Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Unfortunately, even after User:Dronebogus had made a promise to me he would not make this mistake again, today he has closed a formal process in which he has already !voted. He has an unfortunate habit of closing discussions in which he has already made assertions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). He sometimes clerks various discussions, even when such clerking is not necessary and is quite unwelcome (9, 10). After today's transgression I have lost my willingness to look the other way.

There's an existing thread on this page where he says: "You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience." I wish he would heed his own advice more, and offer it to others less. Dronebogus and I often disagree on the merits, but he seems to ignore this sort of feedback, or at least not keep his own pledges. I'd appreciate other editors looking over my shoulder here, because he and I DO frequently disagree. If I were not involved, I would have already blocked him from Wikipedia space and asked for an XfD ban from the community. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am highly involved here, so assume that my testimony comes from a position of bias and not of objectivity.

Second, I can attest to Dronebogus's behavior at

WP:BEFORE when initiating MFD's, in one notable example he dropped a welcome template on a user's talk page and then nominated their user page for deletion

a day afterward.

I cannot ask for them to be blocked, because I know that at times I have been acting as an opposing force. But I find the behavior nonetheless to be as intolerable as BusterD does, and I think something needs to be done. This is getting to be a recurring issue. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are issues with Dronebogus' conduct, especially in deletion discussions.

A lot of their speedy closures are full of insults and not done in accordance with policy. Here [44] for example they speedy close a discussion on the basis that the creator is a "probable sockpuppet" (not that they've been blocked as a sockpuppet, but on the basis that dronebogus is accusing them of being a sockpuppet), and that it was a "frivolous renomination" (regarding a discussion from three years ago, that closed as no consensus). Here [45] they speedy keep an article on the basis that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and is therefore presumed notable. A presumption of notability does not mean a topic is 100% guaranteed to get an article, and a closer does not get to just declare something notable.

Their responses to discussions are often filled with over-the-top, aggressive language which does nothing to further the discussion and just inflames tensions and insults the people who created the articles, e.g. "this useless article" [46] "We really need to gut Wikipedia of these" [47] "Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia" [48] "failed draft" [49].

There are a lot of comments that don't align with policy "list that should be a category" [50] (

WP:NOTDUP). Articles shouldn't exist even if the topic is notable if they could be redirected elsewhere [51]? What on earth is an "obvious article" and how does that tie into content or deletion policies [52]? Claiming that a page used for a rewrite (and therefore required for attribution) should be speedy deleted under a non-existent speedy deletion criteria [53]

?

Their interactions with other editors are often uncivil, containing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. "Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists." [54], "Not an argument" [55]. Here they claim that notifying people who participated in a previous discussion would be "borderline canvassing" because they claim the previou discussion was "vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above”" comments by people who just happened to disagree with Dronebogus [56].

I agree with the points made WaltClipper about Dronebogus' unfortunate focus on "cleaning up userspace" by nominating pages that no-one is realistically going to come across for deletion, which often turns into a massive time sink/drama fest. I also think that their nominations of other peoples sandboxes and userpages for deletion as Fancruft [57] or Webhosting [58] [59] is extremely hypocritical, given that >20% of dronebogus's edits have been spent making stuff in their own userspace like User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan, User:Dronebogus/Wikimedia Hall of Dubious Fame and User:Dronebogus/Basement. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an amazing amount of knowledge of microscopic details of my editing history for an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. You are also digging up things from the beginning of last year I would never say now and making ad hominem attacks. Also, how is “not an argument” a personal attack? Deletion discussions are not votes! Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is the central issue, and why I proposed a limited duration ban on all XfD. I believe User:Dronebogus can learn to assume good faith, but so far he's resisting. He goes right for casting aspersions against an IP editor who shows up with diffs. Instead of working with the evidence, he goes straight for the personal attack. With a possible community ban under discussion. Not the smartest card to play just now. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict after edit conflict after edit conflictfor an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus, when you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Going after the messenger will not help your case. This is the sort of behavior that is leading to your imminent sanctions. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But don’t you find it even a little bit odd that some random user, with barely any history, shows up with a small essay’s worth of intricate information? Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are plenty of IP lurkers on Wikipedia. The IP contributor from Germany comes to mind. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate Dronebogus making my case for me. A self-inflicted wikibreak might be wise. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is just kind of passive aggressive and not helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he turns this away from his responsibility and towards mine. I'm losing my good faith here, so I'm signing off for a while. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: The problem is that Dronebogus is right. That comment wasn't constructive and was passive aggressive at best, and at worst poking a bear so you can complain when it swipes at you. This is a formal discussion about a user's conduct, elbow nudges to someone else saying Get a load of this guy amirite? are unhelpful and fairly rude. I'm curious what response, if any, you wanted from DB when you made that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, I understand your perspective here, and it's very frustrating when someone else like Dronebogus isn't heeding your advice. But your comment really was unconstructive. Advice like when to take a wikibreak may be true, but it almost always will be ignored if coming from someone the user has clashed with before. Better to let the facts show themselves and have either someone who often agrees with the user, or is entirely uninvolved, provide that advice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) This was certainly an unusually reactive response coming from me. I myself immediately stepped back from keyboard after I made the comment. Without prompting. 2) User:Dronebogus's edits have drawn my close attention before. A further reading of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned will show it's Dronebogus's frequent incivility and WP:Ragpicking which first drew my (and other editors') attention. The involved closings are just the most obvious policy violations I demonstrated in my evidence above (still unrefuted). Involved closings demonstrate battleground and failure to understand or adhere to deletion policy. In my OP, I did not expect a broad discussion about every breach of protocol and decorum which I have seen from Dronebogus. I intentionally kept the scope narrow. 3) I was not myself a regular contributor to MfD until comparatively recently, when I noticed the frequent ragpicking for which Dronebogus was warned in the past and continues to a leading nominator and commenter. 4) In this very process Dronebogus demonstrates his bad habit to personalize the discussion, pointing fingers everywhere but at themselves, ignoring the issues, the policy, the behavior. His immediately commenting on the editor (not the edits) is what set me off. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5) Dronebogus's response to my evidence is "...I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this..." This is an unimpressive response from a user with exactly one talk archive page. An administrator noticed repeated bad behavior, interacted with them on the subject quite a bit, extracted a pledge not to let it happen again, then noticed the breach of policy again three months later. What is an admin supposed to do? "I forgot" is ridiculous. So far no admission of responsibility for their repeated violation of policy even after multiple warnings, only anger, denial, bargaining and depression. Still waiting on acceptance. And that, I'll concede, is absolutely infuriating to the admin. So I said something sub-optimal, then adjusted my behavior and took a break. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve violated policy, okay? I admit it. I fully, completely, sincerely admit it and would like you to leave me alone now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SATISFY you in the process, measuring every word perfectly, just like you were not required to act perfectly. Note here that the MfD that is the most proximate background thing to this ANI has now been reclosed by an (especially experienced) uninvolved administrator as 'keep', when you who had !voted delete closed it as 'no consensus' (nearer to your position); the discussion hadn't changed in the meantime. Would you notice how incredibly tolerantly and mildly editors expressed their concerns to you on your talk page: (1) avoiding disagreement regarding the merits by not even telling you that the close is basically wrong (when I'm positive that they knew, just like I knew when I saw your close, that it's not the best reading of consensus, and not just bad as an involved close), (2) not demanding that you yourself undo it, (3) not threatening deletion review if you don't—at least not directly. Almost nothing was asked from you but simply to engage in the conversation. And you responded with Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. No one asked you to be perfect, so don't ask BusterD to be perfect. The most critical element here, the real point of failure, is your talk page. I'm saying this as a friend ...and someone with some very relevant experience in this area. I felt a need to tell you this. I hope you'll think about it. Cheers. —Alalch E. 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That wall of text doesn’t justify that BusterD is essentially being given a “two wrongs make a right (especially if the second one is from an admin)” pass here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator of English Wikipedia, my actions are always subject to community review and I encourage others to offer me direct feedback, including those with whom I disagree. Community trust is my only armor. If Dronebogus wants to start a separate thread on this page or at AN, I welcome the chance to see critique of my actions. This thread is about Dronebogus's behavior and conduct. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with you before in deletion discussions, but I'm on a dynamic IP range shared by a lot of people. I don't see the ad homien attacks here? “not an argument” isn't a personal attack, but I think it is an uncivil way of interacting with a newbie in their first ever deletion discussion after they had put a lot of effort into improving the article - you could have spent some time explaining what the issue with their comment actually was, rather than just dismissing it off hand as worthless.

My fundamental issue with your contributions to deletion discussions (and honestly discussions more generally) is that rather than explaining things politely in terms of policy you leave rather unpleasant comments full of rude language. Rather than focusing on "these templates are unused and for a constructed language that isn't widely used" why do you need to insult the people who made the templates and who speak the language "no-one needs to know you can communicate in a conlang nobody’s heard of." [60]. Why was leaving a comment like that nessasary? What did it add to the conversation? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s technically an ad hominem to bring up my edit count, but I’ll drop that since I was just frustrated and not really thinking whether it made a useful point. As for the comments issue, I guess I really did not think my tone was crossing the line into “rude”. When I think of incivility, I think pure insults like “you are an ass hat”, not harsh language like “this is useless”. In fact I’m usually at the brunt of such language from established users who are angry with me so I’m just assuming it’s normal. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ad honimem (technically or in any other sense) to point out that you have content in your own userspace that resembles the type of content you have nominated for deletion.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Then that was an honest mistake. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a pedant, that's exactly what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is any argument that tries to derive a conclusion based on traits of the speaker. There's even a name for this type of ad hominem: tu quoque. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by pointing out behavior or statements that are contradictory to what they are arguing. That isn't applicable here because Dronebogus is not arguing right now that there needs to be tighter standards on userspace or Wikispace content, which is an argument which may have some merit independent of this discussion, nor is the discussion about the validity of that argument. The discussion is about his behavior and his conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:Dronebogus from XfD

I believe that Dronebogus can be a useful contributor, but he continues to act as if a trusted servant while not earning the responsibility. I recommend a lengthy community ban from XfD procedures.

• Support as proposer. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate Dronebogus engaging and admitting their part in this. For my part I am concerned about any clerking-type behaviors from this user, like hattings and closings of any kind (which have previously and may next be seen by others as attempting to "win" discussions). I'm happy with whatever remedy the community decides. I suggest the community establish a duration, not a permaban. For the record and Dronebogus: this the first time in my 17+ year wikicareer I've proposed a ban of any kind. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I just retire? I seem to be a net negative to the project and my only constructive edits are just gnoming somebody else can pick up. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask myself the same question every day. Seriously. And then I log in and start to work. Willingness is our only useful contribution. Everything else is just work anyone could do. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Find something of interest to contribute by building. Improving Wikipedia by going through other peoples work desks and calling attention to what they shouldn’t be doing (ie MfD) requires more delicacy and less enthusiasm than seems to be your style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Try diversifying. There are many types of activities. You don't know what you could be good at, and start enjoying, until you try. —Alalch E. 01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really think threatening a ragequit -- as opposed to, y'know, conceding that the presenters here have a point, and that you resolve to do better -- is going to help you here? Ravenswing 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You know I already feel absolutely horrible and you don’t need to keep pointing it out. Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dronebogus: it's ok, this is just Wikipedia. I have a little experience with you, and you seem to be a good editor. This will likely result in a topic ban that will have quite a limited impact on your contributions overall. But, I can't blame you for retiring if you do. This isn't always a fun place to be, but I hope you don't retire because of this discussion because I believe you are a net positive here. :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I genuinely appreciate that Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from Dronebogus I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this and would like to apologize sincerely. As most of the inappropriate closures have been in MfD I would like to request an MfD topic ban in exchange for being allowed to still participate in AfD on the condition that I do not close any discussion I have already participated in or any discussion that has not run for at least 7 days. I enjoy AfD a lot but MfD has mostly lead to endless clashing with other users. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose complete XfD ban, Support MfD ban and a ban from closing any XfD. I suggest it's better to go some time not closing anything, Dronebogus, and then perhaps appeal that part at a suitable future time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Boing (reasoning is just the clearcut evidence by OP) - that is, a full TBAN from MfD, and another TBAN from closing any XfD - with a clear note that if it ends up having to be enforced by a full namespace ban, it will be. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Boing, but broadly construed I'd also be on board with an MfD ban broadly construed (including talk pages and so forth), and a ban from XfD closures as BSZ suggested. I think that would address the immediate issue. I agree too with BSZ that a CBAN isn't necessary. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose cban as excessive, Support Xfd tban, an Mfd ban would just allow the problem to spread elsewhere.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Boing - the idea being that the smallest ban that works is the best ban that works. casualdejekyll 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Boing, with the clarification that the MfD topic ban should be from the entire topic of MfD, not just participating in individual MfDs. Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned. It's been 11 months and we're still seeing similar issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved closures are a big no-no. My first choice would be a complete ban from closing discussions (not just XFDs), appealable after 12 months; second choice is Boing's remedy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support XFD ban as outlined by BusterD. I don't think the issues here are restricted just to MFD or closures, there's an extreme amount of battleground mentality, a lack of civility, a sometimes sketchy understanding of policy and procedure and a tendency to resort to insulting or belittling language that doesn't usefully contribute to the discussion. My experience has been that rather than plainly explaining "this should be deleted because it clearly doesn't meet WP:FOO" Dronebogus will instead go on a snarky rant about how terrible and awful something is. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 12 month ban from closing discussions. Dronebogus is an over-eager closer, often making mistakes such as involved closes. His closes are not a net positive contribution, due to them needing careful review and possible rectification. I haven’t seen or considered evidence that normal XfD participation is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support XFD ban as proposed by BusterD. I was prepared to support Boing's limited tban until I saw the list of diffs compiled by the IP. The problems go beyond MFD.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support 12-month ban from closing (anything, not just XFDs). For me, this is essentially about the closes. The nominations and general XfD participation are not something that needs this type of response. —Alalch E. 01:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with SmokeyJoe with the caveat that the ban is indefinite and can be appealed in 12 months. I've seen the diffs by IP. There is a problem with
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT and uncivil language that Dronebogus frequently uses, but I prefer that Dronebogus given a second chance and eventually improve. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - this user has shown they can't use adequate judgment on closing a discussion in which they are involved (that should rarely be done anyway). That's why I'm supporting a indefinite ban from closing involved ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a specific issue with XfD's, which is why I'm supporting a time limited tban on closing those; it hasn't really been proven that they can't close uninvolved discussions. I don't think it's appropriate to ban them from participating in XfD's in general, I would oppose such a ban. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - Isn't that something people
    aren't supposed to do in the first place? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      WP:MERGECLOSE expressly allows for involved closures of merger discussions. NAC doesn't interact with that page in a particularly relevant manner, for example. —Alalch E. 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Ah, ok. That seems like semi-contradictory wording to me, but it at least makes sense now. Thanks. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any complete participation bans, but Support closing ban for now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full MfD topic ban or WP namespace block as excessive
  punishment. The only problem I can see is involved closing, so Support closing ban (maybe temporary). IMHO, Dronebogus performs very useful function on MfD by bringing here some old forgotten trash, litter and shit. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 05:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Why is it useful? If everyone has forgotten about those pages anyway, then taking them to MfD serves very little useful purpose. It's merely a diversion from more important things such as improving pages that people actually look at.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's useful because Wikipedia is not a webhost, so this old forgotten garbage has no right to lie in userspace for ages. Also, since most (if not all) pages discussed at MfD aren't pages that readers actually look at, what's the difference what to discuss here? MfD is already not about improving articles, with Dronebogus's noms or without. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, one might argue that much of what goes on at MFD is not all that important and that digging through what you so delicately term the old forgotten garbage is essentially a waste of time.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment - I really think calls to simply block from closing discussions miss the point that has been made by the above posted diffs. This is not an issue that is limited just to closing MfDs, this is a general behavioral issue that permeates his interactions on XfD as a whole. There's a recurring pattern here of jumping into an over-the-top response to an item he deems undesirable, then quickly retracting when challenged on it, without actually preventing those future aggressive responses that are causing issues in the first place. The fact that people feel some of the items deserved to be deleted anyway doesn't and shouldn't excuse combative behavior. Moreover, it's not punitive because the effort is to reduce further disruption in those areas. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t believe I’ve actually been adequately warned that my behavior at AfD is unacceptable. The IP is dredging up WikiDrama from ages ago, and most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable. (I.e. they don’t dump on anyone). Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that any quantity of warnings would be adequate given that you tend to repeat the same problematic behaviors after being warned. Moreover, the diffs from the IP are hardly ancient history. Yes, people can change over the space of a couple years, but there's no evidence that you have changed. As for your final point, most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable, all I can do is shake my head.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That last part was bad phrasing. I meant something like “less unreasonable”. But my point still stands: can you point to any specific warning I was given about AfD? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to dig through all the diffs again to see whether or not there was a formal warning.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But I don’t get the benefit of the doubt if I don’t remember certain things? Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If by certain things you mean making INVOLVED closes, then no, you should not expect to still be getting the benefit of the doubt about that.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, I meant the bit about not recalling the exact details of the above warning above, which was summarily dismissed as invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the part where Dronebogus was warned by the community last year at ANI, yet later continued to do the exact things they were warned about? Does he get the benefit of the doubt for forgetting he was warned? How about my warning in December he was violating deletion policy? Does he get any benefit for forgetting that? We're not required to keep every promise we make, but we are still responsible when we continue to violate policy after multiple warnings (as he's so confessed here in this thread). Not recalling the exact details doesn't get one off the hook for making the mistakes which were already pointed out multiple times. I'm not seeing any real admission of responsibility from Dronebogus (though I do see them continuing to personalize replies in this thread). I see no pledge he'll improve his ways in the slightest. I'm going to leave one more diff, a quite recent edit by Dronebogus in which he reverts my good faith comment in a formal procedure because he just doesn't like my edit summary. This is a much larger problem than closings, it's really about his poor memory, his poor judgement, IDONTHEARYOU and IAR. He just doesn't think there are consequences to bad action. Perhaps he's right. BusterD (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Goodness gracious, that diff is such an awful bit of dreadful clerking. I'm becoming convinced that even an XfD tban will be woefully inadequate because this editor simply does not get it. So much evidence of completely abysmal behavior, but the community keeps trying to water down the sanctions as if we won't be back here in a few months.

  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The reason they’re “watering down” sanctions is because they understand sanctions are not meant to be punitive. All the complaints have been about XfD (mostly MfD) and improper thread closures, therefore all the recommended sanctions are about trying to prevent misbehavior in those areas. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BusterD, I literally said “I violated policy”. I’m completely convinced literally nothing I say will ever satisfy you. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I even literally asked to be sanctioned, and agreed with a proposed sanction that was stricter than my own. I never want to touch MfD again and while I’d obviously prefer a more lenient topic ban I’ll accept anything (within sanity) that the community agrees upon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support MfD ban as their excessive
  WP:RAGPICKING and general combative attitude has been a problem at MfD for some time. Also support ban on closing discussions. I do not think a full ban on participation in any XfD is yet necessary however.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support ban on closing XfDs, which seems to be where the primary issue lies. Oppose any broader XfD ban at this time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban from closing XfDs and from initiating MfDs, which seem to cover the actual issues. We do not need to waste time forming a consensus about a deleted page no one remembered. Participation in XfD welcome as that doesn't seem to be an issue. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose broad participation ban The breadth of a proposed ban from XfD procedures is murky and unclear to me so excuse me if this wasn't actually on the table. I can't speak to the minutiae of specific restrictions on closing or initiating of specific deletion discussions but I don't see a good justification for banning Dronebogus from all participation. It seems that the closings are the brunt of the problems here, so let's address that, right? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on XfDs, but oppose any restriction on closing or hatting talk page sections, where Dronebogus has done valuable work keeping things on track. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support XFD ban. A Dronebogus close is generally not a net gain, and as demonstrated by the above discussions and diffs, there's a general lack of evidence-based reasoning versus editorializing, which is the last thing deletion processes need more of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support XfD ban as first choice, second choice would be ban from MfD and closing discussions anywhere. The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, and lack of accepting responsibility are too much. Forgetting that you promised not to continue doing something you already know is against policy is an unconvincing excuse. I'm also at a loss as to why anybody would go hunting through Zordrac's userspace for ancient relics to try to wipe away, or well regarded essays like
  WP:BLUESKY and picking through random peoples' userboxen for offensive or even just pointless things (while having a ridiculous number of useless ones on their own page). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You haven’t provided a reason why I need to be banned from AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, you just don't want to accept it (part of the problem). Incivility,[61][62] inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, etc. This one you closed after 3 days [63], these after just two hours.[64][65] for reasons that were completely invalid. Even if they were valid, that's not a good NAC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Diff 185 is not incivility, unless topics have to be treated with respect now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, Is this not a sufficient reason? Also, the Wordsmith said XfD, then specifically MfD. There is no mention of AfD. An XfD ban would include AfD anyway. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose XFD ban and MFD ban - Support ban on closing XFD discussions. The narrowest possible ban is usually the best, and from what I can see above, most of the ire and concern here is about dronebogus closing things out of turn or in ways others find disagreeable. Why would that not be the obvious choice to ban? Bans are preventative, not punitive. I have seen valuable closes from this user in other namespaces, and have not yet seen any evidence of problems in their conduct in other namespaces, so I wouldn't support any broader sanctions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is that someone who shouldn't be closing XfDs shouldn't be closing anything. Of all the kinds of things that need closing, XfD is the easiest, because XfD closers are choosing from a menu of options and have lots of precedent to work with. It's arguable that RM is also easy but I wouldn't say it's as easy as XfD. Talk page disputes can be treacherous, if they get as far as needing a formal close; they need to be read with care, close attention and a decent knowledge of policy and procedure. And to my eye, DRVs, MRs and RfCs are clearly far more advanced than XfDs.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Strongly agree with this. That's exactly why I also recommended "closing anything". —Alalch E. 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguably hatting a thread that has become unconstructive is quite a different skillset from closing an XfD. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support XfD/closure ban Overzealous closing/deleting seems to be a recurring issue with this editor, especially the combative tendency to "tell off" editors with the hat summary. Admittedly I'm INVOLVED with a CoI, given my interactions with them, and I'll grant that my talk-page brainstorming in that case was excessive. However, it's not just me, it's consistent across the board, even where there's far less of a rationale. Policing of userspace & RAGPICKING also seems to be problematic; there are cases where deletion is appropriate, but controversial/irrelevant content that takes up little server space is usually not worth the time & effort to deal with. Overall, there's an attitude of "if I disagree with this, close/delete it" which is an abuse of process. You're supposed to let editors operate naturally, and only intervene when it becomes necessary, not as a first response. That's why a ban in this area is justified, not necessarily infinite, but I'll let the admins decide. Xcalibur (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are already under scrutiny for threads where multiple users agree my hatting/deletion was actually justified. I’d warn about

  WP:BOOMERANGS but you are already here a few threads up. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support XfD closure ban as first choice (and probably best to include a hatting ban to sort issues there too). Indefinitely applied, which means it’s at least 6 months until an request to lift. After that it’s a complete ban if the problems resurface. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support MfD and closing bans, per Pawnkingthree. Community members who don't respect the community need to be helped along the correct path; this seems to be the way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Perhaps there is a certain irony that this case, in which one of the main issues is poor judgment or inappropriate actions in closing discussions, will be difficult to close, because of the compound responses, some of which start with Oppose because they oppose the most restrictive of sanctions, but when they are read, they are seen to support some lesser sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a
  topic-ban on all closes of discussions, indefinitely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support a
  MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – If I haven't referred to some other sanction, I am neither supporting nor opposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion. Closing discussions requires the right temperament and there's enough evidence presented here to justify a ban. Dronebogus can channel that energy elsewhere. - Nemov (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban on closing discussions in any namespace (i.e. even including things like hatting talk page discussions, not just XFDs), but do not support a general XfD ban (although would strongly urge Dronebogus to reassess their conduct). Put bluntly, the user's temperament is not good for closing discussions. Even when the result is uncontroversial, Dronebogus cannot resist the urge to kick sand in the "wrong" side and talk about just how wrong / stupid / biased they are. Even when this is correct, this isn't generally a helpful way to close matters, and should only be invoked when relevant. (Hell, even if it's a troll, see
  WP:SNOW" when this was wholly unnecessary and there was notable good-faith opposition - again, the close was fine, but it was just a normal close, not a SNOW-close. This message was ignored (as has others complaining about Dronebogus's closes), so perhaps a sanction is required to get the message across. SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ignoring the messages is really the part that gets me, because while he's quick to declare that he violated policy now that he's been brought to ANI, he was certainly not willing to do so previously when the warnings were coming in piecemeal. Collaboration involves working with individuals, not just bowing only to the process when it gets to that point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban on closing discussions - The main problem seems to be with discussion closures, so this remedy seems best suited for the job. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

• Comment - I am willing to relent from my previous call to have DB topic-banned from MfD. Those who have examined my contribution history versus his would probably be able to see the partisanship between our two positions, and so it doesn't seem right for me to remove his voice from the picture entirely. Furthermore, it seems to be a major escalation when the collaborative philosophy of Wikipedia encourages
  de-escalation
  . So here's my compromise proposal:

Dronebogus is to accept a mandatory ban from MfD or XfD closures, as indicated by the above consensus, appealable after 6 months time. He also should accept a voluntary/self-imposed restriction on

careful judgment

on what statements he makes in reference to content put up for MfD, as well as his responses to other users who are examining his behavior. Lastly, he should also be encouraged - but not obligated - to dial back on "finding trash" for MfD. I'm not obliging this because it's clear he has a particular viewpoint on the matter, and there are others do agree with him. But it is a hot topic, and I feel there are other areas of Wikipedia where he can add value.

My proposal, by the way, is my suggestion alone, and in offering it, I do not bind other users impacted by DB to follow my lead. But it is, I think, a gesture to

steer clear of adding further drama. I also hope it's a step towards reconciling our differences. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am perfectly fine with not closing any MfDs or AfDs again, with a very narrow exception for patent nonsense rationales or similar blatantly invalid rationales like “I hate this” that can be procedurally speedy kept. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if it's patent nonsense or blatantly invalid, you could also hold back and allow an editor whose judgment the community trusts to put the hat on it. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with S Marshall. There are plenty of administrators who cycle through MfD (ScottyWong and Salvio giuliano are among those) and your focus should be on attempting to rehabilitate yourself first prior to diving back into closures, since it is evident that your closures - however much they may have seemed appropriate - are the source of many of the grievances brought against you. It is only fair to make it a total restriction for now. Wikipedia can press on without your closures for the time being. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant mostly AfDs with rationales like “ummm”. I think that’s un controversial enough to insta-close by anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated my position clearly; it is a retreat from the total ban that I advocated for previously. Under these circumstances, the closure ban is not negotiable. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Righting all of the Wikipedia's wrongs doesn't rest on your shoulders. If there is a bad afd out there, then someone will get to it. ValarianB (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No exceptions. Very few XfDs need rapid closing, and where they do an administrator is likely needed to respond to the disruptive editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. No tangible benefit from an arcanely specific exception. —Alalch E. 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LightProof1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am bringing this to ANI as I'm

This relates mostly to tendentious editing at the article Picts. Some background information is necessary as it may be difficult for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand why consensus is so resolutely against the subject of this filing. Picts gets a lot of attention from novice editors who find the Hollywood depiction of hairy, tattooed, Scottish barbarians running around the hills naked appealing (whatever floats your boat...). The trouble is the Picts were a real people that have only really been understood in the last couple of decades in which a wealth of peer-reviewed material and scholarly works have appeared. I have edited the page for the past 14 years or so and, while certainly not a professional, I'm reasonably familiar with the current academic literature.

Most of these novice editors with romantic notions are unproblematic. They make a few edits about long-debunked origin myths and, when they realise they are out of their depth, go away again. Some stay and learn. Some turn into valuable long-term editors. A small minority are problematic.

In addition to the issues outlined above, LightProof1995 has problems in identifying reliable sources. They also appear to copy and paste references they haven't read to support their position in the apparent hope that nobody will check them. [113] is one example... I can dig out more if it is deemed necessary. They are unable to understand why anachronistic sources are inappropriate [114]. They are unable to understand that translations of Latin texts from two thousand years ago are sometimes only approximate, and that you need to use a reliable secondary source (for subjects like this, if it's not in a current, university-level textbook, forget it). I view this as a definite case of

Having gone through their editing history only today, I am concerned that this is a problem that is going to just keep on keeping on. LightProof1995 has been editing for a year. They mostly trouble themselves with vital article categorisation which is reasonably harmless. They have, however, been brought here before for their attempts to insert conspiracy theories relating to reincarnation and transgenderism [116] into articles. They've filed here themselves, which is definitely worth a read [117]

My proposal is for at least an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, on Picts. I worry that this is not enough and that past editing behaviour indicates that an indefinite site ban will be necessary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So many things here are hyperbole.

For one thing, I copied text from only one article, the

WP:ATTRIBUTE

it.

It was all relevant to the Picts; you can still go read it and see why.

For another, I didn't do this because I have some "Hollywood" idea of the Picts; I simply saw the information about the Picts on the woad article and felt it should also be on the Picts article.

My edits were called contentious, even vandalism, even when they clearly weren't, as admitted by Salvio on Mutt's talk page.

I wasn't "attempting to frame" Mutt. Mutt's comments to Salvio speak for themselves.

I went to

WP:DRN

because that's where we are supposed to go with disputes.

I went to

WP:ORN because that failed, even though from the beginning I've insisted on talking about the content, both there and on the Talk:Picts

page.

I am disappointed you did this, Catfish Jim. I thought we were actually getting somewhere.

I don't have $101 to buy the Fraser book source, nor do I have a car to go to my local library, unfortunately. Thank you for clarifying exactly what he says about Caesar, as I was unable to verify.

My work on the vitals lists, such as the Earth science list[1] or the Plants list^[2], I hope would be enough to show I absolutely don't deserve an indefinite site ban, like omg.

Here's a couple of other edits I'm particularly proud of:^[3][4]

and here's some draft articles I've created by identfying issues on the Vitals lists:^[5][6]

How is this translation from the University of Chicago library not a reliable source/translation?^[7]

"Carved with iron" clearly has nothing to do with paint; I'm sorry.

The ANI I filed last year was against @Tgeorgescu, who as you can see on my Talk page, has now called me a friend. The ANI was withdrawn, with no consequence, because I was inexperienced. The reincarnation and transgender stuff has nothing to do with the Picts, and to bring it up to me just seems like you're digging for personal reasons to have me blocked, forever.

This is not kind nor

civil

.

I didn't open a case here because I thought we could work it out at

WP:ORN

but apparently not...

My past experience with ANI showed me the administrators here have actual issues to deal with, e.g. actual

vandals and trolls. Neither of which apply to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Pretty clear based off of what you have brought forward that a TBAN is in order, especially now that the user is saying that this clearly civil response is not civil. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to mediate the dispute about the

synthesis. Unfortunately, I think some sanction is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for trying to mediate our dispute. Why would you comment here on my comments about other editors’ conduct, but not their comments about mine? Especially when you already admitted there I was the one who focused on content the most?

Also, why would you complain about the length of my statements, when those of the editors were almost twice as long? And none of us hit the word count limit?

Salvio agreed Mutt’s statements toward them were insults, and I point out they were hidden well, but still visible. It just irked me to think they possibly went by unnoticed. Salvio said they noticed, but they also have thick skin, so they walked away. That was all I needed from Salvio; as long as Salvio is fine with leaving that conversation as it is, I am too. I never asked for Mutt to be sanctioned or anything like that; I only asked for advice on where I should go next, since

WP:DRN

failed.

I stated my reasoning for wanting to leave the dispute open because I was hoping you’d comment on the content; it was very disheartening to put all this effort into it just to hear you say our statements were too long. I also stated I wanted it left open because I wasn’t sure where to go next; you advised

WP:DRN and it makes me sad it ended in failure when it was where I was supposed to go? LightProof1995 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that User:Ceoil was also involved at DRN. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were involved to a minor extent at the Talk page and made a single comment at the DRN case. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those times it's useful to invoke the old chestnut

Woad

article is not great. Yes, it's in the popular imagination that ancient Britons painted themselves with woad and, through some circular reasoning (via Pliny and best guesses), some old sources mistranslate Julius Caesar as having said it was used. Pliny also does not name woad, but rather describes a plant that is similar to plantago. The two species are in no way similar. I am a professional plant scientist IRL specialising in various species including plantago... Plant taxonomy has come on a bit in the intervening two thousand years or so, but this is not a mistake Pliny would have made. At some point in the early modern era, some amateur historian must have made the link with woad based on its use in the dye industry, but I digress... this is an excellent example of original research, one reason I don't edit much in my professional subject.

(As an aside there has been some "experimental archaeology" that has demonstrated woad's unsuitability as a tattoo ink. LightProof1995 inadvertently included reference to this work (which is not from an RS) but clearly changed their mind as it did not support their position [118])

Yes, academic books are expensive. One reason I suspected you were using references that you hadn't read was that you used one from a far more expensive book (one that I put off buying for several years due to the cost) to back up a position that was in direct opposition from what the author is talking about. It is a rule of thumb (one so obvious that we probably don't have a written policy on it) that you absolutely should not use references you have never seen, no matter how sure you are that it must say what you want it to say. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. I didn’t inadvertently include that reference; I included it on purpose!! I’m well aware woad doesn’t work great with tattooing and that’s why I added it. Pliny only said it looks like a plantago; I think they were talking about the leaves, since those are what is used from woad to make indigo dye. I only removed that reference because Mutt said I’d added too much stuff that “wasn’t relevant”; to argue that it should’ve been left to make my case only shows why I added it in the first place. (Thank you for finally delving into what I said though. Now maybe we’re actually getting somewhere!! :) ) LightProof1995 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jim’s and Robert’s assessments and my impression was also that this is largely a CIR issue.

That it is this alone is somewhat strained by Lightproof’s venture into an unwarranted interpretation of a fairly straightforward dialogue between myself and Salvio. (In summary, this was my agreement that my choice of a vandalism warning to Lightproof was not appropriate but that I felt, rightly or wrongly, that Salvio’s characterisation of my own edit, as disruptive and potentially worthy of a block, was harsh.) Lightproof’s purported uncovering of some hidden insult therein and a novel interpretation of their subsequent dialogue with Salvio, to claim the latter's agreement that there was such a covert insult, seems to surpass a mere competence issue. A retraction would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your comments were not insults and do not think I implied they were when discussing them with Lightproof.
Other than that, as I told him on my talk page, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic matter and can't tell whether he's pushing some sort of crankery or not, but in reading this discussion, my feeling is that this is one of those cases where consensus is firmly against him. Lightproof, my advice would be to let it go and walk away from this topic area, while you can still do it voluntarily... Because the way this discussion is trending, at the moment you are very likely to end up with some restriction. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I agree with Mutt’s assessment of their comments to Salvio, i.e. that they accused Salvio of being too harsh toward them. I suppose I found Mutt’s tone potentially insulting, but tone is difficult to read over text, so I can understand saying that’s an insult is a mischaracterization and retract that statement, and apologize for the mischaracterization. I hope this doesn’t affect the Picts ORN because to me it seems the consensus against me is only from editors who have worked on that page for years and may be feeling I’m trying to put forward some “Hollywood” interpretation of the Picts as potentially others have in the past, when in reality I’m just trying to put accurate and relevant information on the Picts page. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, likely sanctions would be an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. This means banned not just from editing

WP:TBAN. Yes, this would affect the ORN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Well then obviously we should wait for the ORN to resolve, or just go ahead and do a RfC, unless I'm not being banned, which I assume is still on the table, since no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything. You can't just make exaggerated claims against editors you disagree with, dig for personal reasons to have them blocked, and expect that to make the content dispute go away -- even if they do get banned. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ORN thread isn't going to resolve anything, as it stands. It lacks any clear statement as to what the proposed content actually is, and instead seems to expect people to read through past discussions to find out what this is all about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of that. Do you think I should edit it, or should we go with RfC? The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts". Maybe putting that short statement/summary of a sentence would help? LightProof1995 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the short sentence summarizing the paragraph at the ORN :) LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting that Wikipedia uses statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts"? If that isn't WP:OR, then nothing is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I respectfully disagree about it being OR. Even Britannica's entry on the Picts states the etymology of Picts may be due to them painting themselves.[119] LightProof1995 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica says nothing whatsoever about Caesar or Pliny. Instead, it states that "The Picts were first noticed in AD 297..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a short entry. And yes, the term Picts came about 100-200 years after Caesar and Pliny. However, I don't want to say that Caesar and Pliny were talking about the Picts. I want to say they were talking about the Celtic Britons they encountered (who were painted), and this may be the reason for why, eventually, northern inhabitants of the British Isles the Romans were unable to conquer were termed "Picts" by the Romans. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above responses, it appears that LightProof1995 is entirely incapable of understanding elementary Wikipedia policy regarding original research. Under these circumstances, a topic ban would seem inadequate, and merely move the issue elsewhere. I'm thus inclined to agree with Catfish Jim that in indefinite block may be necessary, per WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say. I can’t believe anyone would consider to block me from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, over this or anything else I’ve done. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I wrote. Regardless of what sources may or may not say on this specific topic, this level of inability to engage in rational dialogue (i.e. giving a straight answer to a simple question when asked, rather than three posts later) is incompatible with contributing to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is insanely harsh and will obviously appeal any blocks toward me. My edits over the past year (please view the edits I said I'm particularly proud of, above) stand for themselves. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple question... three posts later". From your Talk page, it seems you are quite combative with everyone and everything, possibly because you want to live up to your username, which is fine, but leave me alone. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits you've cited as ones you're particularly proud of consist of [120] a poorly-written violation of

WP:SYNTH and [121] moving sentences around in a section. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

In what universe is the Steps section of

Arabia before made no sense; I made it so much better. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait the steps section of Art is entirely synth, and not only is it synth, it isn't accurate. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I use only one primary source for the section. By definition, that's not synth at all... LightProof1995 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are using one source to account for the creation of all art. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the source is doing. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source references numerous other studies as well as notes that "The sample was composed of 28 students in the second year of a visual graphic arts school." so I don't think it is reflective of all artists everywhere. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a sample of art students' opinions on which steps constitute the creative process, is better than the opinion of one person? It's a start? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say Which part of "what you say", exactly, is supported by these sources? I can't see that Gillian says anything about Picts painting their bodies, and nothing about the etymology, but as I have read the article pretty quickly and on a tablet, I may have missed it. Could you provide a page number? The same applies to Van der Veen et al, who afaict don't mention the Picts. Are you certain that you aren't assuming that when they talk about "Britons", you interpret that as "Picts"? That would be a textbook example of original reseach. --bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply :) Van Der Veen cites Caesar and painting. Gillian cites a source, Chadwick, on page 279, titled "The name Pict" (1958), as applying to "people of Britain, and especially north Britain, make use of a plant... which they inserted into their wounds... producing an indelibly dyed scar". Gillian also cites Caesar, Pliny, and Claudian on this same page. I list more sources than just these two at ORN, so I wasn't relying on these two alone for my claims, I just said them here as a couple of examples of reliable sources. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source that says nothing directly relevant to the topic is not a useful source. And extrapolating from the title of an article used as a reference is almost a new level of original research. Have you in fact read Chadwick's article? If so, what does she actually say? Gillian says nothing about the etymology of the name "pict", and it's already been explained, repeatedly, that what Pliny and G I Cæsar wrote can't be used since they never wrote about the Picts. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I use more than just these two sources at ORN. I only listed these two here because of time. I was kinda proud I was able to use just these two to back my statements by using the name of a source, but I digress... Also, I'll state again, Pliny and Caesar's comments were about Celtic Britons, but Picts are Celtic Britons. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Picts were not the only Celtic Britons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were. Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts." LightProof1995 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keyword there is "I believe" suggesting again that you are engaging in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so can you provide a source that says 'Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts."' or is that just your belief and hence not appropriate for wikipedia? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I find a source that says Picts are Celtic Britons? I'm sure I can. I have a job though, I can't be sitting here discussing this dispute all day. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would need a source saying that Pliny was specifically referring or including Picts in his comments. This is why I have serious WP:CIR concerns. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I disagree. There is no source from Pliny where he says "Picts" because the term arose after his time. However, as background information on the etymology of "Picts", Pliny's comments about Celtic Britons are sensible, maybe even necessary, to include. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have a reliable source saying that Pliny's comments contributed to the etymology of the term? What you are doing is synthesizing information from various sources to conduct original research. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I bother to find a source for you (did you see the Keys source at ORN?), are you going to change your vote about blocking me...? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source stating what you claim, that would likely resolve the whole issue, so yes, at least in regards to the Pict topic area. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) Here you go: Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counihan is more of an alternative historian, they're a physicist by training I believe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That just means they are intelligent. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise in one field doesn't necessarily mean expertise in an unrelated field. See for example William Shockley. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, although he's clearly an expert in regards to this. Also here, it says his expertise extends to "early European history and language."^[1] LightProof1995 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misrepresenting the source, the source text is "Now an independent researcher and writer, he is working on gravitation and cosmology and on topics in early European history and language." Working on =/= expertise extends to, in fact "independent researcher and writer" speaks against that expertise being recognized. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's totally bonkers and I retract using this source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not state your claim. The only mention of Pliny is "According to the first-century Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder, the plant was called glastum in Gaul. This name corresponds to the Old Irish adjective glas, meaning ‘blue’ or ‘green’. The word comes from a Proto-Indo-European root with the meaning of ‘bright’, or ‘shining’, and is ultimately cognate with English words such as ‘glass’, ‘glisten’ and ‘galaxy’. The woad-plant itself was called glasen in Old Irish." - and apparently this source isn't from a historian, it is from a physicist, suggesting it is not reliable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's a historian too. He discusses the etymology of "Picts" before the comments on Pliny, not after. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he's bonkers. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything.

You might want to check your sources. I would also suggest you avoid trying to portray this as some sort of personal vendetta on my part.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe I was wrong to take your attempt at having me blocked from Wikipedia forever as personal. My apologies :) I'm not sure which admin you're referring to. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out all instances where I've said "insult" :) Sorry I found your tone condescending at first; surely my interpretation only stemmed from our content dispute. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a retraction of the accusation, not a weirder rewording of it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I only replaced with other words so the sentences still made sense, but I guess I can just have it be struck out, if that would be an olive branch for you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "weirder" words :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on picts, broadly defined. I'm afraid LP1995's responses in this thread don't inspire any confidence in their ability to understand what original research is and why we can't add it to Wikipedia articles. It looks like they have been doing similar things in articles on transgender topics and on reincarnation but perhaps not quite to the level that calls for a topic ban. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Picts as well as GENSEX topics, for reasons noted by @Bonadea. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Don't bring the sex stuff into this please. I don't even edit articles in regards to those. I just don't stand for transphobia and have tried my best to reduce transphobia, even though it is such a sensitive topic. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally believe that people experiencing gender dysphoria are reincarnations of people of other genders in a past life. I do not think you can get much more fringe than that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for sure, I even state it is

WP:FRINGE on my user page. But that has nothing to do with this case. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe it raises questions regarding

WP:CIR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

According to

WP:NPOV, minority views are just as important as majority views. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A minority view is different than a fringe view. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe view is a minority view. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one that is prohibited under WP:FRINGE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE weight. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support topic ban on Picts and the GENSEX topic area. The editor should be aware that any disruptive editing about reincarnation will likely result in a sitewide indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ජපස and I already got the reincarnation page to what I consider an acceptable state, compared to what it was before. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think to call my statements OR given the Gillian and Van Der Veen sources, is a bit on-the-nose? Especially when I have more sources at ORN? For complete non-OR, I can agree we should view the Chadwick source, and we also need consensus on whether or not the Keys source is reliable. I thought, since it is in the Wikipedia Library, that makes it a reliable source. Is that inaccurate? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's Carr. Her name is Gilly Carr and it is usual to use a surname for an academic author. Your use of her paper is

WP:SYNTH as you're combining a statement made by her that does not mention picts with the title of a cited article (that I believe you haven't read) to support this statement: the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Carr then. Honestly at this point, given the responses here, I feel one can call any edit

WP:OR. It's like no number of reliable sources is good enough. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No number of sources is good enough to support things that the individual sources don't state directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need to verify the Chadwick source, instead of blocking me? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read it but thought to use it? Whatever Chadwick says, it is a very old paper and would not be usable in this instance per

WP:RSAGE. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see how a 1958 paper is too old for content about a group of people that lived 2nd-7th centuries A.D.? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the question, why did you put something in an article which you hadn't verified? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chadwick source is embedded within the Carr source. Since Carr verified it, and I verified Carr, doesn't it follow the information I added is sourced? It was already on the

woad page. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(multiple ec) argh. I made the same error re Carr's name. That is embarrassing! LightProof1995, Carr and Van der Veen do not support your claim re the origin of the term "pict". Your statements are absolutely OR.

It is a basic principle that we don't go searching for sources that say what we believe is true. Another basic principle is that a reliable source isn't automatically relevant. And it should be blindingly obvious that you can't cite sources you haven't read. Chadwick's essay doesn't support your claim, btw. --bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020? How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. Also, surely Chadwick's essay says something about the etymology of "Picts", since the name of the source is "The name Pict". Could you kindly provide what they say? Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a url?^[2] LightProof1995 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go for a full citation... helps us assess the source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you provided a url. No, that's not a reliable source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has 96 publications and a Doctor in Philosophy. Of course this is a reliable source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All his academic work (and presumably his doctorate) is in particle physics. He appears to be a retired physicist who has taken up writing about early Europe as a hobby. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is bonkers and we shouldn't use this source. I didn't realize at first. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020 was, plus the url I'm not sure what else I could do to point this source to you? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self-published essay by someone who is not a historian. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing we use a source which claims that the Picts were from Ireland? Wouldn't that require a drastic rewrite of the entire article? [122] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, wait a second, you're right, I didn't catch that... Okay, he's obviously bonkers and we shouldn't use this source. I am sad. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. We are supposed to look for the most reliable sources and report what they say. What you look very much like you are doing is deciding what you want to say, and looking for the sources which are closest to supporting that. This distinction is very basic and fundamental to the way that Wikipedia works. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can agree with this since the 2020 source ended up being completely idiotic. Of course, if y'all ban me forever, teaching me this now solves nothing... LightProof1995 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a 1958 paper is too old for content about a group of people that lived 2nd-7th centuries A.D.? Because new research studies arrive at new conclusions. Catfish Jim addressed this in the very first post in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if the 2020 source I just found went against the 1958 source, I would agree let's just use the 2020 source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support site ban. I also have strong CIR concerns about LightProof, after having interacted with him through the Vital Articles project. These CIR issues extend to both conduct and content.

Example: in October 2022, we (WikiProject Vital Articles) tried to bring Land to GA-class, and LP1995 joined us. We reached a point where people kept changing headers and moving material around, which made it hard to keep track of anything and make any progress, so I changed the headings to be closer to both the pre-edit-war status quo, and to a similar featured article, Sea. LightProof's next edit? Changing the headings again, with a nonsensical justification based on "rules" which were a misinterpretation of what I'd previously said on the talk page (and which I'd never stated as "rules" anyway); when he should have used the talk page to propose further changes. After that, I decided to stop editing that article altogether and took it off my watchlist since I'd rather edit articles alone than deal with CIR (sorry CactiStaccingCrane, that was the real reason why, not lack of time/motivation).

I said CIR also extends into content issues, so here's an example of that: Talk:Land/Archive_1#Climate here, LightProof argues that “Climate” refers to the air and is not physical science. As stated in the section, it can be considered a layer of land. This is nonsense, and is based on a massive misinterpretation of the UN source, which talks about land as an ecosystem. And physical science obviously includes the Earth sciences. This is obviously far from the only instance of misinterpretation of sources, but as you can tell, no diff I could provide would be "damning" on its own.

But the diffs provided in the OP are IMO more damning, since they show that LP1995 doesn't understand

WP:BRD

(at DNR, LP1995 even said that WP:BRD is completely optional, which is... wow), tried to push changes through, and then presented arguments for inclusion which did not address counterarguments, effectively arguing "past" all others. It's interesting that at DNR, Ceoil also mentions taking an article off their watchlist due to LP1995... And yes, it is "disruptive" to edit war to keep SYNTH in an article.

I don't think a topic ban would be enough, and it feels very bizarre to react to CIR with a TBAN. CIR, by definition, affects everything. DFlhb (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Eventually we decided on the Talk page "Climate" could go under "Physical science". I only felt it wouldn't because climate is air, and is not tangible, although I realized later it can still fall under the "Physical sciences" as part of the "Earth sciences". BRD says it is optional. I'm sorry you felt you couldn't edit with me, I did not know. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is optional in the sense that there are plenty of alternatives, including WP:Bold-refine, or simply skipping the "BR" part and trying to obtain consensus before making an edit, if one knows it'll be controversial. It's not optional in the sense that would allow edit warring to add stuff to an article. All our policies are against that. DFlhb (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bold-refine is what I was using, along with Talk Pages. Sorry again you didn't feel you could work with me. I made a discussion on the Talk:Land page about the headers when we did this; I thought that was what we are supposed to do. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans on ancient British history, broadly construed, and GENSEX. Maybe also art, broadly construed. The many above exchanges convince me that LightProof1995 is not capable of basing their edits on competent use of reliable sources in these areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite site ban proposal

Proposal Indefinite full site ban. Interaction in this filing has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of WP policy, a disregard for consensus and collaborative editing and a lack of understanding of how to identify and use reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban based on LightProof1995's endless failure-to-get-it responses here. The latest (as of now...) being to cite a source (evidently not the first), which LightProof1995 quite obviously hadn't read (see 'bonkers' comments above). A monumental time sink, and one we can manage well enough without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I only didn't read it entirely because there was pressure here to find a source quickly. By admitting it's wrong, isn't that progress? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @LightProof1995: You wrote on your user page:

My main goal is to get the Reincarnation page to Vital-3 and to discuss/cite this source:

Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266 because I believe this would save the lives of trans people and make the world a better place.

If you are a Wikipedian, you are aware of the fact that you are intelligent.

This means you have the capacity to understand that reincarnation is real, as scientifically proven by Dr. Ian Stevenson and others.

The source I list above simply states that the past-life memories of children with gender dysphoria tend to be of the opposite sex. When I read that, I was floored at just how well that explains stories of gender dysphoria in children.

Yes, this is WP:FRINGE, but that just means it isn't accepted by the majority. It doesn't mean it's wrong.

Even if reincarnation is real, I have no idea how you think actual physical memories (memories exist and are accessible only through the brain) would transfer from one body to another. Even if I stretch my imagination, I can only imagine a person's consciousness travelling at best, because technically we don't loose our consciousnesses even if our brain cells are replaced, so one could argue that consciousness has the capability of travelling from one place to another. However, no memories would be carried with it because memories exist physically within our brains. The idea you're trying to insert is simply much too fringe. I don't think you should make it a "goal" to insert these ideas into articles. Nythar (💬-❄️) 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I explain the science to you, do you promise not to ban me? Also, goal is probably not the right word. This is just something I wanted to see the most, along with improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m honestly curious about what they had to say here, but they’re (rightfully) blocked so… Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation has been scientifically proven to be real? I'm sorry I missed that... David10244 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This whole thread is an enormous waste of time amply demonstrating the LightProof simply does not get it. When topic bans are being proposed for areas as broad and diverse as British history, GENSEX, and art, that's a sign that the disruption is not going to be limited to a single topic area which can be effectively addressed by a topic ban – and frankly, nothing about their contribution history suggests that the benefit to Wikipedia of a complicated set of topic bans outweighs the cost. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you except for your comment about my contribution history. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This thread, that at DRN and at the Picts talk page serve only to demonstrate that this editor rebuffs, as a matter of routine, the succession of careful explanations from a troupe of other editors as to how their latest killer source patently does not support their latest assertion/unfounded but deeply-held belief. It’s plain that they are impervious to appreciation of OR or SYNTH, whether that is inability to or disdain for. Everyone, and that has been everyone, is wrong and they are right and in most cases, everyone is mean, even though you might need to read between the lines to spot it. This editor can not be trusted to use sources competently to contribute material, as much outside of this topic as within it. Sources are to be used to provide a gloss to what they just "know". Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as to a
  topic-bans on ancient British history, reincarnation, and transgender is all over the map. I don't like any possible result. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have apologized for the mischaracterization of Mutt's comments to Salvio, and stated surely my interpretation stemmed from our content dispute, and how Mutt had treated me. Even now, I've given Mutt an olive branch and retracted my statements, they still came in here to diss me as much as possible. Thank you for this neutral vote and your opinion :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban (I may be talking with my emotions instead of my logic here, be mindful of that). No, I'm not the reincarnation of a dead woman. This is a viewpoint that, while not transphobic, is incredibly ignorant, and the multiple attempts to push that point of view show LightProof1995 is
  not here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support site ban If you will need at least 3 topic bans to edit here, that's a sign you're not really a net positive to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban after first wanting to just TBan more digging into this user has convinced me that they lack the understanding of the reliable source policy, as well as the ability to actually check sources. Hence, I don't think they can constructively contribute to WP.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban
  WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support site ban
  WP:Nothere. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to vent about their favorite obsessions. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Support. The competence issues already in question could potentially be reduced through increased familiarity with Wikipedia norms, but the
  WP:NOTHERE on display in the statements below seals it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I believe I’ve interacted with this user in the aforementioned trans reincarnation area and just want to emphasize my support for this ban for completely obvious reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The user also participate in Wikipedia:Vital articles project a lot, almost to the point of obsession. I don't find that their mindset helps a ton in the improvement of Vital articles given they only care about the list, not the articles themselves. To others, it might be helpful to see LightProof's activity in the project to make your own judgement. I have no comment on LightProof themselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don’t see any essential work being done then anything productive they do there is outweighed by their massive disruption elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement

Clearly it does not matter how many reliable, verified, and academic sources that say what I say I find. Everyone here is keen to argue with me because bandwagoning and arguing are fun and easy, while being a voice of reason is difficult and not as fun. Go ahead and block me. I will appeal it when all of our heads are cooled. I'm confident anyone who comes back to this in a month or so will be shocked at just how argumentative everyone was towards me, especially the unjust accusations of

I counted, I think, around 13 editors all basically sayiing the same thing to you. No one has said they share your view. Doesn't that tell you something? To put it down to bandwaagoning and arguing are fun and easy really does shout out that you shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll retract this final statement. Forgive me for being so upset, please try to see why I would be. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I see. You need to think through what all these people are saying to you. As to why they are saying it...Occam's razor: probably because they are right. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like they are saying I'm just difficult to work with, even when I follow policies such as Talk Pages and DRN. It feels like even though I've been editing for a year, there are still some things I don't understand about editing Wikipedia, e.g. best practices for searching and using reliable sources. I'm not disagreeing with regards to this and am willing to work on being a better editor, although that's obviously not going to matter since it seems I'm about to be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. Your viewpoint matters to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've spent this thread fighting tooth and nail claiming the opposite: that you understand policy and that you're edits comply with policy and everyon else has got it wrong. That's why you're heading for an indef. You need to convince everyone that you understand you got it wrong...and you're not saying it just to avoid the indef. Btw, being indeffed may not be such a bad thing for you. You can come back from an indef (and people often do). It doesn't mean gone for good. It can give you time to understand what people have said and understand policy more throughly. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Yes, I agree. I don't mind the indef, even if it's a site ban, because I know you're right, it doesn't have to be forever. And even if it was forever I wouldn't mind. I for sure made a lot of edits that made Wikipedia a better source of information this past year, and that is enough to console me. My edits with jps on Reincarnation were the most important, and occurred a long time ago.

If y'all decide to only do a partial ban on Picts and GENSEX (not that I feel GENSEX ban is necessary), I will only work on the Vitals lists and my draft articles. I won't even edit Art even though I don't see any issues with the Steps section I added.

If I'm banned across the entire site, I have a life to live, I can go live it :)

When I'm gone, I'd still like to know on my Talk Page about the Chadwick source, and if the Keys source is good as a secondary source that makes synthesis for my Picts claims.

I'd also like to say one more time, I did mostly join Wikipedia because I felt had to, to save lives. If the viewpoint of "Oh, a majority of trans people were just the opposite sex in a past life" was more common, who knows how many lives would be saved? Both suicide-wise from trans people who felt they didn't understand themselves otherwise, but also by potentially preventing hate crimes against them? By getting rid of the "Criticism" section on Reincarnation, and putting this viewpoint out there and being banned for it, I've felt I've done my part :) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're here in Wikipedia to advance the belief that trans people are reincarnations of dead people of the opposite sex? DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To advance it as much as I could without violating Wikipedia's policies such as

WP:UNDUE, yes, along with improving Wikipedia in general as an encyclopedia. That's why they are recommending a GENSEX ban too, even though this was about the Picts. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So you've just admitted to having an

agenda? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It is secondary to creating an encyclopedia. Besides, I've already fulfilled it. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you fulfilled it? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I will explain my thoughts because you’re being kind and I have nothing to lose. When it’s up to you to save lives, it’s like a weight is placed upon you until you do so. This led me to create my account even though it felt more bonkers than Counihan. Of course, I stayed at Wikipedia because I enjoyed building an encyclopedia, and there is a lot of work to do, a lot of misinformation out there. Did that lift the weight? Not quite. I was able to get consensus for a header at Reincarnation called “Reincarnation and science”. Before it said “Criticism” so this was a huge win for us. I tried to include the Childhood gender nonconformity source, but of course it was reverted. I was told to try the Childhood gender nonconformity page, this also failed. That pretty much lifted the weight, because there wasn’t more I could do. By writing what I did on my User page two days ago, that was even more putting this out there. Do I want to cuss out Mutt for treating me like shite the entire time they’ve known me? Sure, but maybe it was all meant to be, maybe since I’m getting attention here and my User Page is getting attention, maybe that was what needed to happen so someone who needed to see it would see it here. By blocking me for it, it will lift the weight completely, forever :) (right?) LightProof1995 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:UPNOT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait, so you're telling me that your only reason for editing Wikipedia is to enhance an

userpage, and doubling down on it? If you thought this would help your CIR case, then I have to tell you that it is not helping at all, my friend. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely per the above

WP:NOTHERE statement of intent to draw attention to their case through bludgeoning here. This does not supersede the ongoing community discussion of topic- and/or site bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have offered mentorship to LightProof1995. I have no idea if I can correct all issues that were displayed here but I'm up for a challenge. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wasting your time (having been burned like this before and eventually getting dragged into an arbcom leading to their siteban). Most mentorships work, but in some cases there is no point. I doubt LP1995 has any interest in Wikipedia except pushing their own fringe theories. They clearly have no interest in the spirit of our policies, except in understanding how to circumvent them. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. This user was… well, kind of out there to say the least. They literally stated that they were

WP:FRINGE theories about transgender reincarnation in hopes that it would stop hate crimes by appealing to religious people who believe in that stuff. In summary: What. Dronebogus (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

tf :) Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to everything, that agenda is, unfortunately, theologically confused. The supposedly religious people who commit hate crimes against transgender people are nominally Christians. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. Christians, including those who corrupt the faith by being hateful, believe that we only go around once in life, and then we go on to the judgment of God. The real difference between Christian beliefs and Buddhist beliefs is not in ethics, but about the soul. So the whole thing is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not even wrong. Dronebogus (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stroupoutsa Please protect my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη#Σε_ξεπάτωσαν ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Contact me | Contributions). 21:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

While recent changes patrolling today, I came across a user by the name of

Pinging User:Jimfbleak and User:Ponyo, who have deleted the promotional userpage at different times (including after I originally wrote this report). JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're making the same edits via two accounts. Lucier Raiid and Lenny Wolf ZA blocked for blatant promotion and socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DENY, I'll refrain. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There's not really a point right now unless they sock in the future; I clearly linked the connection in the block log and the user pages. (PS If you go back and add a ping after you've signed and saved an edit, the ping doesn't work).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I just wanted to know what you thought before I did anything that might not have been necessary. (And thanks for letting me know about how pinging works. I didn't know before, but fortunately I know now.) JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]