Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096

I propose a three-month topic ban to protect Wikipedia. Whether this is a literal violation of policy or not, it is harmful to Wikipedia's mission, and threatens the neutrality of the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there is really much room for doubt that WP:BLP policy was violated. I'd go further and suggest that a topic ban is more or less essential unless and until Stuartyeates acknowledges that such behaviour was improper. The problem won't go away after three months, it will go away when it becomes clear that Stuartyeates won't act in a similar manner again - any topic ban should be indefinite, with its lifting contingent on an appropriate appeal, based solely on a commitment to abide by policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Insufficient - the topic ban should be indefinite. These were flat out attack pages - articles on academics that contained next to no information on their academic work, had a massive undue focus on recent controversies and per the comments on twitter were deliberately created to try to portray people as racists. I don't see an editor of 17+ years changing their behaviour on the back of a 3 month ban. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• opppose 3 month ban, strong support indefinite BLP ban solely because this should be an indefinite BLP ban (honestly, a site ban is preferable given the
  WP:POINTY and highly inappropriate editing by Stuart.) CUPIDICAE💕
  16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd also change this to an indefinite site ban given their behavior. Grudge editing like this, where they've made their intent clear on and off-wiki to smear BLPs [7] is reprehensible and not conducive to a collaborative environment or creating an encyclopedia. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support 3 month ban or longer Strongly support indefinite BLP ban - I've got no experience from which to judge what the eventual decision here should be. Is there any even remotely similar occurrence that serves as a precedent? In the absence of any acknowledgment of contrition from
  Stuartyeates I struggle to see how anything short of a total ban on creating or editing BLP articles will have any effect whatsoever, though. And even then there would be serious problems relating to the sincerity expressed, given that any such acknowledgment could have been offered at an earlier stage in this entirely dismal saga. The initial deflection of claiming that "A single diff has been held up as evidence" in full knowledge of the other almost identical BLP articles they had created (and publicly gloated about) on the same day suggests that this contributor has no shame. JezGrove (talk
  ) 17:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)ban

Have amended my vote in light of further failure by Stuartyeates to confront the problem. JezGrove (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose as disproportionate punishment, assuming that the editor unambiguously admits to their mistake, affirms that said mistake will not be repeated, and takes both of those actions soon. @
  Stuartyeates:: if you fail to respond appropriately, this oppose !vote is likely to be changed to a support. JoJo Anthrax (talk
  ) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • JoJo Anthrax this tweet by the editor in question (from yesterday!) should give you an indication what they're intentions actually are. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from BLPs Three-months is insufficient, given that Stuartyeates has failed to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. The ban should apply to all accounts operated by this person (noting that their user page says they "own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy") and those accounts should be revealed to ensure compliance with the ban. Their actions in using Wikipedia to attack individuals were wrong. They've had time to acknowledge that and haven't. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Anyone have any evidence of problematic behavior other than this very specific issue? Stuart's been around here for a while -- is there any other cause for some of the severe actions floated above? I think we should be content if he just expresses understanding that it was really bad judgment and pledges to voluntarily stay away from any BLPs related to the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is why I proposed a time-limited topic ban. Get away from the current event that triggered their current actions and let them then demonstrate that a lesson was learned, and in the meantime allow them to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: it is my understanding that an indefinite ban is for an unknown amount of time. It may be lifed after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc, depending on the circumstances. --
  Spekkios (talk
  ) 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite does not mean infinite", as they say. Editors are usually recommended to follow the instructions at
    WP:STANDARDOFFER when considering to appeal their block or ban. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈
    23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support three-month topic ban Support indef BLP ban - seems to be no sign of an apology, an explanation or even any acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour. Quite unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Have adjusted my !vote in response to what others have written here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed Yeates's conduct on Twitter brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Given that they have displayed zero contrition for this behaviour or understanding why creating attack BLPs is wrong, I don't think that there is any reason to make the ban temporary. Temporary bans are just kicking the can down the road if the user doesn't fundamentally understand why what they were doing was wrong, as many admins at AE have come to conclude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed I should note first that I was the one who raised the original concern about
  Listener letter on science controversy. Whether he's violated Wikipedia policies or shown bad faith to a sufficient extent to merit harsher measures I'll leave it to more experienced editors to work out. He seems to have done good work on other sections of Wikipedia and I see no evidence that he won't be able to contribute positively outside of this topic in the future. When it comes to the topic of the Listener letter, though, and perhaps to NZ academics in general, he does seem to have a particular axe to grind, to an extent that he's no longer able to restrain himself from writing negatively-loaded BLPs with the declared intent of harming reputations. So, I would support preventing him from editing BLPs of NZ academics, especially those involved with the Listener controversy (which, at this stage, is a lot of NZ academics, since it's become a major debate among academics in NZ). Cleisthenes2 (talk
  ) 06:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support three-month or longer topic ban. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from BLPs Its up to Stuart to demonstrate why he should be allowed to edit BLP's again. Not us to assume that in 3 months time his attitude has changed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef ban from BLPs & Weak support Site ban The fact they have yet to respond on this thread but felt Twitter was appropriate outlet to make light of the situation brings into question whether they have the temperament to edit here at all but at minimum they can not be allowed near BLPs while a cloud hangs over their motivations and as a ban is preventative, not punitive, they need to convince the community that such trust can be restored down the road.Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Slywriter: am I missing something? AFAICT, Stuartyeates hasn't done anything publicly on Twitter for over 16 hours which was a retweet of this [8]. Please note that this thread only really blew up in the very early morning NZ time, indeed by the time of JezGrove's comment "In his introduction at the start of this discussion" it was already 2320 NZ time. It's currently 1318 so Stuartyeates may be at work or otherwise lack the time to deal with this since it blew up. Note that this [9] was posted over 30 hours ago, well before this thread was started by Stuartyeates. It concerned the NPOVN discussion which was frankly a mess with no one even establishing that Stuartyeates had linked their Twitter account until after this ANI AFAICT. I mean if you want to blame Stuartyeates for not responding adequately to the NPOVN whatever, I don't want to get in to that. But blaming Stuartyeates for not responding yet to this ANI they started seems to be some combination of blaming them for not living on Wikipedia, and blaming them for living in NZ and keeping normal hours (unlike me). Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Nil Einne,I did indeed misread timestamp and which noticeboard was referred to in the tweet, though disdain for the NPOV thread isn't much better. I've stricken the weak support for site ban pending their response, my views on a BLP ban remain unchanged.Slywriter (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from BLPs - this user's deliberate attempt to create what are in effect attack pages are absolutely unacceptable. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban from all BLPs The problematic article creation appears to have been highly focused on a topic which is mostly in the rear-view mirror. A topic ban from all BLPs would be punitive, not preventative. They've stated If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, which is a voluntary commitment to avoid a broader area than even has been found to be problematic.
  talk
  ) 05:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  N.B. The quote in green is from an edit time-stamped 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC), which is after all of the bolded !votes above.

  talk

  ) 05:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The quote above in no shape or form actually amounts to an admission that Stuartyeates did anything wrong. To the contrary, it appears to be trying to justify his behaviour, by implying that the academics featured in the biographies concerned met Wikipedia notability criteria for 'negative' reasons. Something that Stuartyeates, as someone who has created many biographies of academics knows to be false. The individuals concerned met Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria, did so prior to the letter incident, and would have fully merited the same sort of careful, balanced coverage that Stuartyeates seems to have put into other biographies. A balanced coverage that by his own public statements involves taking time to do proper research, rather than churning out 'biographies' in a couple of hours each, consisting of nothing but the briefest summary of the individuals actual notable academic work entirely dwarfed by the boiler-plate material placed to draw attention to individuals alleged 'racism'. The biographies were created to cast the individuals in a bad light. They were grossly unbalanced. They should not have appeared on Wikipedia in the form they were in. Unless and until Stuartyeates is prepared to admit that creating such negatively-motivated 'biographies' is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a violation of trust put in someone who seems to have done much genuine good work on coverage of academia, it is my opinion that he should not be permitted to make further edits concerning biographies of living persons. Whether others who made similar suggestions above still hold the same opinions, after reading Stuartyeates' statement is for them to say - but what they wrote cannot simply dismissed because Stuartyeates has made an equivocal statement that fails to address the issues raised in any proper manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that several biographies were created in a bad state, and with a motivation that crossed a line. (I don't think that "I created this article to tell the world that so-and-so is racist" is necessarily a bad act; sometimes, what makes a person notable is that sources of indisputable reliability document them being a huge racist. That's not the case here, per your point about

  talk

  ) 18:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  'Indefinite' doesn't mean 'never'. It means (in this case) 'not until you acknowledge that WP:BLP policy applies, and that editing to score political points in such a manner is entirely inappropriate'. If Stuartyeates is unwilling to make such an acknowledgement, it is unfortunate, but given the centrality of WP:BLP policy, I simply don't see how we can just act as if there is no longer an issue. There very much is one - a major contributor to articles who refuses to concede that policy applies to them. As I noted in this thread some time earlier, if this was a new contributor, they'd likely have been blocked immediately. Contributors with significant experience have been subject to similar broad topic bans before, and for similar reasons. The problem isn't just with specific edits. It is with a refusal to accept that he was in the wrong, or with a fundamental misunderstanding of core policies. Either of which is more than adequate grounds for a general topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Having reviewed the articles that set this off, I didn't see a failure to recognize that

  talk

  ) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The ban proposed is targeted. It is aimed directly at preventing a contributor who has (in Levivich's words below) been "weaponizing Wikipedia" from doing so again. Given Stuartyeates refusal to admit wrongdoing, this targeting is entirely appropriate, since we don't know where such weapons might otherwise be aimed in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  By that logic, why limit the ban to BLPs? That sounds like an indef siteban argument to me; if we assume that an editor is willing to "weaponize Wikipedia", surely they'd weaponize any part of it.

  As usual when I drop by ANI, I am genuinely failing to follow the connection between the observed behavior and the proposed response. And as usual, I can tell I'm going to be in the extreme minority here, so I'll stop now.

  talk

  ) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Misery loves company, I suppose! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, my reasons for favoring an indef BLP TBAN and not a siteban in this situation are: the potential harm for BLPs is greater, and harder to reverse, than for non-BLP articles; it's been like six months since the attack BLPs were created; Stuart brought themself to ANI, for which some credit should be given; an otherwise spotless record; donated a ton of time to the project over many years; and, a TBAN gives Stuart the opportunity to go edit elsewhere for a while, reconsider this issue, and then ask for the TBAN to be lifted, which I think (and hope) is the likely outcome here. Levivich 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Biographies of living people need to be written with care and with upmost compliance to all content policies because they have the potential to cause serious harm to their subjects - for most people their Wikipedia page will be the first result in search engines and will be scraped across the entire internet. Stuartyeates has shown that they are willing to abuse Wikipedia to write attack pages on people they dislike, so I no longer have confidence in their ability to edit BLPs. Their response here is completely inadequate and to my eyes reads like they don't actually understand what they did wrong - they are making ridiculous points like "it's not fair that I got caught on twitter, if I hadn't used the my real name here no-one would have noticed the attack pages I was writing" and are still insisting that there was nothing wrong with pages they were writing, as if an article on an academic where their entire academic career is condensed to a single line and 80% of the article text is a rant about them signing a letter is a fair and balanced representation of their career. Since Stuartyeates doesn't actually seem to have made any acknowledgement of wrongdoing here I have no confidence that they understand their mistakes and won't repeat them in the future. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef BLP ban because Stuart's response does not assure me that he understands BLP or NPOV policy, so I don't trust him to self-police, as I don't think he gets what he did wrong here. Just today he wrote, The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. That's alarming to me, because those articles were very obviously not balanced or neutral. In addition, given the very recent public announcement of an intention to violate BLP and NPOV policy, I want to assure the rest of the world that no, this editor will not be writing anyone's biography on Wikipedia. I meant what I said that using Wikipedia to attack another person is the worst thing an editor can do editing-wise. Using Wikipedia as a tool to attack others can accurately be described as "weaponizing Wikipedia". The public, our readers, need to have absolute trust in us that we take this seriously and that we can, and will, act to stop and prevent it. Levivich 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban Only in death says it perfectly above. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban, like with GeoSwan before, and Tenebrae before that; I take a very dim view of using our pages/processes to attack and harass people. This is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban, much for the the reasons as Levivich above. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attack living people you have a disagreement with, and their responses to the concerns that have been raised by the community do not inspire much confidence in me. Endwise (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban. I thought these were pretty blatant attack pages even without knowing the creator had made his intentions explicit on twitter. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from BLPs, broadly construed: Delibrate creation of pages for the sole purpose of attacking their subject for whatever reason is unacceptable. They clearly intend to continue to do so, and refuse to admit that there is an issue with doing so. Unacceptable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001: They clearly intend to continue to do so based on what? Four days before your comment, they wrote If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed). --JBL (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef ban per XOR'easter: there is, in all the posts above, no evidence whatsoever of a broad problem with BLP editing; there is at worst evidence of a very narrow problem with editing around a very particular incident. --JBL (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban There is so much intent being read into these tweets (which are being viewed as 100% the truth), and yet Stuart's responses are not being seen as honest or in good faith (despite him apologising and stating he has no intention to further edit or create any of these pages). I feel that an indefinite ban from BLPs is unnecessary and would, at most, support a three month ban around this specific topic.

My understanding of Wikipedia rules is limited, however a strongly question some of the arguments being made, particularly in relation to 'turnip slapper'. From what I can tell, Stuart did not use the word on Wikipedia, so whether it exists as a slur or violates

WP:NPA

is not relevant IME. Regardless, the meaning and origins of the term has been misunderstood (and has nothing to do with showing us Pākehā as poor farmers). The term developed widespread use among twitter after a now-deleted account (deletion irrelevant to slapping turnips) joked about the meaning of the word Pākehā, breaking it down to pā and keha. I believe this was in relation to the issue where some Pākehā feel that the term Pākehā in itself is a 'racial slur', citing our sensitivity (the response from which has made this Wikipedia thread all the more of a joke on twitter). 'Turnip slapper' became widely adopted *particularly* among Pākehā on twitter, and is often used fairly neutrally.

To be debating on wiki whether its use (by Stuart on twitter!) is intended as a slur is a bizarre attempt at portraying intent, and trying to bring culture in from the twittersphere requires a lot of understanding of what are very different dynamics. If he's banned from BLPs for an argument that relies at all on him using turnip slapper as a 'slur' on twitter, so should myself and various other Wikipedia editors (whether they are Pākehā, tauiwi, or Māori).

Stuart made a poor decision, and one where his intentions were not neutral. They did not have significant consequences, and were easily remedied. He didn't partake in any edit warring (I believe). He doesn't appear to have taken any action since this thread that suggests he intends to repeat his actions or escalate anything, and demanding apologies which satisfy every wrongdoing (some more debatable than others) doesn't feel constructive IMO. Although I feel the pages now lack information about the Listener article which is relevant & a major reason for their names to have become more known in NZ, I don't have the wiki knowledge for BLPs to argue this.

BLPs DO need to be created with the utmost care, and Stuart did not do this. His failing in this regard imo should not require grovelling in order to be able to do good and provide constructive, helpful work for BLPs in the future — he knows he messed up, he's apologised for it, and he doesn't intend to do it again. That's been pretty clear, and he's not taken any actions that would suggest otherwise. I oppose the ban for this reason: is the punishment he is receiving really justified, constructive, or helpful given no evidence he wishes to repeat his actions, or is it to make others feel better? (apologies for any formatting mistakes, I'm not very good with the source editor on my phone) Pseudomugil (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pseudomugil: Just out of curiosity, how did you find out about this discussion? Did you read about it off wiki? I'm curious how an editor with 100 and something edits who has never touched project space came across this discussion, and why you've chipped in despite having (in your own words) a limited understanding of the rules and how BLP are supposed to be written.

I don't get why you're focusing on the "turnip slapper" parts of the tweet - despite Stuart spending multiple paragraphs writing about it above that's not the big issue here. The issue people have with Stuarts tweets is that he stated that he was specifically writing shitty copy paste stub articles on people just so he could make them look like racists [13].

Posting attacks on other editors on other sites absolutely could be relevant and can be considered as an aggravating factor by administrators - the policy you linked specifically mentions this - Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that there were "no significant consequences". For 6 months the biggest piece of internet coverage that these academics had - the first thing you would have seen if you googled their names - was an attack page. Pages that completely missed major academic academic accomplishments like being a Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand and instead consisted of a copy pasted paragraph that only presented one side of a major controversy in a manner that was specifically intended to make them look like racists.

Why have you mentioned edit warring? No-one has accused Stuart of edit warring, why is it relevant to a BLP topic ban? The only person who seemed to think it was relevant was Stuart.

Can you point out which of Stuart's responses made you think he understands the seriousness of his actions and won't repeat them? His first attempt [14] was nothing more than ridiculous deflection and responses to non-issues no-one had even raised ("you can't be racist against privileged people" "I never edit warred" "I'm being censored") and his second attempt [15] apologises with the caveat that what he said was actually all just a massive "joke"! I don't see anything above that convinces me that Stuart actually sees the seriousness of what he did.

Stuart has shown that he is willing to create pages attacking people he dislikes, and from his responses here to be completely unsatisfactory. Indefinite does not mean infinite, if Stuart is willing to actually address the issues with his editing without trying to come up with stupid justifications for them then he can appeal. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or any other sanction. The incident which prompted these articles' creation was the first time the authors who had stubs created had strayed far enough into the public eye to attract enough public attention to make a Wikipedia article necessary so it's disingenous to suggest that first explaining about this incident is somehow writing an unbalanced article. Anything else is based on statements apparently made elsewhere which is not under Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh man... what you're describing is why we have rules like
    WP:UNDUE. It's one thing to oppose a sanction here, but anyone who looks at those creations and thinks they comply with policy should also be TBANed from BLPs. These were attack pages; there is no question about that. They are quintessential examples of what the entirety of BLP policy is supposed to prevent. Levivich
    16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban, per Levivich, AtG etc... Clearly this needs to be implemented in the absence of any convincing response (other than suggesting it might have been... a joke..?). Creating attack BLPs is the exact opposite of funny. Stuart can explain what it all meant in due course, during an appeal, if he'd like to, but in the meantime, and in the lack of any such convincing explanation/reassurance it's up to us to make sure the damage is prevented from continuing. Begoon 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from BLPs, ranging from 3 months to indef (with an inclination towards the latter). BLP is one of—if not the—most important real-world policy we have; it's literally the page that, while we adhere to it, effectively prevents WP/W<MF from being sued on a regular basis. Creating attack pages should be the very definition of NOTHERE. Or, to flip the coin, WP:HERETOFUCKUPTHEPEDIA. SN54129 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• JGabbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• South African farm attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JGabbard is an open racist who shouldn't be allowed to edit on Wikipedia.

1: [22]

2: [23]

3: [24]

4: [25]

Desertambition (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Whew, JGabbard is wildly out of touch with reality on that talk page. Perhaps a topic ban would be a good idea. CUPIDICAE💕 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • JGabbard was topic banned from "the subjects of vaccination, conspiracy theorists, and COVID-19, all broadly construed" in May 2020: see here.[26] Given this rant [27] I would suggest that if this isn't already a violation of the ban (which one might reasonably argue it is, given that it seems to be suggesting that the mass media are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide 'genocide' by the SA government), the ban should be extended to cover it. Or maybe we can do without JGabbard's 'contributions' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an actual block is in order in that case. I don't see any value in denying factual evidence that's plainly written. CUPIDICAE💕 15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yikes. Taking a look at his userpage, no surprises to see he lists violent racists such as Tommy Robinson and bigots such as Ian Paisley as inspirations. His comments regarding South Africa linked above suggesting the democratic, multi-racial society of today is inferior to the apartheid regime is frankly disgusting and unhinged. If not already topic banned from this area, one needs to be put in place urgently. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Sheesh, I would think an outright block if they don't rescind those comments is in order, or is just in order anyway. Incidentally their Userpage is also a massive
  WP:COPYLINK violation, a lot of the Youtube videos they link to are copyright infringing. Canterbury Tail talk
  15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• WP:NONAZIS would seem to apply here. Supporting a racist regime (like apartheid) and actively spreading racist nonsense is simply incompatible with Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
  ) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The present South African regime is a damnable, execrable, anti-white, genocidal institution, exceeding by light years the racism of the DeKlerk administration, and systematically replicating the
    1804 Haiti massacre in slow motion, on a larger scale. is the kind of stuff that's rather uncontroversially described as racist nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
    ) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree that that's pretty shitty, and I can't fault you for for arguing for an indef block. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm going to refrain from passing judgment a la "User X is a racist"--that is not a thing we should be doing. Having said that, the editor's comments on that talk page are highly troubling. I just discovered, in the talk page archives, that I said in 2016 that I had worked on that article as an editor, so I'll stick to commenting. I believe that JGabbard should be topic-banned from that article AND its talk page. This edit and the linked ANI post from 2020 suggest they really need to stay away from any political article, including BLPs, which fall under disputed areas such as those governed by AP2, climate change, pseudoscience, etc., because of their totally skewed ideas on reliable sourcing. I'm unwilling to propose an indef block, since there are areas in which they can be productive (those songs and musicians), and for the same reason a NOTHERE block is not appropriate either. Also pinging EvergreenFir, who has some experience with this editor on the South African farmers talk page, and Barkeep49, who closed the ANI thread in 2020. And yes, half of that user page needs to go, per NOTWEBHOST and possibly copyright problems. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef per NONAZIs and they have been already TBanned for (roughly) similar behavior. The extent to which certain editors administrators can be willing to collaborate with racist editors, is troubling. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• indef per the above. There's no point in keeping a net negative around, especially when said net negative has, at best, a tenuous relationship with facts and the truth. It's obvious a tban didn't work, no reason to think another one would. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef Who cares that they contribute to other areas? The crap they expouse is damaging, that shouldn't be hand waived away. Comments stating otherwise is why we deserve the UCOC. Valeince (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, we seem to frequently dismiss bad behaviour simply because editors are productive in other areas, it's not something we should support or endorse. You can be an angel in 95% of your dealings, but if the other 5% are toxic then it's a hard no. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I do have some initial reservations about banning an editor who has been here since 2006 and done some genuinely good work. But, after having been told by the community to stay away from conspiracy theories, to be back again spreading falsehoods, this time about "government-sponsored white genocide in South Africa" is a major concern. The vile diatribe suggesting the apartheid regime was preferable to the current "genocidal" South African government is wholly, utterly unacceptable on an encyclopedia. Their understanding of what a reliable source is after 16 years on the project is also very concerning. Not sure how else these issues can be addressed. AusLondonder (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember one thing, it's an indef block not a permanent block, but it would force them to address the issues if they are to have a hope editing here again. Putting an indef doesn't necessarily mean kicking them off forever, that's a ban. Which means it can be an effective measure for dealing with things like this. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you are right to clarify my clumsy wording. AusLondonder (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed they are welcome to find another forum for their racism. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Star Mississippi 17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef (non-admin comment) this guy would need some seriously broad TBANs to become a net positive, and at that point there's not much of a reason to keep them around.
  casualdejekyll
  18:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm expanding articles with sources and user E-960 deletes it groundless multiple times [28], [29], because this anti-German user is outraged just by fact, that I'm writing about the German past of some places. Hope this will stop. I'm totally annoyed by this vandalism. Right now I'm taking a pause. --Jonny84 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the information as well, adding so much general history to a stub article about a small village is undue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've start a discussion at Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship were this can be talked about, rather than in edit summaries. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have in fact just noticed that you are copy pasting the same information across multiple stub articles about small villages. Maybe this would be better discussed at WT:Poland. I would ask you to stop, as doubling the size of these articles with the same text seems extremely bundue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 you can't call edits (any edits) "vandalism" unless that editor is intentionally attempting to vandalize Wikipedia. This is not the case here. Please refer to this thread (just above) where an editor might be warned or even blocked for doing precisely the same.[30]. Do you understand what "vandalism" means? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This user reverts whole edits which were sourced without reason for multiple times. Not for the first time. That is clearly vandalism or permanent Bias/POV. Do I need to explain more... --Jonny84 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe E-960 was the most gentle about this revert. But I don't see it as vandalism. There is valid reasons for removing this text. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 - Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, you know? Word “vandalism" should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Copy pasted from our policies. You should get familiar with them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to believe in good faith after years of this disruptive edits.. Especially when he is erasing the information of German past in thousands of articles by a bot right now. I wonder if it would be called good faith, if somebody would erase information of Ukrainian past of Crimea, since it's occupied by Russia since 2014. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear. Are you saying these polish villages are currently being occupied by Poland but truly belong to Germany? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I've just said Crimea is defacto part of Russia, so we don't need Ukrainian history there, if we don't need informations about German history in Polish villages articles. I think you are mistaking this not by accident. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question ActivelyDisinterested. Do you think Jonny84 that these Polish villages in reality belong to Germany by bringing the Crimea example? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

never mind the user answered 1 second earlier - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading with understanding would help.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Commenting without

personal attacks is better. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion now
  here, as it concerns multiple articles. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords
  ° 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, this is disruptive. Jonny84 nominates the page for deletion for no reason. [31] Why did you do that? Can you explain Jonny84? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is really escalating quickly. Have they been informed of Eastern European discretionary sanctions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, see here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  ... and Jonny84 deleted the information [32] calling a person - ..a nationalist.. in the edit summary ...oh Lord. Come on Jonny84, what were you thinking? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a tiny insignificant village without any important informations about the village itself. Why do we need it in future? --Jonny84 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that now you're editing to make a

WP:POINT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

GrizzCatBella edit conflicted me in reporting this. I'll just repeat my final sentence."With that I'm off to bed, with all the good faith in the world I start to wonder if we are being trolled" A bit over tired, I retracked that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand their behaviour. Editors sometimes go off the rails you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed your strikethrough formatting there, missed a \ Bsoyka (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First time striking a comment, of course it goes wrong. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 this edit of yours is exactly what vandalism is. You changed the article from this [33] to this [34] replacing it with text --> Mnichus [ˈmnixus] (German: Münchhausen) is just a tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit I just reverted [35] is also blatant vandalism by Jonny84. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm feeling bulled by some users right now, just for expanding stub articles with sources. Is it believable? I guess Wikipedia is based on fake and false informations nowadays.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not being bullied, and this definitely doesn't look like expansion with sources. Perhaps accusing other people of bullying isn't the best course of action here. Bsoyka (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you linked the right diff there? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope, fixed. Thank you! Bsoyka (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't put this information (about population) into the article, so why are you expecting a source from me? --Jonny84 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed the diff hopefully for real this time, referring to Special:Diff/1082767304. Bsoyka (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This was referring to this, this and this.. But thanks for ignoring my initial edits like this [36], which was indeed sourced and reverted with dubious arguments. I already knew it's not about a neutral discussion here... If an extension of stub articles are not wanted, then there should't be a template, which asks for expanding.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe any admins have commented yet. We're all just editors like you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • So are the administrators. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Take a break Jonny84 and cool off. Come back in a day or two. (friendly advice) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• I see that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:World Beating over German placenames has escalated. Note that unless it has happened again since, "nationalist" was addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Personal attack. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  No hasn't been repeated, that issue is stale. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So the users are not able to use the inserted sources and deleting it with the question about where it is mentioned [37], while the place name is clearly mentioned on page 29... I would call it intention.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Its not whether it's referenced, is whether it's
  due. These are different issues. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords
  ° 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • … neither of which are appropriate here, any more than they were last time. Take them back to Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship, Talk:Samuel Ludwik Zasadius#False informations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Multiple articles being expanded with the same text.. Here, we get to discuss tit-for-tat editing, deletion nominations when an editor does not get xyr way, and accusations of vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I have tried multiple times to move the content issues away, I was just reposting that message as you replied. This is obviously a heated argument, so let's all try and stay civil. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • What are you expecting? If this place belonged to Prussia, I'm writing about that and I'm not writing about Italy or Rome, if this place has nothing in common with that.. This mention of due is silly.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Calling something silly is not an argument, and this discussion (as it is about content) should continue at the link below. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Once again, I ask people interested in the content issue to join the discussion
  here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords
  ° 01:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I have attempted (hope it worked) to ping all user who have commented on this thread to the content discussion, in case they are interested. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, are you simply constitutionally unable to have a content discussion on a talk page instead of here? Because I and others have the power to make you only able to edit talk pages. Now what on Earth were Special:Diff/1082767304, Special:Diff/1082767119, Special:Diff/1082769321 all about? Everyone else, who may not have been around at the time, might care to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-07/Gdansk or Danzig and the background at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names and elsewhere. This is not a thing that we're going to let blow up because of one editor mucking around with deletion templates and accusations of vandalism, note, and the way that it will be prevented will not be beneficial to said editor. So this nonsense stops, now. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1) What's your point, I've used the talk pages many times.. 2) If users are deleting my additions with the argument, that it has nothing in common with the village or same text on many articles, then there should be a consistent action with similar informations. So I took similar actions. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT replacing all the info with: tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest is not what other users were doing. - GizzyCatBella🍁
    02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • For me, edits like this ([39]) are exactly the same.. And even more, suppression of history and facts and erasing of sourced extendings.. So this is my opinion against yours. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
      • This is not only my opinion Jonny84. I don’t think you are understanding nor benefiting from this exchange so let’s stop it here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
        • You were looking in a German speaking source about Prussia from 19th century for a Polish place name, which was introduced after 1945.. THIS says everything about your ignorance and your lack of will in any cooperation or exchange.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Now you are calling me ignorant which is
            WP:PA. ("thank you") PS - Cool off Jonny84, take a brake, seriously. - GizzyCatBella🍁
            03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • So you see no difference between a content dispute about where and how the encyclopaedia should discuss some history, and your scribbling false rubbish into articles as a tit-for-tat measure? I am administrator. Your editing privileges hang in the balance. I don't muck around when it comes to blocking for vandalism. Take time and think very carefully about what you say and do next. Uncle G (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • So you are accusing me now of putting in false rubbish into articles???? Now show and demonstrate me every single wrong information I put into articles.. Next you will tell me, that Prussia didn't existed... Go further, go on! Next you will deny, that there was an Expulsion of million of Germans.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Three other people have brought up the tit-for-tat vandalism with the point avoided each time. Wikipedia has no need of someone who vandalizes articles as tit-for-tat measures and doesn't even acknowledge the falsity of Special:Diff/1082767119. Editing privileges of Jonny84 revoked. I said that I do not muck about. Vandalism is unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [71] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at
  Fram (talk
  ) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively.
  Fram (talk
  ) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk
      ) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in
        Please ping me!
        12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to,
            Please ping me!
            12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @
            A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T) 
            🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them,

            Please ping me!

            13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of
    ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk

    ) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find".
        ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk
        ) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, "Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)