct by the attacking side in all my years on Wikipedia. Sure certain squad members have been engaged in frequent banter/minor attacks, so cant blame the community for piling on with calling us arses, etc. But never have I seen an ARS editor give out an insult any where near as mean spirited as "disturbingly obsessive". And talk of confronting editors in real life, would normally guarantee at least a stern warning. Oh don't worry, its the ARS, they are too noble & kind to ever fight back! At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • legitimately cannot tell whether you’re being ironic. I wouldn’t exactly call the above diffs “noble and kind” by a long shot. This kind of exaggerated, hagiographic language is going to weaken rather than enhance your arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yub yub. Anyone who votes keep on AfDs is a luminous being of angelic purity, no matter what else they get up to. I mean, Feyd still worships the likes of Ikip and A Nobody who- well, they're long before your time but you can look them up in old archives if you want to see what a disruption the Squadron was in its heyday. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hopefully people will click on the differences presented and make their own decisions, reading not just what he said but what he was responding to. This editor has done quite a lot of editing on articles to improve them, and is thus a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Dream Focus 11:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef ban. They haven’t improved their behavior after multiple warnings over several years, and think they can demand harsh unilateral sanctions against a user one minute while mocking and antagonizing them the next. Also note that so far the only “oppose” votes are from fellow ARS members. Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let’s also question whether the ARS public school massacree would’ve gone down if it wasn’t for 13’s antics. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just waiting for one of them to say the user from India voted delete because they have an anti-ARS agenda. They are about at that point with this whole thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because of blatant canvassing. When I pointed out the issue with his selective notifications for the Arabeyes AfD, I
  assumed it was an oversight. But two days later, 7&6 repeated the same selective notifications for the ARS Public School AfD, failing to notify two "delete" editors from the previous AfD. At this point, it just seems intentional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As far as I know, all of the prior discussants on both sides were notified on the second example your proffered. As to the first, I corrected that, and you know that.. There was no repeated "selection." I did not make the same mistake after you called it to my attention. I apologize for the first mistake, and I urge you to reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Describing an event as a 'purge', editors as 'white sharks in a feeding frenzy', or complaining about a 'daily flood of AFD nominations' sounds more like a harmless PoV description of recent events than actual disruptive behavior. Not much can be said of these minor examples of canvassing, considering nothing has ever been done about ARS itself despite that it serves no purpose other than asking low-standard inclusionists for backup. Conspicuously belligerent behavior for someone who has just been warned, of course, but very little of this so far will translate into AfD discussions being actually derailed: the original cause of complaint. 7&6=13 doesn't like 'deletionists', and 'deletionists' don't like him: inevitably interactions between these two parties will be, according to some definition or another, battlegrounds. I certainly don't like how he has handled sources and voting in the past, and to that effect I submitted diffs against him in the last discussion, though I stopped short of supporting any concrete sanctions. Both the nomination and closing statements against 7&6=13 in the last ANI were poorly conducted, but there's little justification for changing the final verdict – a warning, not a block – a mere days after. Unless, as per the warning, he's doing actual vote-stacking or mishandling sources – which result in actual disruptions, and which are more objective grievances than 'battleground behavior' or 'assuming bad faith' – then maybe he can be allowed to enjoy the chance he's been given.
  Avilich (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Within days of being warned at ANI, 7&6 blatantly canvasses AFDs, notifying past keep voters with non-neutral messages but not delete voters, and you want to give it a pass because it was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm surprised anyone would say 7&6 has to successfully disrupt AFDs, and not just attempt to disrupt AFDs, before 7&6 should be excluded from AFDs. Levivich 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the Schazjmd's cmt due to edit conflict. It's not strictly accurate, since 7&6 does (correct me if I'm mistaken) seem to have given appropriate notifications for the Indian public school discussion: user The Banner, of the deletionist party, was apparently the first one he notified. As for the Arabeyes one, eh, perhaps. He did post both noms on the ARS list, which is arguably a form of canvassing itself, but nobody has until now successfully taken serious action against this, and lack of enforcement has allowed it to become standard practice. Anyway, the main complaint here is 'battleground' behavior, which I don't consider to be good grounds for a permablock.

Avilich (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support' This thread highlights everything wrong with their approach, and swiftly followed by what may be termed inflamatory to say the least, indicates that they are congenitally incapable of approaching deletion discussions objectively. Everything must always be personalised—and usually uncivilly as the numerous recent threads collected above show. ——Serial 16:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per dlthewave and Levivich's diffs. Their canvassing and battleground behaviors are clearly not going to improve. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was honestly going to just ignore proposals at this particular ANI as I was hoping giving the topic some space to settle down after the recent topic bans would be best. The diffs on canvassing, battleground, etc. after the last warning though tell me that isn't feasible and this sanction is now needed. I personally tend to give people leeway after a warning, but this degree of doubling down is clearly not going away now without sanctions. It comes across as 7&6=Thirteen just working to waste community time whether intentional
  or not, and that's where my hard tolerance line is crossed. KoA (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very weak support: (and I am very seesawing on weak opposed): Real concerns was set up on a
  WP:CANVASing is however a different matter and while not referenced at the 3rd November 2021 warning should have been considered. While discussion on deleted related discussions DRV/AfD's should be banned the placing of a {{rescue list}} on a discussion should be permitted with a neutral statement. Its ugly, very ugly, the way this discussion has been set up and a possible victory for SEALIONing Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, per the convincing evidence that the combative approach has not abated following the previous monster ANI thread. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the user hasn't been given any breathing room. Can anyone seriously argue that this is a separate discussion rather than just a continuation of last week's? I suggest that all those opining there be ping'ed, lest this be a
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of everyone except those who thought the matter might be left alone for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This vote and Djm-leighpark‘s vote seem like they’re relying on technicalities to discredit the discussion rather than addressing the actual issue of 13’s behavior. How many minor guideline violations can dance on a pin and whatever, when it’s obvious that 13’s behavior is a persistent problem that they’ve already been warned about. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why should they get away with things like the above because I renominated an article for deletion too early, or a discussion from a few weeks back didn’t arrive at a consensus against them for unrelated reasons? Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I consider between this recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and what I see as your resumption of your bludgeoning following your block I am choosing to remove myself from these discussions and strike my !vote above. Thankyou. 22:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

• Support Whoever closes this will find that there is a fair amount of party line voting so should look closely at the reasoning for the votes. For me it is the refusal or moderate in any way their rhetoric aftef a severe warming and the partisan canvassing that shows that 13 has learned nothing and needs to step back and restore their perspective. Battlefield anything in any discussion is poisonous to effective consensus building.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, albeit with some ambivalence. I did support the previous proposal that ended in "no consensus", but I looked at all of the new diffs as well as my own observations, and I think that anything based only what has happened post-the last discussion is borderline, but just over the line. Some of the diffs raised are not as bad as they look at first glance, when one looks at the context in its entirety. But I won't belabor that, because there is also enough here to conclude that this is a net-negative situation. (Personally, I am especially bothered by the "love letter" section referring here, and the edit warring over it.) So I come down on the support side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as there is too much political voting going on here in favour of removing editors from AfD to aid their own objectives. If thirteen's behaviour is sufficiently bad then they should get a complete block not just to remove them from deletion matters. A warning is sufficient in my view and ive seen far worse battleground language from respected editors not to mention admin (an example admin using the F word in block notices).Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other people, but personally I've defended ARS members multiple times since this started. So I don't really have an "objective" outside of wanting the disruption 7+6=13 is causing to end. His behavior has clearly passed the threshold of what should be acceptable since he has already received multiple civility warnings and couldn't keep his behavior in check for more then a few days past the last one. Given that, there's zero indicator at this point that more warnings are going to be effective. I don't think he should receive a full block either though. There's no reason he can't edit productively in areas where he doesn't have behavioral issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (now Strong Oppose, see below), I just ran across this and thought it was an old thread, then looked at the dates and it's real time. Seriously? Another cancel-an-editor-athon over in AfDland brought to ANI? Haven't at least two AfD regulars (more?) been shooed out, now there's another? What a place! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the links where the sins were supposed to be, and aside from some colorful language that seemed entirely metaphorical, which has been cherry-picked and highlighted, what I read (the parts that weren't quoted) was astute analysis and personal complaints about the current good faith bouncing of long-time editors who save articles. Let 7-13 blow off some steam in-between fair points, is anyone really actually offended enough not to take the rest of the comments and real concerns into consideration? Makes me think that they would have hated Lenny Bruce, but that's a personal aside. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but a project page where editors are trying to move forward and clean up the mess is not the place to "blow off steam" or recap an ANI discussion. They're actively distrupting productive discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've been observing all this drama recently and find it both fascinating and exhausting. What I think the examples above most prove is that 7&6=thirteen and Dronebogus really, really don't get along. So the best course the action is for the two users to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm hopeful that apart the two can get back to making good and productive edits. If not, and the negative behavior for one continues even without the other being involved, then that would prove harsher actions are needed as others above have suggested. But right now, I wouldn't support them. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the seven diffs I provided (except maybe this) have anything to do with a conflict between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I almost never !vote in ANI, but this one boggles my mind, so I will drop off two cents due to an alarming number of supports. The earlier ARS restrictions were sorely needed and a good change. This particular complaint, however, stinks to high heaven. I don't see any convincing rationale that something changed in the past two weeks aside from normal salty talk on a talk page after some friends were sanctioned, which is hardly shocking. If anyone should be sanctioned here, it's Dronebogus for deciding to needlessly re-poke a drama mill that had calmed down and been resolved in shockingly reasonable fashion off of very shabby accusations. So yes, 7&6 should probably try to keep the temperature a bit lower even on the ARS talk page, but that is not really reason for sanctions. SnowFire (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing has changed after the last warning, and that's the problem. –dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the links above are just the latest in the extremely long history of Thirteen’s incivility and either incompetence or blatant disruption. Thirteen is probably the most egregious of the ARS regulars at bludgeoning XfD discussions. Further, during deletion discussions he bombards articles with information cited to terrible, clearly unreliable sources, many not even relating to the subject, and then casts aspersions at anyone who challenges them. The encyclopedia would be improved if this TBAN included a prohibition from editing any articles under XfD discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose per Randy Kryn and SnowFire. While the recent selected diffs do show some incivility, it does not appear to be without provocation. Several users here are very keen on rubbing salt in other user's wounds and need to be careful where they throw that boomerang. There are at least two users here who need to be sanctioned for persistent bludgeoning. Banning those users (I don't need to name them, right?) from going anywhere near ARS (and indeed ANI) would be a good start.Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "not without provocation"? The diffs which I provided show 7&6=thirteen entering into discussions which did not involve them in any way (aside from the ANI notice) to make uncivil comments. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the points raised by Polyamorph. The two users alluded to by Polyamorph should, at the very minimum, be asked to desist from their battleground mentality and politely time out from ANI. If the community finds that the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing and not resolved by the ANI Tbans and sanctions, then ArbCom should reconsider their decision to recuse and proceed to accept the case and resolve it once and for all. Haleth (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this proposal kind of the community finding out if the supposed problem regarding incivility and incompetence by certain editors is still ongoing? How long should 7&6's problematic behavior be able to go on for before it would be appropriate to open another complaint or see if ArbCom will re-consider the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer the last time this came up. I would prefer an equal topic ban for Dronebogus who is not improving AfD either. We need to make AfD work better now and that requires removing the drama creators.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ten thousand times this. --JBL (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; it's not clear to me what they were doing to cause drama. I think that "editors who hate them will create an unending stream of increasingly perplexing AN/I threads until they are ousted" is a very bad reason to take action. jp×g 12:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: While the examples above are not stellar behavior, I'm not seeing anything here serious enough to take action on, and suggest that people stop looking for reasons to get rid of the top ARS contributors as an end-run to eliminiating the ARS itself. BOZ (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The language used by 13 may be over-dramatic but its not worthy of sanctions in my view. AfD will always create conflict, that is unavoidable. Apparently, according to an above comment, this thread highlights everything wrong with 13's approach but what I see is a wind-up attempt by Dronebogus.
  talk) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I have been taking part in Afd's for decades and I got to say that 7&6=Thirteen is one of the worst editor's I came across. For years it was a continual stream of obsfucation designed to promote uncertainty and doubt to ensure at the very least no consensus was reached, before the ARS section arrived. They basically gamed the whole system. As a group I suprised they never all got indeffed blocked. The worst part, which suprisingly was the most unpleasant, was they're was no logic to it. I really wish the ARS could could get shut down. The original vision of trying to save genuine notable article is long gone. It is completely corrupt and biased. Here is an example of 7&6=Thirteen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabeyes (2nd nomination) Clippings. 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 23:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY), although not 7&6=Thirteen. A better example might be one where 7&6 argued vociferously for "keep" but the consensus was "delete" - have you got one? (I know their username trips a bug in the AfD stats tool so I can't easily find one myself). In fact, looking at that AfD, the comment that jumps out as worrisome is Levivich telling Adamant1 "This is not a debate club. If you don't think the sources people put forward meet GNG, then say why, and then shut up. Skip calling them "trash", skip replying with things like "are you seriously going to argue", and skip cherrypicking two out of five as if that proves something." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:AGF, Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia itself. scope_creep^Talk 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose. All editors, whether they trend to a "deletionist" or "inclusionist" perspective, have the right to be heard -- so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks. While the cited language is colorful in its use of metaphors, it reflects an understandable sensitivity given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS. And, honestly, I see nothing so egregious in the quoted excerpts that it would support the relief sought here. Deletion discussions (and Wikipedia as a whole) operate best as a democracy of ideas, weighing all points of view. The recent campaign to "purge" editors with a strongly inclusionist point of view brings to mind the words of Harry Truman during the Second Red Scare: "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." ... Will I now be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ARS party?" Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cbl62: Sorry but how do you write so long as they do so civilly and without engaging in personal attacks and then in the next sentence write given the recent, unrelenting efforts to "purge" (yes, "purge") the members of ARS? Isn't that uncivil and a personal attack? Do you think I am part of an unrelenting effort to purge the members of ARS? If so, what do you think my motivation is? When people are disruptive, and other people are like, "hey, those disruptive people should stop being disruptive or be removed," is that a "purge" in your eyes? Levivich 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There it is. Merely voicing opposition to the purge is proof of incivility. As for whether or not this is a "purge", see the freedictionary definition: "To rid (a nation or political party, for example) of people considered undesirable." See also Cambridge dictionary: "to get rid of people from an organization because you do not agree with them." And Collins dictionary: "To purge an organization of its unacceptable members means to remove them from it." You make think there are valid reasons for the purge, but calling a purge a purge is not incivil. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Purge" implies an illegitimate attempt to ban/remove editors simply because one disagrees with/does not like them. I think that this accusation is a violation of our

WP:BATTLEGROUND environment that we're trying to deescalate and I wish folks would stop using it. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Check the dictionary definitions cited above. Purges can be either legitimate or illegitimate. That said, I am all in favor of de-escalating and found Dronebogus's "new proposal" (below) to be both graceful and diplomatic -- just the kind of de-escalation that this discussion needs. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When numerous editors complain about an editor being disruptive, over a period of time, with different editors and new diffs each time, I think it's pretty terrible that you'd describe that as a relentless purge. Way to support your colleagues and take their concerns seriously. Levivich 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're "terrible" and am sorry you see me that way. From my perspective, we simply disagree as to whether 7&6's actions are T-ban-worthy. I value civility greatly (for example, I am in the minority on our project's tolerance of extreme profanity), but I have seen 7&6's work, find it generally constructive, and do not believe that the proffered diffs warrant the proposed T-ban. Others disagree, and that's fine. My use of the world "relentless" (definition: "Steady and persistent; unremitting") was driven by the fact that this is, I think, the third attempt in a single month to T-ban the same user. As noted above, I would like to see everyone de-escalate which is why I support Dronebogus's "new proposal" below. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you are terrible, and your comments about civility and de-escalation ring hollow when you accuse me and others of engaging in a relentless purge. Quoting the dictionary is also insulting: we all know what the words mean... and Oxford defines purge as being "abrupt or violent", it clearly has a negative connotation in the way you used it, and for the record I do not want to remove anyone because I disagree with them. I don't even want to remove anyone from AFDs at all. The reason I support a tban is because there have been so many complaints from so many different editors over the least few years that I think it's necessary to protect everyone else at AfD from 7&6's disruption. I would much prefer 7&6 just stopped being disruptive and participate in AFDs in a non-disruptive manner. This is impossible so long as other editors, such as yourself, when reviewing concerns of disruption, cast those raising the concerns as engaging in a relentless purge. By your comments you have perpetuated the very battleground behavior that is the problem we're trying to solve. You say you want to de-escalate, but your comments do the opposite. Note, by the way, I'm not even attempting to get you to change your !vote--only the way you describe other editors and their motivations. Levivich 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe you have the gall to try and play moderator on this one. I'd agree with Cbl62 you're normally a valued member of our community. Yet your behaviour on the Halloween purge thread however was both terrible and relentless. You posted to it over 50 times, supporting sanctions on all viable subthreads. Yet despite obvious non neutrality, you took it upon yourself to moderate the thread. You overturned an attempt at sanction free closure. You deleted a sub thread encouraging an end to the nightmare. You relentlessly tagged most of those who opposed sanctions, including long posts discrediting even non ARS members. Your complaining on civility would be easier to take seriously if they said a word against the gross incivility that was aimed at the ARS (I don't mean mostly harmless jokes about us being arses, but the nastier stuff). And now you're trying to moderate this thread to in a way that disrupts attempts at peaceful de-secalation. Get a grip Levivich! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When someone describes me as engaged in a relentless purge and I object to it, that's not attempting to "moderate" a thread. An example of me calling out incivility aimed at the ARS is in this thread (I support a warning above) and another example from an AfD is quoted somewhere in this thread by Ritchie. I stand by my identification of ARS members block-voting in response to canvassing as they did in that thread, in this thread, and many other threads. (The diffs of canvassing this thread is in my support vote.) Levivich 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Per Atlantic306 and Randy Kryn. I feel this ARS-witch hunt proposal was Dronebogus' intended result when he filed this report on what is essentially a mutual dispute with mutual incivility. On a side note, I'll add that tag-teaming and political voting is an underrated form of disruption that needs to be cracked down on more. Darkknight2149 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: indef Tban. Look. People can complain about witchhunting, and complain about it being too soon, and complain about baiting or gravedancing, and complain about all the things they're wont to complain about. But the upshot is simple: 7&6=thirteen was given a final warning to clean up his act. He has demonstrably not done so. His obligation given the warning was to act civilly, and ignore (or following accepted rules, report) provocations, and to cease battleground behavior. This was apparently too much to ask. It should not be so very hard as all of that to wrap one's head around dropping the stick, especially right after a serious controversy and a serious warning, especially right when the ARS remains under heavy scrutiny. Continued sniping from that point isn't so much ignoring the warning as defying the warning. Fair enough, so be it. Ravenswing 10:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Way too many times we keep poking and poking at people and eventually they are going to respond in the manner they are being talked to. 7&6 has done amazing work building this encyclopedia for over 14 years and has been under a microscope for the last two weeks. Indefing them shouldn't be on the table. spryde | talk 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that we're proding and proding at them. They are trying game the system, to their advantage and our disadvantage. They are rational human beings. The original vision of

WP:ARS is subverted. If the same gang was there 10 years ago, we wouldn't be here. scope_creep^Talk 22:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of us were around ten years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members I joined February 26, 2009. Andrew Davidson joined on February 2008 as Colonel Warden. If you have any specific examples by all means, compile the evidence, and present it. Since most of the AFDs we do are as individuals, we not together, I don't see a problem. I just went to an article for a writer I originally said Keep, finding some reviews that convinced others. Turned out Kirkus Reviews now allows people to pay for reviews, so any reviews tagged as being part of that program don't count as notability, so I changed my vote to delete. I didn't tag it for Rescue even though almost all the votes before I arrived were delete. The few times I do tag an article for Rescue its because I believe there are sources and need help accessing them. Many over the years have looked at all the articles tagged for Rescue, and found that a lot of them get no one to go and say Keep at all, and others just have some members going and not others. Even articles added by regular members sometimes get ignored by others. No one is gaming the system. We are a legitimate Wikiproject. Dream Focus 22:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new proposal

This discussion is clearly a disaster and I’d like to apologize for starting it and wasting everyone’s time. I’d like to get back to productive editing but waiting for a potential sanction is causing me immense stress and frustration, and it probably is doing the same for 13. In light of this I would like to propose:

• a voluntary interaction ban between me and 13
• a six-month topic ban of me from the ARS (this includes ANI threads against members)
• a voluntary topic ban from the ARS public school AfD until it closes, with a promise not to renominate it for at least two months if it’s kept (unlikely but still)
• giving both me and 13 a courtesy “pardon” for any potentially sanctionable behavior (at any point, not just now), with the understanding that this does not prevent anyone other than each-other from opening threads on ANI against us for whatever reason

Would that be acceptable? Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You promise not to renominate the same article again for two months if you don't get the result you want?! Sending it back to AFD less than two days after the previous AFD closed was bad enough, but you are now planning on doing that yet again?! How about you agree the same person should not send the same article to AFD twice under any possible circumstances and to never start any AFD over again unless its been at least two months since the last AFD? Dream Focus 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, okay, in the unlikely event that it’s kept I will never renominate it EVER. I don’t support banning same-user renoms because sometimes an AfD is just incredibly slow with only 2-4 users who vote against one another (with lousy rationales from at least one) and is closed as no consensus because of it, like the AfDs for Gina D’s Kids Club. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that he should stay away from the ARS Public School article going forward if it isn't closed as delete, but people are allowed to re-nominate articles that they originally listed and doing so wasn't what caused the problems. So there's zero reason he should be blocked from re-nominating articles if he wants to and waits the proper amount of time to do it again. Just as long as it's not ARS Public School. Also, on the interaction ban 13 should agree to it also since he was rather antagonistic toward Dronebogus several times in conversations he wasn't even involved in. It's not going to help having an interaction ban if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus in the meantime. Nether one should have anything to do with each other. Including in conservations to other people. Also, 13 should receive an actually final warning, with zero allowance for any of the scape scapegoating nonsense when he breaks it again. Since there is currently more consensus for sanctions against him then not and it's as much on him as Dronebogus. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This strikes me as a gracious & welcome resolution, now Dream's amendment has been accepted, as long as 13 is happy with the iban. I'd recommend the iban is truly voluntary in the sense that it's not logged at WP:RESTRICT - some see that as a sanction, and count it as a blot on an editors record. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with condition I support this with the condition that 13 receives an actually final civility warning and also commits to not go on unhinged sounding conspiracy laden rants anymore. Not just in relation to Dronebogus, but also anyone else who he thinks is out to get him and (or) ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very acceptable. Unexpected offer essentially offering to restrict own behavior without trying to force restrictions on others. Seems like an excellent example of a lead to how to help de-escalate the situation and one the community is likely to accept. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While apologies and voluntary disengagement is welcome, the bludgeoning by Adamant continues. The behaviour demonstrated here by Dronebogus and Adamant, at ARS, and AfD has been so disruptive that formal sanctions are required. Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am trying to stop over-posting for that exact reason, but Adamant1 could stand to step back a little. I think sanctions are uncalled for at this point against anyone since they inevitably heat up rather than cool down the situation and seem punitive after voluntary disengagement. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have literally broken your voluntary six month topic ban with that comment. Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn’t think it had strictly “begun” yet, since I usually thought these things took force after a community consensus, but I can stop posting now. Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say about this. I was actually done participating here already. Except I do kindly ask Polyamorph to AGF and stop casting aspersions. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few hours previous to your comment you wrote (if 13 can still rant like a violent crazy person about Dronebogus). No aspersions are being cast, simple observation of how disruptive the behaviour of several users is here, at ARS, and AfD.Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the various complaints here and his rant on the ARS article talk page in response to Plutonical? Calling me and Dronebogus "members of the Inquisition" and "bomb throwers", as well as the "guns on the table" comment. I don't know about you but those sound "like" something a violent person would say. The key part there incase you don't get the nuance being "sounds like", not "is", because I don't think 13 is a violent person. I do think such violent sounding comments aren't good to make though. Which should be pretty uncontroversial and is why I asked you to AGF. Hopefully that's a satisfactory answer. Now that I've given one I'd appreciate it if you dropped it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although I appreciate the deescalation attempt, this proposal just has too many little caveats that could easily turn into "gotchas" and arguments about technicalities down the road. In my experience the best way to implement a "voluntary interaction ban" is to just quietly walk away from the topic without making a big fuss about it. There's no drama and nobody can accuse you of violating it if you slip up. This is why you don't really see me commenting at ARS: Regardless of who's right or wrong, I know that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything productive there. Dronebogus, Adamant1 and 7&6=thirteen would all be well advised to step away from ARS for a bit. Rest assured that others will address any great wrongs that may happen in your absence. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To some extent, the community at ANI cannot really declare that a voluntary agreement is enforceable by admins, in the way that a community sanction would be. But that doesn't make a voluntary deescalation a bad thing – indeed, quite the opposite. We can, however, say that, broadly speaking, it's a good idea, and broadly speaking it is a good one. And we can point out, as other editors have done just above, that there are pitfalls in the wording of the offer, that should be avoided. And later, if there is evidence of non-adherence to the voluntary agreement, that can at least be taken into consideration as disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentOppose I don't see any reason why Dronebogus should be sanctioned while 7&6 just gets another minor slap on the wrist (which they will undoubtedly ignore based on their unchanged behavior while this discussion has been running). Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. If this is successful, I hope the closer considers classing the whole set of restrictions as voluntary, with nothing logged at WP:RESTRICT. So there are no sanctions for either. It would be a shame if such an admirable attempt at de-escalation can't be rewarded. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree. scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A diplomatic gesture. Cbl62 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: While the drama between Dronebogus and the ARS has been pretty entertaining, it's bad for the encyclopedia and this proposal seems like it's just kicking the can down the road. I say we give Dronebogus an indefinite topic ban from pages that are directly related to ARS and an indefinite interaction ban with ARS members. That way, we don't get any more drama after 6 months, and even if ARS acts up, it will be seen through the neutral lens of an uninvolved user rather than the lens of someone who's had conflict with them. Please note, I'm not picking sides or saying ARS is right or wrong, but Dronebogus is clearly not neutral because he's been in conflict with ARS for a while. After a bit of help from Reyk (talk · contribs), I see the benefits of this and the lack of punishment. I fully support it. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm not picking sides but you should punish this guy and not that guy". That's exactly what picking sides is. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reyk It's not punishment, it's just meant to separate Dronebogus from ARS, since they're not reconciling very well. Since it's a group of users against one user (Dronebogus), a topic and interaction ban for that one user would solve the problem much more efficiently than individual interaction bans against every user in ARS. Not to mention there is no topic ban that would solve the problem on ARS's side (save for a ban from AfD, which is probably too far) but since ARS could be considered a topic in itself, banning Dronebogus from the topic of ARS would effectively isolate him entirely from them and therefore solve the drama and prevent it from coming back in six months. Nobody here is right or wrong, and it's not meant to be punitive, but it IS meant to be preventative. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The effect would be purely punitive regardless of the stated intention. Any topic ban is just going to be treated as a red badge of shame: "this guy was one-way topic banned from ARS so he's a bad hombre and they're the good guys." That's how it always works. Always. Nor do I imagine for a moment that this would insulate Dronebogus from the ARS- experience with other editors has shown they'll gravedance and cackle about him behind the scenes, wave their hands an inch from his face and go "I'm not touching you!". Kicking someone in the teeth just because it's easier doesn't make it right. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's not what I was going for. I want something that will separate them (and prevent the issue from flaring up again) without being punitive. Do you have any suggestions that will prevent this from just flaring back up as soon as the 6 months are over? (UPDATE: Just realized that's what Dronebogus's proposal is. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Cb162. Buffs (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances. Darkknight2149 03:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Color me confused: You know, Dronebogus, there is nothing in the wide green world preventing you from just walking away. Why are you proposing an interaction ban on yourself when you can just voluntarily stop interacting? Why are you proposing a topic ban on yourself when you can just walk away from the topic? Why are you suggesting a ban against dealing with the ARS when you can just choose to stop dealing with the ARS? Are you saying that you're incapable of doing these things unless we make it a community-backed formal sanction? Because with all the good will in the world, we're not therapists here. If all this drama has you so wound up that you keep diving in, I urge you to take a Wikibreak generally -- walk away for a few months, take in a concert or two, play with kittens, smell the roses. Ravenswing 11:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe he wants the other parties to back off too? You need two to tango...The Banner talk 13:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wouldn't be anything for other parties to back off from if Dronebogus stepped back himself. See, the way I see it is that ARS and its cronies had a pretty stinging -- and long-merited -- rebuke a couple weeks back. It is reasonable to keep a careful eye on their doings, and reasonable to be sure that the sanctioned editors comply with their topic bans. But Dronebogus doesn't have to be one of those watchers, and we don't have to keep poking the hornets' nest with a stick. ARS-aligned editors displaying dismay over the outcome is no more unreasonable than the triumphalism and schadenfreude from the other camp, and barring egregious violations, the best thing now is for everyone to just settle down and give it a couple months to see if the process did indeed work. Ravenswing 20:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this pretty closely and I haven't seen any triumphalism or schadenfreude from "the other camp." Whomever that is. Neither on par with the "dismay" over the outcome being shown by ARS members or at all for that matter. It's also an extreme stretch to call 13's and Lightburst's behavior since the blocks just showing dismay about the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This doesn't seem unreasonable, given the circumstances. The Banner talk 16:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Like Ravenswing posted. Just walk away from all of it, there's thousands of other areas to putter around, in Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose If Dronebogus and Thirteen mutually agree to this, it works. If they don't, it doesn't. Community consensus at ANI will not help the matter, but only potentially encourage gaming of the system. I and others may think Thirteen's actions merit an AFD ban (I would argue about as much as Andrew, who at least was usually civil in his presentation of fake sources, and never plagiarized my comments and/or forged comments in my name—something I can't say for Thirteen [the actual text of the diff implies plagiarism, but his response to my calling him out on it, i.e., Example text, implies that he was merely transposing my comment, in which case his adding a final sentence in his own words would constitute a forgery]). But if that proposal doesn't pass and this alternative is the only way to stem the drahma, then both of them need to agree to it without a bunch of advocates of one "side" or the other tagging on extra baggage that will only allow whichever one has the most loyal allies (or perceives themselves as having the most loyal allies -- I guess Dronebogus, if he looks at my history, would probably count me as an ally, but I have very little interest in weighing into this matter or patience for the idea that I am on anyone's "side" apart from the side of building a good encyclopedia) to effectively flout it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I should say that if Dronebogus wants to withdraw from deletion discussions and avoid the ARS, there's nothing stopping them from doing that immediately on their own initiative. I did this about two years ago (I don't even remember what the "last straw" was at this point); I was briefly followed to a non-deletion-related discussion on an article talk page, but that was, IIRC, about it as far as reprisals went. I enjoy editing the encyclopedia a lot more as a result, and I hardly ever get people talking about how I have more edits to the Wikipedia space than the article space anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOLLOWING also? After pointing out some ARS disruption at the 2020 ANI discussion and tackling some further ARS disruption elsewhere, I realised I had omitted some merger notices in a (to that time) uncontroversial merger discussion. So I rectified the omission [38][39] and made a note of it at the discussion [40]. Within six hours Lightburst arrived to oppose the proposal [41], followed by Thirteen [42] and of course ... Dream Focus [43]

.

WP:HOUNDING is allowed when trying to chase off a nasty deletionist. I guarantee none of them have the character to admit any wrongdoing. Cavalryman (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Cavalryman: I would rather not go into details, but basically everything that happened at Talk:Mottainai between February 2018 and early November 2019 were tied to ARS. There was subsequently some kind of sockfarm activity, but it seems likely that the ringleader was not directly retaliating against me for criticizing ARS but rather something else. The last direct involvement of ARS was this. It's possible that without that, the whole thing would have died off after a week rather than dragging on for another year, but the biggest problem editor there actually seems to have had only indirect ties to ARS: he had a grudge against me from long before I had even heard of ARS (I think going back to 2014...?) and was subsequently site-banned for unrelated reasons. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid using small text please? Per [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Font_size the Manual of Style], it should be used sparingly. Making entire comments small makes it harder for partially sighted people, who'll have already chosen their desired font size and won't want to suddenly come across a comment in smaller font.

talk) 09:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Cavalryman, I used [51] to see how I got there. We were arguing in a different article, Talk:Ratonero_Murciano, and you mentioned List of extinct dog breeds in a post you made on 01:27, 6 August 2020. I have participated in quite a lot of list articles, they of interest to me, so of course went there and posted on 19:45, 9 August 2020. Now kindly stop trying to shift the conversation to something else. This thing is far too long already. Dream Focus 11:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please move towards close - In hindsight, maybe some ARBCOM involvement wouldn't have been so bad after all. At the very least, Dronebogus should stop butting heads with the Article Keep Squadron and move elsewhere. I support an interaction ban but I'm not seeing much consensus for formal action to be taken, and the discussion has outlived its usefulness. No doubt that within the next 12 months the ARS crew will have generated new ire by defending more lousy articles and antagonizing more bystanders (I never saw myself as a "deletionist" but now I'm apparently in that camp because I don't think
  WP:OR and using blogs is a good thing). But let's not go around starting fires now, and hope for the best. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "No doubt that within the next 12 months the ARS crew will have generated new ire by defending more lousy articles and antagonizing more bystanders" - Dronebogus is responsible for his own behaviour, no one else. From what I can tell, this was an instance of a mutually uncivil dispute between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen, and it seems that Dronebogus thought that if filed a report against his opponent and waved around the magical words "Article Rescue Squadron", he would automatically generate support. It's honestly disheartening to see so many people take the bait. Darkknight2149 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More disheartening is reading all the editors who are assuming bad faith. Here's another explanation for Dronebogus's behavior: after the last ANI thread ended in a warning, the problematic behavior continued for over a week, and so Dronebogus brought it back to ANI. Levivich 17:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just went back over some of the spats at
  WP:BATTLEGROUND than 7&6=Thirteen's. If you want 7&6=Thirteen sanctioned, then I would recommend against defending Dronebogus' disruption to do it. Darkknight2149 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't want 13 sanctioned, what I want is for 13 to stop being disruptive, and whether 13 is disruptive or not has nothing to do with the actions of any other editor. It wasn't Dronebogus that made 13 disruptive this time, or last time, or the time before. And anyway if you scroll up above you'll see, I support a warning against Dronebogus (a warning because it's a first trip to ANI, unlike 13), and you'll also note I opposed sanctions the last time Dronebogus filed an ANI request against ARS members. Sucks when facts get in the way of narratives, eh? :-) Levivich 17:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Levivich: Was there ever a time when 13 wasn't disruptive? My interactions with him were relatively brief, but they were also a long time ago, and recent evidence indicates that very little has changed in three years, except that now (thanks to the recent TBAN) he has one or two fewer editors to reflexively oppose any attempt to sanction him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per Mztourist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brandon Brown (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate

Throughout these discussions,

• diff 1 It is pretty clear that
  WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney
  to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
• diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer [52]).
• diff 3 GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recently commented in one of the discussions about article content with an array of diffs [53] to offer some context to the broad statements made about me in the discussion, and as part of my appeal to all participants to
  WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It is an incomplete synopsis, but I offer it here to the extent that context may be helpful to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Further diffs here and here since this was posted further illustrating that this editor has no intention of working civilly. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This complaint is truly bizarre !!! They are complaining about me inappropriately assuming bad faith, and then they quote another editor who is also criticizing their behavior? Did we just enter the twilight zone? Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just for good measure, here is another editor questioning the motives of GhostOfDanGurney. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The questioning of their motives just keeps piling on from other users. Banana Republic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have followed what's happening and did not really want to involve myself as I thought that the opposition to this topic's coverage would fizzle out. I'm now involved as I posted in the DRV, and have made a revert in the article. These are some of my thoughts:
  – diff1: Banana Republic did not use the word censor -- what they said are mostly historical facts about the overarching dispute.
  – diff2: The characterization of actions as "frivolous" seems to be the problem... If one keeps starting hopeless processes and disputes that don't seem to lead anywhere, and are patently programmed to fail (unless we somehow imagine we are all collectively really really dumb), someone will at some point become concerned, and this word will come up.
  – diff3: What GhostOfDanGurney was doing with their immanently frustrated delete initiative was strange. When such seemingly irrational things are done, someone will express their concern using some and not other words, some of which are maybe kinder and better. "Agenda" is maybe less kind and worse, but in substance it changes nothing -- it's impossible to avoid this bad perception, and everyone is not going to keep their mouth shut. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon [54] and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted) [55], then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article. [56] After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting. [57] I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at

Mikehawk10's message [58]

provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.

I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr [59] to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"? [60] [61] [62] I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.

I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting

WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you,

WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, Chess). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As also noted below [63], I added the template after creating a discussion on the Talk page, and after

appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. Also, best practices in heavily monitored articles

includes, If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. We clearly disagree about the tag, but from my view, it had seemed like it could have been an efficient way to address a narrow issue that was both independent of and related to the previous RfC.

• But I was instead accused of attempted censorship [65] by a participant in the discussion, of being a WP:TEDIOUS editor and "acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia" by Banana Republic [66], and again accused of being WP:TEDIOUS by Banana Republic due to adding the template [67], and then after I appealed for an assumption of good faith, civility and avoiding a battleground [68], and further attempted to explain the several bases for the template, you described the explanation as a single point and removed the template [69], which I asked you to restore after additional explanation [70], and you declined to do so, suggesting the discussion could continue without the tag [71].
• The next comment agrees with you and Banana Republic and appears to question my good faith [72], and another participant then accuses me of being "tendentious and obstructionist" [73].
• In response to another participant's attempt to steer the discussion back to the content, Banana Republic replies, Not needed. The only point of contention is whether the lead should name
  WP:TEDIOUS editors. etc [74]
  .
• I think the ping failed, because I only noticed now in my review of how the discussion continued after I stopped following it, but the participant who had attempted to focus on the content also appears to have agreed with my attempt to improve the lead [75], and the discussion does not appear to have continued beyond a comment from a participant who had appeared to question my good faith [76].

I think the

focus on the content during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. From my view, discussions on article Talk pages have been disrupted by failures to focus on the content, as well as apparent failures to assume good faith. I am concerned this can discourage other editors from trying to participate in discussions or working to improve the article, and undermines the consensus-building process. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe give

WP:RECENT a read, and realize this won't be relevant in a year, much less a decade. This doesn't deserve it's own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As someone who asked for delete on the FJB AfD, asked for protection on Kelli and found my redirect deletion on LGB and the 1st Kelli nomination somehow turn into an out-of-AfD process article creation for LGB solely because of BLP concerns (and was attacked when someone wanted me to contribute to an article I never wanted created in the first place because they inappropriately pinged me and asked them not to, then turned out to be

chatter) 20:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion should probably get hatted before it turns into a rehashing of the AfD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is referred to as evidence against me, so I think discussion related to the good-faith basis of the

WP:EVENTCRIT on October 27, 2021. A second Let's Go Brandon AfD was opened by someone else on November 14, 2021, based on RECENT and LASTING, and was closed as a speedy keep by 力. [77]. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• (
  observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page [80] comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to GhostOfDanGurney, after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Beccaynr: That sounds like a legitimate rationale, but I think you should consider how it looks when you and GhostOfDanGurney often !vote in the same way on the same pages. Even if you're independently looking at the AfDs GhostOfDanGurney started, it still doesn't look good to be browsing through someone else's noms and mostly voting support on them. This isn't super good in a "high intensity" conflict area such as American politics and contributes to a sense of bias. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]