Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Scabab and box office figures[edit]

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

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [1] [2] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.
One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are verifiable as well as hugely outdated and incorrect. I'll only ever put the correct number. Scabab (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scabab: Ok, so it seems that you still don't get it. The objective of Wikipedia is to have reliable and verifiable sources that can confirm the info to which they are attached when someone accesses to them, not to keep updated figures just for the sake of keeping them updated and use any source available out there that you think that can work and you consider enough. What you deem "outdated and incorrect" and "correct" is totally irrelevant; you've insisted on adding ambiguous, self-published and generally poorly sourced links to articles, ignoring any guideline, policy and warning that have been told to you, keeping on making edits however you want. Xexerss (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the source. It's not my fault other people don't subscribe to see the information that's there on the site. Adding a source that can be confirmed means nothing when it's factually incorrect like the ones you're adding.Scabab (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, you could add a different source that has the same information (if such source exists) and can be accessed for free. If it's reliable infomation, this source should exist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scabab: If it's so important to you to keep the figures updated and use any unreliable source that you think is fine anyway, like Sportskeeda or Anime Hunch, then you could edit the Wikia of these films. It has been explained several times to you about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth with no understanding on your part. Xexerss (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now this user insists on citing unreliable self-published websites and blogs like Anime Hunch; Erzat and Sportskeeda. The later is already listed as unreliable on two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He also removed warnings from his talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This just needs to stop. Putting forward a TBAN on movies for Scabab. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's attitude clearly falls under WP:NOTHERE. They don't recognize their fault and don't even (at the very least) cite their sources in the right way, adding bare links with errors to articles. On top of that, they have the nerve to demand that other editors change their unreliable sources for better ones to support the content that they deem correct. As I pointed out above, Scabab has a long-term history of disruptive behavior, so I'm still wondering why they haven't received any sanction yet. Xexerss (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, they've hit their final warning on their talk page. Any further attempts to insert invalid sources, and I'd say WP:AIV is the right venue to have them blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He has stopped edited since January 29, so let's hope that continues. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They haven't stopped and they're still making (with little discretion) the same edits with IPs like this (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or this (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Xexerss (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no admin acts on the sock-puppetry accusation here, you could also try WP:SPI. (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked User:ferret to have a look at this. Timur9008 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I do not have time to evaluate this case right now. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, it's been over a week and the user keeps on making the same edits without any intention of changing their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994[edit]

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes ( and deletes the ones he doesn't like( (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With previous consensus[3] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [4] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)
That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [5] [6] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.
The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.
This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.
Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [7] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [8] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.
The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:
On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [9]
As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:
Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.[1]
I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [10] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

  • This user deleted the same information, leaving only what he liked.[11] - WP:POV violation.
  • This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
  • This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [12] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
  • Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [13] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [14] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [15] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [16] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn


  1. ^ "Somaliland Minister of Interior and traditional elders held meeting over Las Anod tension". 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2023-01-12.


Hi. I want to discuss MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) editing history as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a long time and despite many warnings they continue to do this (as they keep no talk page archive to avoid scruitny).

  • They have been draftifying reviewed articles (older than 90 days and sometimes six months old articles) despite numerous warnings. It seems like they are using it as a backdoor route to deletion which is not allowed per WP:DRAFTIFY. Per WP:ATD-I, older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. but MrsSnoozyTurtle has done it dozens of time per their filter log and is continously violating it.
  • Their grasp of WP:GNG is so weak that recently they tried to PROD Tufts University and a defunct (but very notable) jewelry company, Michael C. Fina.
  • Usually assumes bad faith and accusses users of stalking who disagree with them, e.g. User_talk:Jfire#WP:STALKING?, [20] and canvassing ([[21]]).
    • Deletes/removes sourced content without use of talkpage, for example, Sozo Water Park and Discover Pakistan TV were improved during AfDs, yet they still try to destroy the work done by good-faith editors.
  • Previous warnings
  • Above warnings are already too much and still they haven't improved their behavior. They are doing more harm than good so, I propose some sort of topic ban to stop this, especially related to draftification issue. They have avoided scrutiny because there is as such no record of all these warnings (complained by User:David Eppstein and others). During the ban, they can learn about the guidelines, and possibly work on creating actual content that improves Wikipedia, rather just destroying/deleting notable content from Wikipedia. (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment: I find it absurd that my quiet note and conversation pointing out an error can be characterised in any way as a warning. This is the conversation. MST accepts a genuine error. Every editor makes errors. By no means all admit them.
Having explained that conversation, I am not sure that I need to take any further part in this discussion, but will respond if asked. I can say that I encounter MST rarely and have always found them to be collegial and a decent editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has made me look again at Colors TV. Interested parties may see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors TV. I should probably have followed through with that at the time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IP, am I missing an explanation of who you are somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ... tried to PROD the Tufts University article? What the pluperfect hell? That has to be either one of the most dramatic WP:POINT violations in Wikipedia history, or else the editor is profoundly clueless. That being said, I'd have to say that over eleven years after registration and 31,000 edits, MrsSnoozyTurtle has learned all the guidelines she cares to do, and can be trusted to follow them about as far as is practical to do. Which does not seem too bloody far. Ravenswing 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (As a postscript, I just looked over both MST's talk page and the Tufts talk page, to see if there was some attempt at apology -- "oops, I hit a PROD button by mistake." Nope. What I did see was her slapping a maintenance tag on the article, it being removed with an exhortation to discuss her problems on the talk page, and her repeatedly restoring the tags while declining to respond to that and further requests. Doesn't look very collegial to me.) Ravenswing 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How does one accidentally suggest TNTing an article on the basis that the article is Promotional and poorly referenced to the extent that WP:TNT is the best option for the encyclopedia? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth, the PROD rationale was basically WP:TNT. I don't think it's a particularly good rationale for an article on such an institution (surely converting the article into a stub or simply removing some promotional sections would be incredibly less disruptive than deleting the whole article), but that's something for AfD (where this would probably be SNOW kept fwiw) rather than through WP:PROD, which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth is damn near nothing. Going straight for the TNT on the article for an institution of the prestige and impact of Tufts University is at level best profoundly blinkered. This diff represents the state of the article at the time the PROD was issued [38]; everyone here can judge for themselves whether the article needed extensive editing to meet our standards.

    Not, mind, that MST attempted to do so. That PROD was her first edit to the article in at least five years. She has never put in an appearance on its talk page. If she's indeed one of those rare editors who will admit error, this is a fine place to start. Ravenswing 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm mentioned in one part of the filing above, and I have, indeed, been watching at least some of what has been going on. Although I've been a long-time critic of the WP:ARS, I also think that fair is fair, and I do believe that there are some significant issues here. If you look at this sequence of two edits: [39], [40], you will see the most recent single incidence of something that has been happening repeatedly, to the point where it's difficult to conclude anything other than that MrsSnoozyTurtle is knowingly trying to annoy the other editors at the project, without particularly compensating for it with anything constructive. There have been a couple of times prior to that where I reverted her: [41], [42] during edit warring over whether or not to include the closer's name. I also observed an incident where she falsely and hurtfully accused another editor of canvassing: [43]. I'll add that there has been inappropriate conduct going the other way: [44], but that was an isolated incident, whereas here we are dealing with a lengthy pattern. I'd support a topic ban from anything having to do with ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The notion that deleting Tufts University would be uncontroversial is simply mind-boggling, and certainly calls this editor's competence into question. This is a serious problem and I am not sure what the best solution should be, but we need to find one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Tufts University article is horribly promotional in parts, with significant amounts of it being very close paraphrasing of the university promo material (with no citations, naturally), but that could easily be fixed by taking an axe to those sections. It's not even close to being in TNT territory. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The best solution is easy to find. It would simply be to block this editor to prevent any further disruption. We seem to be reluctant to block disruptive editors when they are prolific, but that's even more reason to block them because they prolifically make disruptive edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yet this editor has a clean block log, so no admin appears to have found any of their 31,000 edits before this report particularly problematic. A solution such as that discussed below is perfectly adequate. Meanwhile, like HEB above, I would also like to know the actual identity of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a difference between "problematic" and "block-worthy". I have certainly found their edits problematic before, and have said so on ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This ANI discussion from October 2022 concerned actions by MST [[45]]. This includes @David Eppstein highlighting a long term pattern of bad draftications. ResonantDistortion 08:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another example: 4 days ago MST sent to draft this article: Draft:Sergei Mirkin. This is nearly 13 years old and the article creator is no longer active. This very much appears to be backdoor deletion and the warnings referenced above have not worked. ResonantDistortion 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MrsSnoozyTurtle: this would be a really good time for you to show up here and say something along the lines of 'Yikes, OK I get it, I will never again use draftification in cases like this.' Seriously, draftification is a valid outcome of an NPP review, but it's not OK for long-standing articles. If you think an article that has existed for years is chock full of promotional crap (lots of them are), then you should (a) look for a better version to revert back to, (b) improve it yourself, (c) cut away the rubbish, even if that means stubifying it or (d) nominate at AfD. Please indicate that you understand this, or suggest other options if you can think of them. Girth Summit (blether) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Girth Summit. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I understand that draftification is not suitable for long-standing articles. That was a mistake and I will be careful not to do that again. (Just to clarify, I haven't read this thread fully, but will do this soon when I have time). Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have promised to pay more attention to the rules of draftification more carefully before, for instance in this February 2022 thread where you professed to be ignorant of the rules against draftifying the same article more than once. And yet as recently as December 2022 we find you repeat-draftifying an article three hours after a previous draftification was objected to. What reason is there to believe that this time, your promises to actually obey the draftification rules will be kept? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Upon a brief look at the move log, while many are valid, there seems to be many other such invalid draftifications in the recent days as well 1 Jan 2023 after a de-prod, 25 Jan, 29 Jan. One thing in common, it appears, is that she tags the articles with COI/Advert/POI maintenance tags and then moves to draft. I also see edit warring [46], [47] (including a bizarre failed verification tag) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At minimum, it feels like a ban on draftifying should be enacted here, since that appears to be the primary disruptive activity being done (though there are several others too, that Tufts action is just ridiculous). SilverserenC 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would support a ban on draftification. I think that would eliminate the worst of the problems. The mistake of prodding Tufts University is more spectacular, but the inappropriate prods and maintenance banners are more easily dealt with, and draftification can easily turn into stealth deletion with fewer checks and balances. (One might hope that whoever reviews the speedy deletion six months later would notice the problem, but I don't trust that to happen in all cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’d support a ban on draftification, PROD, and speedy deletion. — Jacona (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Noting for the record that I have just warned MrsSnoozyTurtle about edit warring with respect to WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Élodie Chabrol. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That goes beyond drafts, PROD, and CSD. I noted earlier that there are also problems with ARS. It really might be best to ban from all deletion-related activities, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards an all deletion activity ban as well, since all of their editing seems to revolve around trying to delete articles and remove whatever content they can get away with, regardless of the appropriateness of such an action. SilverserenC 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm mentioned by the OP here as one of the users that has been accused of stalking by MST. My first encounter with this user was on Sam Wasson, where I contested MST's prod (rationale: Promotional article) because the article was salvageable and the subject is notable. The article got draftified by another user, I cleaned it up and moved it back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and MST and two other users edit-warred over draftification [48] [49] [50] [51]. Subsequently MST edit-warred to remove the bibliography, which included not only the books Wasson has written, but review citations that help establish the subject's notability [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. So I concur that the issues go beyond draft and deletion activities. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've re-added in the bibliography with some minor changes. The edits by MrsSnoozyTurtle there are a bit bizarre. It almost seems like they are purposefully mixing together proper removals of content with improper removals on purpose, in order for the former to obscure the latter. Stealth vandalism, if you will. SilverserenC 21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm reluctant to attribute actual malicious intent. I think it's more likely an overzealous anti-WP:PROMO attitude combined with a miscalibration on what constitutes promotional content and how to best deal with it (e.g. reaching for TNT rather than cleanup as we see with Tufts). The edit-warring is of course not acceptable. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem I have with that -- and why I'm leaning to Cullen328's and Phil Bridger's side of things -- is that we're not dealing with a rookie here. These antics, coming from someone with a few hundred edits and three months' tenure, would be (hopefully) correctable by a trout slap and sitting the newbie down for some home truths. MST, by contrast, has been on Wikipedia for approaching twelve years, and she has over 31,000 edits. There is no bloody excuse in the world for "miscalibrations" and such a shaky grasp of the standards and practices regarding deletions and deletion policies. Sooner or later, editors need to demonstrate that they get it, and this is far past the sell-by date on that. Ravenswing 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FWIW If one were to investigate into the articles acted upon by MST with draftification/deletion, I'm confident we will defo find one or more UPE rings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe that many of their draftifications are of UPE. I also believe that many of their draftifications WP:BITE good-faith new editors by falsely accusing them of UPE. Once they have guessed that something is promotional they are very tenacious at fighting to wipe it from the encyclopedia, rather than allowing our processes to play out according to their rules. That is the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've just withdrawn the proposal below, but I want to express my personal opinion that we really do have a problem, and that the brief reply from MrsSnoozyTurtle in this discussion (followed by this: [58]) is not enough to put my concerns at rest. So I hope that no one will take my closing of the subsection as being a reason to close the discussion as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At minimum, I'm going to keep an eye on their editing when they get back from their vacation. If they continue the same draftification, PRODing, and edit warring activity they have been, then I suspect we'll be back here again soon enough. If they stop doing that sort of disruptive editing, then mission accomplished. SilverserenC 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd also just like to say that this user has been nuking huge amounts of content in various automobile articles, such as Transmission (mechanical device), glow plug, automatic transmission, and straight-eight engine. I haven't pored over the edits in the detail, however, at a quick glance they've removed the mention of a continuously variable transmission (which is an alternative to fixed-gear transmissions) for no good reason. They've also removed huge sections of unsourced text, which could be easily sourced but I do not wish to revert to a previous version on the basis of taking out good intermediate edits. They also moved Turbine-electric transmission on the basis that they "thinked" that powertrain was the more common term. Aren't moves without discussion supposed to be non-controversial? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I want to say that the OP has laid out a pretty good case for a topic ban. Speaking for myself I can say that I feel harassed by MrsSnoozyTurtle. I have not found them to be reasonable or helpful or collegial. Many times they follow the ARS project to ivote angularly, often they do not AGF and I have yet to see them ever attempt to improve the article's during AfD. At some point they have appointed themself the moderator of the ARS group; closing discussions, refactoring edits and accusing editors of wrongdoing. Even after a December 23 discussion where members agreed that we close the items on the ARS with the closer's name, MST obstinately continued to close discussions December 26, omitting the closer. I do not really think anyone needs more diffs than the OP has presented above. ATM it looks like there is some WP:ANIFLU on the part MrsSnoozyTurtle, but I do not their absence should prevent any action or sanction from happening. Everything needed is in the edit history of MST. Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To my eyes, the evidence presented above does look like problematic overuse of draftification. I would support some kind of restriction on draftification for this editor.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @MrsSnoozyTurtle: According to your note, you should be back here in a day or so. Please post a response here, on how you plan to proceed, going forward. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Tryptofish. Thank you for being patient about the delay while I was travelling. This has been a big wake-up call for me, in hindsight I was getting too emotionally involved in some articles, especially when it seemed that COI editing was happening. So I will be careful to not edit in the "heat of the moment" in future. Also, I will read the Draftification and PROD policies each time to check that I am following them, along with doing those actions far less. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that the statement that this has been "a big wake-up call", and the intention to be more careful going forward, are good steps in the right direction. Although I don't think a more detailed reply is required, I don't see a complete acknowledgment of all the concerns that have been raised, and I note that there have been at least a few unkept promises in the past. So I guess the proof will be in the proverbial pudding, in the editing patterns in the future. As Silverseren said a short way above, if there are continuing problems, "we'll be back here again soon enough." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for topic ban[edit]

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

Proposal: MrsSnoozyTurtle is banned by the community from page blanking, draftification, and all deletion-related actions and discussions, broadly construed.

  • Support as proposer. It seems to me that the discussion so far has demonstrated that there is likely to be consensus for some sort of action to be taken. In my opinion, we are short of what would justify a site ban, but there does need to be a significant restriction. I believe that the discussion has shown that the problems center around deletion, in multiple forms, and that something like the language I propose will capture what we want to achieve. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as per Tryptofish's reasoning. ResonantDistortion 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This seems to be the locus of the ongoing problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question. What is the evidence that the user has abused AfDs? Is there am specific reason why their commenting at AfD or their nominating of articles for AfD has been a problem? Their AfD stats look fine on my end, so I'd want a bit more evidence of AfD-specific disruption before considering a topic ban that includes AfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not so much a matter of their keep/delete metrics, as their conduct related to those discussions. For starters, please see the evidence from the OP and from me about things like asserting bad faith on the part of other editors who participate in AfD discussions with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [59] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [60]. Also this AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [61] per the talk page [62] and history. ResonantDistortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Little evidence of them abusing AfD, as RTH has mentioned just above. Topic ban from page blanking and draftification - fine, yes, but this is an overreach. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about CSD, PROD, and ARS? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose CSD and PROD maybe, but this is overly broad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question. Based on feedback so far, I'm receptive to withdrawing this version of the proposal and replacing it with one that's worded differently. At the same time, I think it's important to frame any restriction on an editor in a sufficiently clear and simple way that it leaves no room for confusion about the boundaries. I am wondering about: "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", although I also feel like that might get to be too long a list. Also, should it include WP:ARS? (I tend to think it should, although maybe some editors feel that it's not worth worrying about.) I'd like to get some editor feedback on that, before I take any action about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support a topic ban on "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", if others feel deletion-related activities is too broad. But the misuse of draftification and CSD/PRODs is the main problem here and clearly needs to be addressed. SilverserenC 05:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment I find it highly irregular that an IP materializes out of the blue after an apparent UPE has begun stalking MST, in the wake of a pretty contentious Afd which an apparent UPE sock farm lost. I advised on MST's Talk to go to AN/I, advice which the UPE apparently took. I'd guess that a sock farm keeps an AN/I specialist on board for the purpose of avenging their defeats. The above AfD was, for me, a tutorial in UPE socks in action, as every !KEEP came from yet another blind apologist. If anyone would like to look into that bunch, you should find a nice web of 'coincidences'.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Not quite - check the timelines - the IP submitted this AN/I 5 hours before your comment on MSTs talk page [63] ResonantDistortion 06:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ResonantDistortion, wow and thanks; the utter irony for MST. I stand by my accusation otherwise. Losing Biotique, however justifiably, has upset them greatly and they're out for blood. My initial impression of MST was as someone to avoid, but when I saw they were sniping with one of the suspected UPEs, I looked at the AfD and perceived a factory-made piece of unambiguous UPE. These parasites may be Wikipedia's undoing. Now to grab some diffs.-- Quisqualis (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Quisqualis your allegation against of sockpuppetry is unsubstantiated. You are free to to run or request SPI against me. I am writing this because I am not a sock. I stand with my confidence. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Quisqualis: These are pretty big accusations to be backed up with as little as you've provided. In lieu of a breakdown of this mess of a comment, I'll ask: do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Because I don't think you actually checked the diffs you point to as stalking, and Twinkle1990 being a UPE isn't terribly "apparent" to me. You're also clearly alleging bad faith. I'd strongly suggest either ponying up some pretty diffs, or striking the greater portion of that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The Biotique AfD has been discussed at SPI, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as per they have Bludgeoning here, here, here, here and repetitively badgering the articles and editors without having WP:CIR about WP:NTV and MOS:TV . I wonder to see their edit history if they are WP:NOTHERE or not. Let's admins to decide. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't much in the way of evidence at scale as a consistant habit. It seems overbroad for a productive editor. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose ban as currently worded--I think there is potentially a case for a ban from draftifying and BLAR-ing (and maybe PROD, although despite the very POINT-y Tufts example it's not clear that there's a continuous problem relating to that procedure), but I'm not seeing clear evidence of issues with CSD or at AfD, and note that the latter, in particular, is typically the correct venue for moving towards consensus when there's an impasse over whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: The OP's complaint is about MrsSnoozyTurtle's actions. A sanction that, as worded, prevents her from even expressing an opinion, is way heavy-handed. Further, no one should be draftifying a long-standing article without AfD so there's no point in banning one individual from doing it. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Draftification seems to be the main issues, and MST's response has been contrite, and as sanctions should be preventative not punitive, I see no evidence one is required at this time. This section will serve as notification that they need to slow down a little on the other decisions. JeffUK 16:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support ban on "page blanking, draftification" and would consider supporting ban on starting PRODS and AFDS. I see no reason to ban from deletion-related "discussions" -- invovlement in discussions could help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: The proposed ban is too broad as currently worded. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user claims to be a new user and and is leaving extremely WP:BATTLEGROUND comments such as [64] [65] [66] [67]. Attitude is not compatible with collaboration and user seems to believe discussion is not necessary for them. They also misrepresented their edits and claimed they were simply reorganizing the material when they were actually removing content, then said it was "Small potatoes" and let's move on[68]. I tried to tell them they need to discuss their edits and they claimed discussion already happened prior to their arrival so that they do not need to. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years [69] I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. [70] Andre🚐 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your participation hasn't been honest. You should answer those charges. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, what are you referring to? You accused me of obstructing the page for years when my first edits to the page were in October 2022. [71] What exactly am I dishonest about? Andre🚐 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now this is third page that you have redirected attention. My user talk page, The NPOV message board (, and this. You explicitly say you won't answer the direct questions put toward you on the talk page (, then start making noise anywhere else. This is grossly dishonest. You are playing an attrition game to get what you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thread is to flag your behavioral issue to admins. The NPOV noticeboard is to flag the discussion on the talk page of the article. And yes, you also have your own talk page where I have warned you. This is not dishonest or forumshopping. Andre🚐 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please see more indication of battlegrounding, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and an intention to edit war on the related NPOVN thread that I started prior to this one[72] Andre🚐 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Due to the effort of about six contributors who decided it was time to start making edits instead of keeping talking about it, it is now an objectively better article, especially in the lead in. Compare the current version, to the version that I first saw. And this came from editing, not rehashing months and years old arguments. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. A volley of edits after that much talk will produce much more than any further talk ever could. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are a bunch of edits being made now that are productive due to the post that I made on the NPOV noticeboard. Which you accused me of dishonesty and forumshopping. Do you withdraw those accusations? Andre🚐 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I steadfastly claim still that your history on that page shows a general unwillingness to make any improvements for nebulous reasons. An strongarming me as you did appeared desperate almost. Like some terrible harm would happen to you if I edited the page. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is a personal attack and is forbidden here. Also violates WP:AGF and in general incompatible with collaboration. Andre🚐 21:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently not given this? Andre🚐 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thread may be automatically archived soon, given inactivity, and it is the first incident for this user, where ANI is a last resort for intractable problems. But that should not be taken as an endorsement of such behavior. If such behavior continues it can and will lead to another thread and/or additional sanctions and blocks. It is good faith to assume that an apparently new user is a new user. In the absence of a bright line violation after warnings, this thread may be archived without any action, but again if this does happen, it does not excuse or allow such behavior as personal attacks, alleging bias without evidence, questioning the motives of apparently good faith contributors, or edit warring against consensus without discussion. Andre🚐 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs[edit]

"I don't f-ing care", "This website's notability rules have become a load of **** since that wrongly-closed WP:NSPORTS2022|discussion from a few months back", "Are you kidding me?", "ridiculous" (the closing non-admin re-opened), canvassing Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see how any of that is an issue at all. And again, that was not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Boomerang. None of given diffs are disruptive. BeanieFan11 was asked to provide AfDs, so it's not canvassing, and it seems Therapyisgood was told exactly that by an admin before posting this. Filer should be reminded that ANI is a last resort and not to be used for trivial disputes. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikiproject editors violating notability rules I think the bigger issue being presented here is Wikiproject NFL members appear to be actively trying to circumvent GNG notability requirements for sports biographies (as determined by community consensus months ago) by canvassing each other to vote Keep en masse in these AfDs. Some of the AfDs have resulted in editors like BeanieFan11 presenting proper sourcing to meet notability requirements, but many others have NFL editors actively ignoring notability requirements and voting keep "per IAR". This is a much bigger issue than just what was presented by Therapyisgood above. SilverserenC 01:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Commenting on the wikiproject talk page is not canvassing, and IAR is a policy, so I see no problem. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • IAR is not a policy to circumvent notability requirements for articles. The fact that you are even suggesting as such shows just how out of line said Wikiproject members are acting. SilverserenC 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Per IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I know as an NFL editor that in several of these cases, deletion would not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances, and generally requires post facto sanction from the community (I recall an emergency desysop a bureaucrat did to stop a rogue admin). It does not permit us to ignore rules and policies whenever we feel like it. You're refusal to accept a very largely-attended RfC outcome sounds more like WP:IDHT behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances – these are exceptional circumstances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • How? Mere personal disagreement with the decision of the community does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Several are more than a "mere personal disagreement" – a few of these are in fact "exceptional circumstances" (one in particular especially). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • Please explain how they are exceptional. If not, why can't I use IAR to declare myself God of the 'Pedia and then just unilaterally decide which article should be kept and which ones should be deleted according to my own ideas about what is best for the content? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Honestly, at this point, since NFL project members have their own list on their talk page where they are making sure to all together vote Keep on said AfDs, I think it's only appropriate to include said list here for the community at large to weigh in. And I will point out now that several of these are discussions where significant coverage has been presented and I myself voted Keep in the ones where that has occurred. So this isn't an all one way or the other sort of list.
But, yeah, I think there needs to be a broader set of editor eyes on the proceedings going on here and the flagrant abuse of IAR claims. SilverserenC 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that these are "flagrant abuse of IAR claims" – for a few of them (one in particular especially), IAR is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the IAR claims are not substantially all that great due to interactions with WP:CONLEVEL, they're being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. That being said, I do think that adding a note in the AfDs themselves regarding the fact that they were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League would be warranted, and could look something like those deletion sorting messages. The notifications appears to be neutral in tone, but it might be warranted to slap {{notavote}} on each of the AfDs if we want to indicate that canvassing may have occurred. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green, Silverseren advised that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. BeanieFan's response: No, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. This is blatant WP:GAMING (specifically WP:STONEWALL) in an attempt to subvert notability requirements which were created after extensive discussion in 2022 and after the community scrapped many number-of-games-played-type notability standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm involved in the discussion and have made several of the IAR arguments. What specifically is the violation being considered here at ANI? Is it just some civility comments, or is it because editors are in disagreement on the weight of one argument vs another?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd argue that you're the one that's going against the spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's relevant to the discussion that this issue started with Therapyisgood nominating 9 NFL player articles in a short period of time.
Beanie cares, they're one of the best that I've seen at improving articles so that they survive AfD. There's been numerous times I've seen NFL topics nominated, look back at the page the next day, and the article has been significantly improved. They're frustrated that you've nominated a number of articles at the same time, as are others.
They approached you on your talk page, asking you nicely to stop nominating NFL articles so that they could improve the ones that you nominated. You removed it 7 minutes after they reached out without responding to them.
You were approached by an admin regarding the mass nominations, and you dismissed their recommendation.
@Lepricavark commented on the thread on your talk page, recommending that you listen to what others are telling you. You removed it with an edit summary of Stay off my talk page.
You also issued a template warning to BeanieFan11 and proceeded to accuse them of canvassing at a number of different AfD discussions. There was then a reply to you from an admin, posted on all of the discussions that you made the accusation on, recommending that you strike your accusation of canvassing.
Frankly, I think you've been very hard headed and difficult to work with in this whole situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the nominator's credit, the nom didn't bundle all of them, so each of the discussions can proceed on their individual merits. That being said, some of the noms were for athletes that were very quickly shown to have received SIGCOV, so I would urge the nom to conduct a stronger WP:BEFORE before nominating these sorts of articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NFL Wikiproject members canvassed here I thought everyone should know that and why Paulmcdonald, Hey man im josh, and I'm sure others will likely soon be here arguing for IAR to overrule GNG notability requirements. SilverserenC 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That is not canvassing to let the NFL editors know about this, considering this is about the NFL editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I voted in all of the deletion discussions and not once did I mention IAR, which you can review and search through here. I believe these players meet GNG, but I acknowledge that I may have a different view of what GNG is than others do. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I went through the AfDs listed above and recommended keeping four articles and deleting four articles. One appears heading to a snow close so I refrained from that. So, I am neutral on the underlying NFL player dispute. It seems several editors here are taking dogmatic stances that result in unnecessary confrontation and that includes editors on both sides. As for invoking IAR as if that wins disputes, gimme a break. Others can holler IAR as well. IAR should be used sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. As an administrator, I could cite IAR to block editors who rub me the wrong way, but I think I would be desysoppped pretty quickly if I persisted with that. Draw your own conclusions from that obvious fact. Trouts all around. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you--more commenting from uninvolved editors is likely the best solution and would yield the best outcome than all the arguing in the world here. More input, involvement, and discussion is good, but I don't see any real reason for this to be at ANI and I suggest this be closed here.-- Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uninvolved editor here. My impression is that Therapyisgood could have done more to try to resolve the dispute before taking it to ANI, but they have identified legitimate WP:CIVILITY issues. Silverseren is definitely correct that there is a much bigger issue here of users at WikiProject NFL attempting to WP:Game the system. The former might have been resolved with a simple discussion, the latter is not going away without serious community involvement. I would have been willing to believe that this was a misunderstanding, but the invocations of WP:IAR are quite damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The canvassing of an AN/I discussion is particularly troublesome. CMD (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eh, I don’t think that’s the problem. This ANI was questioning some project members MO as using IAR as a trump card to do whatever they wanted, so them coming to the discussion probably would’ve happened anyway. The bald use of IAR is what troubles me. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is a separate problem. People probably coming to discussions is not an excuse for canvassing (it somewhat flies in the spirit of it). CMD (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it is not canvassing to let editors know of an ANI discussion relating to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that we have a Gridiron Article Rescue Squadron creating controversy similar to the Article Rescue Squadron. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Are you saying that it is an issue that me and a few others try to save notable player articles from deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • After reading through some of this, I would say that your rather antagonistic efforts are the issue here, yes. Just because you claim notability does not automatically cement that as fact. That is why we have deletion discussions, because the matter is up for debate. ValarianB (talk)
  • Comment - I thought, in the ArbCom case on behavior in deletion discussions, that one of the factors was that some editors behaved disruptively and stubbornly, both to support and to oppose deletion, and that Discretionary Sanctions should be imposed. I don't want to say "I told you so", and so I won't now, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: While I'm in broad agreement with Silverseren about the notability of these players, and while I agree that a lot of people have been trying to subvert, ignore or defy the consensus deprecating participation criteria, and while I firmly believe that citing IAR in a deletion discussion is almost always the last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their "I know what I like" stances, there's nothing sinister in Wikiprojects being notified of deletion discussions. It happens routinely across the board. Ravenswing 07:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, IAR is not a "last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their 'I know what I like' stances." It is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Frank Anchor 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I stand by my statement: IAR is routinely -- and I daresay overwhelmingly -- used to defy any and all guidelines and policies, and any consensuses, in defense of the speakers' pet hobby horses. Take this dispute, for instance. Claiming that removing unimprovable sub-stubs concerning obscure nobodies who played a football game or two would "damage" the encyclopedia is just this side of certifiable. Ravenswing 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The exception is if the WikiProject is a biased audience; from reading this discussion, WikiProject NFL is a biased audience and shouldn't be notified. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's silly to say that the NFL WikiProject (or any relevant WikiProject) shouldn't be notified of articles that are up for deletion. There are users who genuinely improve articles to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that's something that should be encouraged. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should be encouraged, but in a way that complies with WP:CANVASS. The consensus system only works if the editors involved in a discussion are representative of the broader community; notifying biased groups subverts that. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you're saying that NFL editors should not be notified when their articles get AFDd, and we should just silently delete all of them without anyone being aware? That's ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the pages would all be deleted without the intervention of the NFL editors you're admitting that the brigading exists, is highly effective, and subverts the outcomes which would occur from traditional community discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thats not what I'm saying at all. And what's with your tagging my AFD comments as from an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then what are you saying then? You make few edits outside of the sports topic area, someone who makes few or no edits outside of a particular space is known as a SPA. Its not an insult, its just a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, transcluding a deletion sorting list at a project is totally fine; editors notifying the project of specific AfDs/discussions that they are involved in or have a clear opinion on should be disallowed if the project's stated or practical focus includes increasing wikipedia's coverage (=# of standalones) of their subject. This would be in contrast to those projects primarily concerned with moderating the quality of coverage under their purview. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suspect most WikiProjects are composed of editors "biased" in favor of the articles they maintain. If individual editors reject core policies and guidelines then that's a different matter, but you can't solve this by attempting to keep people at arm's length. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The rejection of consensus is a separate issue from the subversion of consensus through canvassing. I believe the first is more important, but the second is also a violation of policy and needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Intentionally not notifying the most relevant project because you claim it will bias the discussion is itself biasing the discussion. Frankly, it's not assuming good faith and is attempting to create an fait accompli. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with Oknazevad. There is no reason to think that the NFL Project members are interested in anything but improving Wikipedia's coverage of NFL topics, or casting aspersions like being biased or rejecting consensus. And they are probably in the best position to find sources in AfDs related to NFL topics. In many of the AfDs in question here, the nominator claimed to do a thorough BEFORE, but it was members of the NFL Project who nonetheless found sources that seem to have convinced several non-NFL Project members that some of these subjects pass GNG. Intentionally not notifying the project of an AfD seems to be an attempt to bias the discussion in favor of deletion even if sources exist.Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Finding addition sources is good, and the best pitcome of these AfD discussion. Voting stacking with arguments that have been rejected by a community wide RFC is problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Oknazevad: that's nonsense, you're arguing that essentially canvassing and refusing to canvass are the same because both "bias" the outcome. You appear to be ignoring that canvassing is not allowed and wikiproject notification is not required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Intentionally choosing to not notify specifically because you don't want the input of editors that might disagree is no different than intentionally seeking out editors who are likely to agree. It's the same damn thing. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you mean not notifying due to bias or a lack of widespread competence when it comes to notability? Nobody has talked about not notifying editors because they might disagree. Canvassing and not canvassing aren't the same thing, again wikiproject notification is not required... Its not even expected, it happens in a small minority of cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The National Football League and as a corollary, its players in that competition is, in short, a globally watched thing. In my opinion, any one of of those players linked above will now and will always continue to pass any number of tests for notability. That said, <Shirt58's odd sense of humour> I take a day off work each February to watch the Super Bowl, though I really don't understand why that American Football game starts about 10 am on a Monday </Shirt58's odd sense of humour>--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reading the AfDs, I agree that some of these votes are disruptive. Editors are required to accept consensus, even if they disagree with it, and consistently voting in a manner that rejects consensus is disruptive. I agree with red-tailed hawk that these votes are being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, but that is often the case with editors who reject consensus and doesn't justify it. I think a minor warning would be sufficient at this time, but further action would need to be taken if they continue to reject consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no need for a warning. Editors are entitled to invoke IAR if they believe that it is appropriate, and that is not in any way disruptive. If they do not have strong support for why IAR is appropriate, their position will be given little if any weight in closing the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I want to amplify something Cullen and Ravenswing said above. If you find yourself citing IAR during a deletion debate, you're almost certainly in the wrong and you should reconsider. It's the opposite of a strong argument. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I disagree. IAR is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Citing IAR most certainly does not mean the editor is in the wrong. Frank Anchor 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fundamental problem is that IAR claims of this sort have no objective merit beyond "Well, I think I'm right and the community is wrong and they can shove it". So why can't I just say say we should ignore all rules and delete all sports bios without further discussion? What if I'm a racist so I think we should IAR and just be racist against others? What if I'm biased in favor of a political party and say IAR Wikipedia would be better if we treat my party favorably and not the others? The strength of such arguments are exactly the same as yours. I feel like this is analogous to Hitchens's razor: "That which can be defended by ignoring all rules can be dismissed by ignoring all rules." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IAR is a terrible argument 99% of the time. The remaining 1% are situations where you can clearly demonstrate that ignoring the rule is better for the encyclopedia. And that will almost never apply to notability for a specific article subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using IAR in a deletion discussion is usually violating the spirit of IAR. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The RfC used as a basis for these nominations is and was a shitstorm and needs to be redone in simple form, and I've never sworn on Wikipedia before excepting a couple times on a user's talk page. An RfC with 13 sections and sub-sections, each argued over and then decided in an extremely close "consensus", and now some editors are using that to delete articles about football and baseball players who are officially credited with playing professional games in their sport, some of them many games. Nonsense. The RfC needs redoing with just one question, for example, "If a professional ballplayer is officially credited with playing professionally at the highest-levels of their sport can they have an article on Wikipedia?" No sub-sections, no wiki-lawyering, no complicated question after question. Just yes or no, with some discussion. This is one of the most, as Beanie says, bullshit RfC results, responses, and deletion-excuses in Wikipedia history, and calls for a re-do before any further articles are deleted because of it. A hold on these nominations and future nominations should be applied until the question is actually fairly resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All the RfC determined is that presumed notability doesn't apply to sports biographies, as there's been too many cases where that presumed notability was questioned and no one was able to find proper source coverage. Because of that, all sports biographies taken to AfD must now meet the GNG, because their inherent notability is questioned. So, no, number of games doesn't apply here. If the subject is notable, then your presumption of notability from number of games should mean there's a bunch of sources with significant coverage on the person. All you have to do is supply those sources. SilverserenC 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Randy Kryn: If you would like to challenge the closure of the RfC as not reflecting the consensus attained at the discussion, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Official stats provide enough evidence and reputable sources that an athlete has played at the top level of their profession. Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. One which is now being used to delete perfectly fine pages and thus is hurting and does not maintain the encyclopedia, or maintain the encyclopedia anywhere in the vicinity of common sense application. The RfC as regards to this one question should be thrown out, with or without the bathwater, sort of like holding due to an appeal to the higher court, and a new and simplfied RfC should commence and apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the last sentence: WP:VPP is that-a-way. Curbon7 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. This reads to me: "The RfC did not go the way I wanted, therefore I will assert it is illegitimate and unfair without actually trying to prove why except for the fact that I personally dislike the outcome." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept the RFC or challenge not at the appropriate location, anything else is disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was one single proposal - the one I made - that said that game participation metrics should be stripped from NSPORTS, which got consensus. That's what seems to be triggering the AFDs on these articles and what those from the NFL wikiproject appear to be getting upset over. There were lots of other proposals, but that one was simple and easily seen through. Masem (t) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cbl's proposal requiring at least one GNG source be cited in athlete bios at all times also passed, with very strong support. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the only editor creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND is User:Therapyisgood, by making dubious accusations of canvassing, and refusing to acknowledge this mistake by striking the accusation when it was proven that canvassing did not take place. Frank Anchor 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean... giving an editor a list of discussions that's close enough to comment on seems a bit like helping a user to WP:VOTESTACK. Granted, the list was requested by the user who was given the list, but dubious accusations of canvassing seems a bit harsh. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is obvious that the user in question should have been pinged to this discussion to explain why they asked for a listing, probably, if I may guess that users intent, to wade through the bludgeoning occurring at AfD'ing by a spate of time-sink nominations occurring at once. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One editor asking for other editors in their group to link them to active discussions that the group thinks "need help" ought to be considered canvassing as well. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Seems like a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Was there any attempt to deal with this one-on-one before escalating to a noticeboard?—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, I asked Therapyisgood politely to stop with the noms, he immediately reverted me ... then he accused me of canvassing ... and when it was shown that's not the case, he sent me to ANI. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was approached via email to handle the situation, however I recommended ANI because I didn't feel it was appropriate for users to hand pick their admins when they want a situation resolved. If there's a conflict that needs an admin to handle it, all admins should be involved. The discussion was likely started because I directed the OP here. Other than providing historical context, I am otherwise deliberately staying out of this conflict given the way it was attempted to bring me into it via email in a way that I was not comfortable. Perhaps I would have had more to say about the matter had it just come here first, but given the prior inappropriate attempt to cherry pick me as an admin to respond, I am recusing myself from any further involvement. --Jayron32 16:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I received an email from a party to this discussion and I'm not sure why. If they would disclose who else they reached out to, it would help assess whether this discussion has been canvassed. No comment on merit as I have not reviewed this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Star Mississippi: only to you and Jayron. I saw you were on vacation according to your talkpage after I sent your email so I decided to email another admin. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you! I am still mostly offline so unfortunately unable to look into your query. If it's still outstanding when I return, happy to weigh in once I've been able to assess what the issue is. Star Mississippi 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Further comment as I've now read through the discussion. Unfortunately I've been far too involved in the sports AfDs and in discussions with @BeanieFan11 and @BilledMammal and others to be considered uninvolved in this discussion. No objection to being notified as @Therapyisgood is a new name to me/I don't recall working with them and wouldn't have known that. @Horse Eye's Back tagging editors with a long history as SPA in a discussion you're involved with may not be against policy but isn't productive. I'd suggest not continuing to do so. Star Mississippi 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Length of edit history has no bearing on whether an editor is a SPA or not, especially when that editor is demanding that people with similar editing patterns be labeled. The editor in question here appears to make few edits outside of the sports topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        "Sports" is not "one very narrow area or set of articles". Levivich (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is the other account which was labeled as a SPA, [73]. I assume you're saying that isn't a SPA either? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Yes, that account is not an SPA either. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          That is the account which BeanieFan11 and ValarianB were insisting was a SPA. Good to know they're wrong about what makes a SPA, I thought their reasoning was a bit unique. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          At a glance, they're not an SPA, but the account is CU blocked, and they're not editing in good faith. I have seen no indication that @BeanieFan11 isn't acting in good faith (this discussion or any other time I've encountered them) Star Mississippi 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Is anyone questioning whether BeanieFan11 is acting in good faith? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          If you think they're behaving as an SPA, that's generally an indication you don't believe they're acting in good faith as a discussion participant. Like I said, your tagging isn't against policy but it doesn't help the issue. It appears by my reading of this thread that @Therapyisgood didn't believe they were either, but that could be my reading. Star Mississippi 19:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Not to me, IMO SPA and good/bad faith are completely separate issues. The vast majority of SPA edit in good faith and are productive editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Fair enough, although I'm not quite sure I see it your way. Apologies for putting words in your mouth...err fingers. Star Mississippi 19:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Its alright, I managed to fit my whole foot in there all on my own! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          @Horse Eye's Back yeah, BeanieFan11 isn't a single-purpose account and labeling them as such is disruptive. WP:SPA was never intended to cover an area as broad as "sports", and acting this way just distracts everybody from what ought to be the main idea. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          You're a little late to the party, we already established that neither BeanieFan11 or Randy Peck was a SPA. Are you saying that ValarianB's tagging of Randy Peck was also disruptive? I think you should WP:AGF, I don't think anyone here is trying to be disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          You were the first editor to think BeanieFan11 was an SPA and the last to realize he wasn't. Nothing came of it except raising the temperature of the discussion and derailing it from the main issue. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          You have literally no way to know that's true. The only person derailing the discussion right now is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I have found BeanieFan11 to be a highly productive and collaborative editor in the topic area of American football over the past couple of years or so. I don't think the cited examples of frustration or exasperation (often warrened) on his part warrant any sanction or discipline. Therapyisgood strikes me as the more disruptive and hostile actor here. I don't recommend the practice of coming into a new topic area and opening a bunch of AfDs. A more diplomatic approach would be to open a discussion on the relevant WikiProject talk page about the class of articles suspected of questionable notability. That would help to avoid spurious nominations and dust-ups like this one. I recommend this matter be closed with a request to Therapyisgood to slow the pace of his AfD nominations. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recommend the practice of editing just one topic area and treating newcomers with open hostility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, Neither would I. I also don't recommend straw-manish non-sequitur comments like this last one of yours. Entering into a new topic area with a flurry of AfDs is not advisable. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't really find the quotes in the OP to be all that uncivil; not ANI-worthy. The list of AFDs mentioned above are problematic, I agree they show a failure of WP:BEFORE insofar as some of them were obvious keeps. I snow-closed some keeps and voted to delete or redirect others. The set is a mixed bag, though, as some of the noms are meritorious IMO, and everyone is allowed to make some mistakes and nom some things that end in keep. I'd feel better about it if the nominator had withdrawn the bad noms upon others posting GNG sources, and if an editor were to repeatedly nom obvious keeps, then a sanction might be needed, but not for Therapyisgood for one round with a few misses.

    The canvassing is highly inappropriate, as are the "Keep - played X games" !votes, which directly contradict WP:NSPORTS2022. If those !votes are discounted by the closers, then no harm no foul, I guess, as long as this group of editors doesn't ever try anything like this again. But if there is repeated canvassing, or repeated 'IAR votes', then I would support TBANs for editors who disrupt the process. I also fear that AFD closes don't often properly weigh votes (in my experience, the closer who will do this is too rare), and what this canvassing/anti-consensus-voting will do is result in one or more WP:DRVs and thereby waste editor time. I hope I'm wrong and our system works as intended and this blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:NSPORTS2022 results in little actual disruption to the project. I hope it doesn't happen again. Levivich (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It is not canvassing to notify the primary WikiProject about AfDs pertaining to that content area. What a preposterous position to take. It seems bizarre to me that some editors seem bent on preventing editors from finding out about AfDs that pertain to their primary interests. But then us sports editors haven't had a level playing field for a while. Levi, like many others in this thread you also have failed to recognize the serious problems with an editor charging into a new content area, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion, and then refusing to collaborate at all with the editors who are actually trying to improve the articles. Therapyisgood has taken an adversarial position from the beginning, but so many editors are willing to overlook that because of the currently popular narrative that sports editors are bad. There is a reason why Beanie is so frustrated in those diffs. There is a reason why I stayed away for several days (and after being greeted with this upon my return, I think I'll log back out again). The community-at-large has abandoned us and only seems interested in threatening us vaguely with topic bans if we ever dare to step out of line with the sentiments of the day. The NSPORTS2022 RfC was a slap in the face to many of us, and in retrospect I should have left then. But I must say that I am especially sorry to see you, Levi, embracing this punitive philosophy. That is the only part of this that really surprises me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Posting a note like this on a single editor's user talk page is not an effective way to notify the primary WikiProject about AFDs pertaining to that content area; that message was WP:CANVASSing. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts is how WP:NFL is notified of AFDs. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, that editor asked me to send that message. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CANVASSing is wrong even if -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- even if the other editor asks to be canvassed. After what happened in November, you (and Randy, Paul, and the others) need to stop trying to thwart WP:NSPORTS2022. If you want you can start a new RFC to see if consensus changed; until then, comply with global consensus. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm going to quote from that November discussion: I really prefer not to take Beanie (otherwise an excellent and collegial editor) to ANI over this. I still agree with that sentiment, but you're making it hard for us. All you have to do is give up these bottom-of-the-barrel, played-in-a-few-games, totally-unknown-except-brief-mentions-in-local-newspapers, biographies. Just accept that we aren't going to have a standalone page for every pro player of every sport in history. Focus on the important topics, the encyclopedic topics. Please. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have different ideas of what articles are "important" and "encyclopedic," and that's perfectly fine, as editors are free to disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You can have whatever ideas you want, and you can disagree, but you need to comply with global consensus. For example, you can have whatever ideas you want about canvassing, but you need to comply with WP:CANVASS. You can have whatever ideas you want about notability, but you need to comply with WP:NSPORTS2022. If you ignore global consensus and just do what you want, you are being disruptive, and wasting our time. Your noncompliance isn't harmless because it wastes editor time. At User talk:BilledMammal#Could you not nominate a bunch of NFL players for deletion right now?, you wrote At least wait for the others to complete - its becoming too much work for me. Well, it'd be less work for all of us if you didn't canvass and cast discountable 'IAR' !votes. We would get through what's notable and what's not a lot faster if everyone complied with our policies and guidelines. All those noms listed above are properly snow keeps and snow deletes--none are close calls--but we have to go the long way because some editors want to insist that playing a few games in the NFL is inherently notable. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I look further, I see BM only nom'd one NFL player, and you asked them to slow down? That doesn't seem reasonable. Also disappointing to see you once again listing many routine brief mentions and calling it SIGCOV. Man, I don't want to have to read another 15 links just to figure out they're all routine game reports. This is a waste of editor time. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the modus operandi of many athlete-inclusionist editors. It should be sanctionable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay: Don't I know it, that's why I stopped bothering with AFD years ago. It doesn't really matter that NSPORTS2022 passed. We could delete NSPORTS altogether, it wouldn't really make a difference. Editors will post a series of short game summaries and call it GNG, and closers will close it as a keep. There's no real way to stop that, but it also doesn't matter. There are hundreds of thousands of these sports bios and if someone nominates 10 at a time, or even 100, or even 1,000, and they're kept or deleted, it won't be noticed by anyone, it won't make a dent one way or another. I marginally care more about BLPs because at least those are affecting people (the subjects), but even then, there are over 100k sports BLPs--get rid of 100 or 1000 and it's still a drop in the bucket. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP would be a reason to keep articles short. Require that all short articles be made longer or deleted and it's inevitable there will be more BLP issues. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think people notice, I've run into problems numerous times wikilinking to people and discovering they have to use a clunky disambiguating parenthesis due to some athlete with the same name occupying the title. Those articles also depress the proportional representation of women and minorities, give fodder to OTHERSTUFF arguments, and clutter up categories making it harder to discover the actually notable people (basically removing the utility of categories as browsing tools). JoelleJay (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The disambiguating parentheses can be removed for primary topics, it doesn't require deletion of another page, if they are not primary over an obscure athlete they are not particularly notable themselves, and on the few occasions where additional disambiguation is required it's probably useful to avoid confusion. They also don't "depress the proportional representation of women and minorities" - many of the deletions are of Olympic athletes from smaller or less developed countries or of cricketers from Asian countries, minorities are not particularly under-represented in professional football or similar sports, and this obsession with GNG (with the exception of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - a possible indication of cultural bias or classism) has also changed the guidelines so that most schools in non-Western countries are being deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a big pain to move pages and change redirects just to preserve the existence of what is essentially a statistical database entry. People notice that. There are hundreds of years of professional/high level sports for British men for which there are no possible counterparts for women or minorities, and contemporary Western men's sports have loads more funding and therefore many more professional player spots that can be filled (look at the depth of English men's pro football...). This absolutely reduces biographical proportions (Lugnuts, who even prided himself in actively creating sports bios on women, was still responsible for substantial decreases in the WiR percentage due to how many pages he made on male athletes). Raising the standards for inclusion (and deleting pages that don't meet them) is literally the only way to approach the theoretical upper limit of real-world coverage proportions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hundreds is an exaggeration for most sports. For football it's 103 for leagues (130 for WP:FPL, but less in reality; the difference is men's football existed and was popular before professionalism was established for the sport). It's only for cricket that it's significantly more. "Counterparts for minorities" can only mean non-Western and/or non-English speaking countries and far more of them are likely to be deleted now (or will not be created) as a percentage. Peter James (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm wondering what the heck the point of WP:NSPORTS2022 was if the editors who don't like the outcome are just going to ignore it. Honestly, sports AfDs are just the Wild West.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @S Marshall I must note that I have seen some noticeable changes in at least the football/soccer AfD's following WP:NSPORTS2022. Not perfect, but alot better than it used to be. 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Alvaldi (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If someone tried to pull "but IAR!" on, say, a 1RR restriction on a political article, they'd be sanctioned in a heartbeat. Users who are casting votes in deletion discussions that blatantly say "I am ignoring a Community RfC" should likely be removed from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BeanieFan11's "All of them" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger is a good example of their stonewalling and refusal to engage with other editors. Here we have a detailed source analysis by one editor who even pointed out that one source simply names the individual in a list. Instead of explaining specifically why they disagree, BF11 simply replied "all of them" to another editor's queston about which sources are not routine coverage. In fact BF11 voices their "disagreement" multiple times with no policy-based reasoning whatsoever, as if asserting the same thing multiple times will make it true. This is part of a larger pattern of editors continuing to cite number of games played or IAR as a reason to keep these stubs. Remember: You can ignore all rules, but you can't ignore consensus. –dlthewave 03:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another issue is flooding/bludgeoning AfDs with useless sources which other editors must take the time to assess. For example, here at least the first four sources are mere passing mentions and therefore do not contribute to notability. This has happened across multiple AfDs and seems to also be misleading other editors who trust BF11's judgement and support these laundry lists of sources which often contain no significant coverage at all, even when combined together. We should expect an experienced editor to only provide SIGCOV sources. –dlthewave 04:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the very least, we could topic ban some editors from citing IAR in deletion discussions. It might be an oddly specific restriction, but it would address a specific problem and would refocus discussions around how an article subject meets notability criteria, which is what they're supposed to be about in the first place. This seems easier than trying to modify the IAR page itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment To be honest, if I saw an editor repeatedly quoting IAR in multiple AfDs because they believe they know better than a community consensus, I would probably just give them a Wikipedia space partial block to ensure they don't do it again. And that's coming from someone who agrees that NSPORTS2022 was not exactly Wikipedia's finest hour. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support at least a Warning to BeanieFan11 not to use uncivil language, with the clear understanding that next time it's a block. IAR is meant to be invoked *EXCEPTIONALLY* and not simply as a blanket reason not to apply a rule - for that you need to overturn the original consensus. Don't make the same mistake made with Lugnuts and others in the past of just continually letting people slide without doing anything at all to stop them until the point it inevitably explodes on here again. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would support a warning for uncivil langauge, but I'm confused about any time when IAR is or is not "meant to be invoked" -- I can find no such guidance anywhere, certainly not at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules nor at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IAR is "ignore all rules" not "ignore consensus". It's a little stunning to see an admin cite IAR as a reason to ignore a recent RFC they participated in, and vote to keep an athlete bio based solely on how many games the subject played. In your years on Wikipedia, can you point to an example of someone IARing WP:CONSENSUS and it being considered proper by the community? Levivich (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, but until this case I've never seen anyone complain about it either. An improtant reason to have IAR is so that consensus can be determined for or against application of a policy or guideline. Before Consensus can be determined to apply IAR on a specific case to override other existing policies, guidelines, and/or rules then there must first be a discussion about it. And before there can be a discussion about it, somebody has to bring it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a discussion, at WP:NSPORTS2022, where you made over 30 comments, and given how it closed, it's hard to understand AFD !votes like this. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's because IAR is so simple and yet so nebulous that you can't, ironically, make rules for its use. However, it is clear that it is always the exception rather than the rule, and should be used in the rare case that breaking a policy or guideline clearly improves the encyclopedia. But using it - as in this case - to say on multiple AfDs "well, yes, this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, but I'm going to use IAR to say that it doesn't need to because I like these types of articles" isn't going to fly at all. A corollary would be me deleting a clearly notable BLP claiming IAR because I didn't like the person it was about. I think I'd get blocked - don't you? Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Five Pillars summation of The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording is a simple way to judge it. I know its not objective, but there's a world of difference between someone missing the mark slightly and someone arguing that nothing matters and we live in a Dada-ist installation. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:IAR seems like when an employee chooses to ignore an illegal command form a boss. It is their right if they truly feel the order is illegal but they better be damn sure, otherwise there will be consequences for being wrong. Zaathras (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your suggesting that the next time I use "uncivil language" I get blocked? Can you even give examples of my "uncivil language" (the ones linked in the first comment are most certainly not – I've had editors attack me with much worse language than that and nothing happened)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BeanieFan11 - Swearing at other people, even veiled, is uncivil, particularly in the fraught atmosphere of AFD. The clear intention is to offend the person you are disagreeing with. That others have also been uncivil in the past is immaterial - it would only matter if you had been provoked or it was not part of a pattern of behavior. Am I right in saying that you intend to carry on doing it in future unless we make it clear that it is not acceptable now? Then there is every reason to do so now. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Civility is important, but issuing a warning only for civility invites the type of "civil rule breaking" that makes up the bulk of the disruption. Any warning should address the deeper issues of ignoring consensus/guidelines via excessive appeals to IAR; presenting game summaries etc as SIGCOV (NSPORTS specifically covers this); and claiming that playing a certain number of games and/or at a certain level is evidence of notability. It might be best to make a list of editors using these arguments at multiple AfDs and issue a general warning after giving them a chance to explain themselves. –dlthewave 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
dlthewave - My issue with this is that people should be allowed to be wrong. The people who really ought to know better are the closing admins. FOARP (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To a point, if their interpretations of wikipedia's policies and guidelines are consistently wrong it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Its one thing to competently interpret them and disagree, its entirely another to interpret them incompetently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that editors that participate in discussions should be allowed to be "wrong" (whatever that is) and that there is no WP:SENIORITY. It's entirely possible that the best idea and/or freshest viewpoint comes from someone new or not entrenched in the Wikipedia Way. I grant that closing discusisons should have a higher standard, but even then there is an appeal process for that. We shouldn't demand nor expect perfection from Wikipedians.: we should seek to work together and collaborate to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't really about being "wrong" though. This is about editors continuing to disregard guidelines and community consensus even after it's been explained to them. That absolutely is not allowed and if an editor (new or old) continues to ignore the policy, they can expect to be warned and then sanctioned. We actually give new editors quite a bit more leeway since they might not be aware, and in this discussion I've seen at least one comment from someone who changed their assessment method after being made aware of NSPORTS2022. These aren't fresh ideas from new editors either; these are experienced editors continuing to follow old notability standards that have been superseded by newer guidelines. –dlthewave 02:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's not okay to disagree then?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's okay to disagree with our guidelines, but AfD is not the place to voice that. –dlthewave 04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's ok to disagree, but you need to respect consensus. If there is a high level discussion that forms a broad consensus, then you need to respect that consensus in lower level discussions where the consensus cannot change, even if you argue against it in discussions where it can change. To do otherwise is disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BilledMammal - Before NSports 2022 lots of people disagreed with the state of affairs that existed then, and said so in AFDs (including me). I don't think we should have been blocked from saying so. There are still policies on Wikipedia that result in preposterous outcomes (particularly GEOLAND giving practically-automatic notability to any "legally-recognised populated place", whatever that is) and I do not think anyone should be blocked from pointing out that and !voting on that basis. The reason why is that the only way you can reasonably build a consensus for changing things is by slow discussion and advocacy. The point that needs discussing at ANI is civility and I don't see why we should go beyond that. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FOARP - I see a difference between the two cases. GEOLAND and NSPORTS pre-NSPORTS2022 only granted a presumption of notability, which allowed editors to have different interpretations of how strong that presumption was without rejecting a broader consensus and violating WP:IDHT. Here, editors are violating a broader consensus, explicitly presenting arguments that have been rejected by the broader community, and that is disruptive and violates IDHT.
My position is that editors are free to disagree, but they must do so within the bounds of policy. If you have a belief that is outside the bounds of policy, then your only recourse is to seek to change policy - you cannot just ignore the policy you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk)
I think where I'd agree BilledMammal is where editors are doing it purely to make a point, which is something we have a long-standing bar on. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to see some acknowledgement from @Therapyisgood that they could have done better in this situation. A couple examples being to not immediately removing Beanie's comment on their talk page when they tried to communicate, or by closing a couple of the AfD discussions once it became obvious that they should not have been nominated. With that said, I think this discussion has been educational for a number of users. I myself have been forced to reconsider what I believe meets notability guidelines, and I've subsequently struck a few votes I made. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I am concerned about some of the comments above on Wikiproject notifications of AfDs in their subject matter area. I am a member of the association football Wikiproject, and there is a lot of AfD activity involving football biographies (several new nominations daily). In my experience, these football biography AfDs rarely generate enough discussion to reach consensus - plenty of AfDs result in no consensus or soft deletion - even with Wikiproject notification. Removing that notification is going to lead to less discussion, more re-listings, and overall more stress on an overloaded AfD process. If the concern is that a Wikiproject member is attempting to vote-stack, that should be addressed with them individually, as opposed to a blanket block on notifications. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You guys are going up and down about how I'm a terrible editor and should be blocked for using IAR – but when you look at the AFDs, you will see there was only one where I said that and did not provide any sigcov sources – the Babcock discussion. This whole discussion is quite ridiculous in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are four issues here; civility, rejection of consensus (with you citing IAR in multiple discussions), canvassing of individuals, and canvassing of groups. If you can understand what mistakes you make and commit not to make them again we can end this discussion here - although the rejection of consensus is an issue that applies to multiple editors - but if you can't then this remains unresolved. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Civility" – using "f-ing" once is not violating any policy (heck, I've had editors say my edits are just a bunch of junk and attack me saying that I'm incompetent and know nothing about football – but nothing for them). "Rejection of consensus by using IAR" – IAR is literally stated at both WP:NOTABILITY AND WP:NSPORT as a valid argument (at the very top for both: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "Canvassing of individuals" – for the last time, answering users' request to see AFDs is not canvassing. "Canvassing of groups" – letting the WikiProject know about discussions relating to it is not canvassing, as long as the notifications are neutral (which in this case, they are). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then unfortunately I believe a series of warnings need to be proposed. My initial thoughts are the following proposals:
  1. BeanieFan11 is warned against being incivil in AfD's
  2. BeanieFan11 is warned against disrupting Wikipedia by rejecting broader consensus in AfD discussions where the broader consensus cannot be changed
  3. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan individuals to AfD's, even when the individual has requested to be canvassed
  4. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to AfD's, including groups organized as WikiProjects
  5. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to ANI, including groups organized as WikiProjects
I'm not convinced I will support #1 or #5, but given the allegations have been made and have found some support I believe they need to be proposed. Does any editors have thoughts on the wording or the scope of any of these proposals? BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BilledMammal, I would call this a good summary of the concerns that have been raised. My suggestion would be to let editors !vote for whichever proposals they support, avoiding the risk of an unpopular one spoiling the whole thing. –dlthewave 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I believe one may notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, as long as the notification is worded neutrally. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:CANVASS has four requirements; the notification must be limited in scale, neutral, to a nonpartisan audience, and open. These also apply to WikiProjects; notifying every WikiProject would be a violation, notifying a WikiProject with a biased message would be a violation, notifying a paristan WikiProject would be a violation, and secretly notifying the members of a WikiProject would be a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "Appropriate notification" section of the policy you just linked to specifically gives "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects...which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" as examples of things which are not canvassing. The assumption that certain WikiProjects are partisan would constitute a blatant failure to assume good faith. Hatman31 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:APPNOTE is clear that those examples do not grant an exception to the requirements of WP:INAPPNOTE; it states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.
    It also isn't a violation of WP:AGF to recognize that some editors and some groups of editors (including some groups of editors organized as a WikiProject) are partisan on some topics. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a complete BATTLEGROUND mentality. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it's acknowledging reality. There are projects and groups of editors who are here to right great wrongs, and it is not BATTLEGROUND to call that out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, none of the notifications BeanieFan sent were inappropriate. First, this was a neutrally worded, clear, and brief note on the page of a WikiProject which is related to the topic under discussion, of the type which is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Second, Randy Kryn asked to be informed of the other discussions happening here and BeanieFan obliged - which, again, is explicitly permitted under WP:APPNOTE. Then, a group of editors attempted to get them sanctioned based in part on a reading of a policy which is diametrically opposed to what the policy actually says.
    If this thread achieves nothing else (which seems likely), reading it will have at least helped me understand why some people view this site as such a hostile environment. Hatman31 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the idea of sanctioning users for making specific arguments you dislike in deletion discussions is patently ridiculous. Rather than trying to sanction them against invoking IAR, the more reasonable approach would be to explain why they are wrong in the deletion discussion. If they are so clearly in the wrong, this should be a fairly thing to do. Toa Nidhiki05 14:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not really a question of dislike but rather an issue of bad faith. Imagine we had a BLP of a controversial politician, where one editor kept coming back to it again and again and again with the same arguments to put something in the lede about something super-controversial, but most other editors disagreed. When does the right to disagree cross the line into disruption? Zaathras (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Reviewing this discussion I think it is clear that WikiProject NFL's position on making arguments against broader consensus at AfD is out of line with the broader communities position. As a strawpoll, I count 23 editors as having expressed an opinion on this, with seven appearing to be in in favor or tolerant of such arguments (BeanieFan11, Red-tailed hawk, Paul McDonald, Frank Anchor, Rlendog, Randy Kryn, Toa Nidhiki05) and 15 appearing to be against or intolerant of such arguments (Silverseren, Indy beetle, Robert McClenon, Cullen328, Thebiguglyalien34, Ravenswing, BilledMammal, Mackensen, The Hand That Feeds You, Sungodtemple, Levivich, S Marshall, Zaathras, dlthewave, Black Kite). I was not able to assess the position of the 23rd, FOARP.
Of the seven, four are listed as members of WikiProject NFL, a fifth is a frequent contributor to their talk page, and a sixth is an infrequent contributor. Of the 15, one is an infrequent contributor. This also supports the allegations of canvassing; WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan.
If there are editors whose positions I missed, or misassessed, I apologise; please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can put me down as against/intolerant of that argument as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to count me as against it too BilledMammal. Trying to vote-stack in individual AFDs to get a local consensus to overturn much larger consensuses shouldn't be accepted as a real consensus by closing admins. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BilledMammal Eh, I said that using IAR in a deletion discussion was ridiculous, because it is. If I encounter that as a closing administrator I disregard it. I have confidence that other closers will too.
You seem pretty worked up about your discovery that editors who self-identify as interested in NFL topics take a more expansive view of notability than third parties. I don't see that as important, surprising, nor actionable. Are you planning to bar WikiProject Members, as a class, from participating in deletion discussions about the articles that they write? I don't think that's compatible with the project's overall goals myself. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I propose is enforcing WP:CANVASS; preventing the notification of partisan groups of editors. I don't support barring members of a partisan group from participating in discussions if they discover the discussion on their own. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does that include getting rid of deletion sorting too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've no opinion about IAR. But, I do know that we'd be setting a messy precedent, if we declare that anybody contacting a topic-related WikiProject concerning a AFD, is canvassing. PS - We should also not assume, that all members of a WikiProject think the same. Also, editors who aren't members of a WikiProject, can still have that WikiProject on their watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The conclusion "WikiProject NFL is demonstratably partisan" is the result of using AN/I as a benchmark, but it just as likely that AN/I is partisan (and this thread in particular, from the list of participants). And there was no consensus at WP:NSPORTS2022. Peter James (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure about that? The linked closing statement at WP:NSPORTS2022 says that there was consensus on proposals 3, 5, and 6 with a partial consensus on proposal 8. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are too many general support/oppose comments to say there was consensus for anything. There could be a majority but that is no reason to mass delete/undelete every time there is more than 50% support for either position. Peter James (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you would like to challenge the close you can but the closer found there to be a consensus for many things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What "general support/oppose comments"? The !votes were assessed in relation to the specific proposals. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comments at the top of the page. And the specific proposals, looking at proposal 3 it was majority but not consensus; an RFA with similar support (or 8% more) would be closed without bureaucrat discussion. It's probably too late to challenge the close now. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either challenge the close, reopen the issue, or abide the consensus. There isn't an "ignore consensus and do my own thing" option here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The close was already challenged (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#NSPORTS closure review). After the close challenge, the specific removal of what used to be WP:NGRIDIRON was discussed at WT:NSPORTS (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#American football/Canadian football) -- the only person who !voted "keep" in that discussion was BeanieFan. That was last March. I removed NGRIDIRON last April. This past November, we had Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Enforcing SPORTBASIC's requirement of SIGCOV, which begins "I tried redirecting a number of American football sub-stubs today...The redirects were promptly reverted by User:BeanieFan11...". Now, when an editor takes them to AFD instead of boldly redirecting them, we get... "Keep, played X games...". This is nothing other than a small group of editors steadfastly trying to thwart a very-well-and-recently-established, tested-multiple-times, global consensus, because they disagree with it. This is not our way. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is shameful. Can't even believe what I'm seeing. Agreed that this is not our way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's likely that any discussion about it would close with no consensus. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any comments at the top of the page, unless you're referring to the initial proposal of removing NSPORT wholesale, which was separate from all the subproposals. We don't use numerical thresholds for RfC consensuses, so I don't see how you can say there wasn't consensus, especially when considering the weight of the arguments. The amendment that has had the greatest impact on athlete AfDs was subproposal #5 (requiring all athlete articles cite a GNG source, in addition to the existing requirement that all athlete article subjects meet GNG), which had overwhelming support at ~72% of 82 participants. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The weight of arguments just means whether they are valid and accurate and represent consensus on a wider scale as supported by policy or guidelines. When discussing what the policies and guidelines should be, there is no wider scale. And 72% is not overwhelming support; it's close enough for a bureaucrat discussion at RFA (although the last RFA closed as no consensus with more support was in 2015) and too low for RFB. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RfA is a strict !vote count, it is not comparable at all to AfD discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to kindly request you refrain from assigning me as some sort of partisan here. I only commented becuase I find the idea of sanctioning people for making arguments in deletion discussions to be ridiculous. I didn't participate in WP:NSPORTS2022, have not participated in the RfCs in question, have not engaged anyone on either side, and frankly have no real opinion on this matter other than that it is silly to try and sanctioning people for arguments in deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If one may not notifiy a related-WikiProject concerning an AFD, we should ban WikiProjects altogether. — Jacona (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I personally thought we resolved the whole "WikiProjects inherently exist as advocacy groups" thing after WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion in 2011 over similar (unfounded) claims, and such claims were pretty roundly rejected and have generally proven untrue. No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith, and this one is no exception - notifying WikiProjects of deletion discussions (or other related nominations, including GA, FA, FL, etc.) is pretty standard fare. Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No single WikiProject has proven to be acting in bad faith
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones involves things not at issue here and I'm not saying it's comparable. But I do feel your blanket statement about wikiprojects deserves clarification. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We aren't strictly bound by decisions made in 2011. The culture of the project has changed tremendously over the last decade, and there's less tolerance for POV-pushing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't necessarily think that any sanctions need to be applied here, but I have a few of observations that I'd like the participants to consider. (1) IAR is an incredibly weak argument to make at AfD: the person making the argument is essentially saying that we should ignore consensus on notability because doing so would,, in their opinion, improve the encyclopedia. That is functionally identical to WP:ILIKEIT. Such arguments should be given zero weight by the closer of a discussion. (2) It seems like the participants of the Wikiproject have been able to find sources to establish notability in a significant number of the discussions this thread touches upon. I haven't looked at the discussions myself, but Cullen328 has seen fit to !vote 'keep' in four of them and I trust his judgment. We should be celebrating that work, and encouraging the members of the project to do that- if one wants to save an article from deletion, the best approach is to find and add sources, not make specious arguments in the deletion discussion. (3) Levivich is correct, the proper place to notify the Wikiproject about a deletion discussion, to avoid giving the impression of improper canvassing, is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts. (4) I do not think that it is fair to label anyone in this discussion an SPA. Someone who comes along only to write about a specific football player, or maybe a specific team, would be an SPA; someone who writes exclusively about a wide subject area like American Football is not an SPA, but a pretty normal editor. I mean, if someone looked at my article creations, they might label me a 'Scottish historical buildings' SPA, which would be unreasonable. A lot of folk have a particular subject interest, and familiarity with the sources in that area - that's no bad thing. Girth Summit (blether) 16:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I remain concerned by "Keep, he played eight games in the pioneering years of the NFL.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Another AFD, both from yesterday. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not a strong argument to keep, but there are editors who appear to think an unreferenced mention in a list, with no context is more useful than a short article with references. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think so. I think there are editors who think these two sentences should, instead of being on their own stand-alone page, be moved to this list. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You appear to be missing the point that if the topic is not notable then the article is not useful. This is an encyclopedia not a collection of all the knowledge (sports or otherwise) which has ever existed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Useful to some, not useful to others. The absence of an article or equivalent would be useful to very few people; perhaps once, rarely twice or more, per article if it is necessary to disambiguate the title. Structure is important, not just a haphazard collection of articles, and sports SNGs are about defining what is within the structure, similar to those for geography and species. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Its useful to all of us that such articles don't exist, it allows us to focus our efforts. Thats the whole point of having a standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The existence of these articles has never hindered me from focusing my efforts. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those billions of articles don't exist, that's the entire point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Peter James: you are free to suggest alternatives. There is no need, for example, for any mention of anyone on any list to be unreferenced, or to be devoid of context. If a short article with references has enough references to establish notability, then there should be no objection to an article being retained. We do not need to invoke IAR to deal with situations like these - it's very much 'normal rules apply'. Girth Summit (blether) 00:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The excessive use of IAR and the alleged non-neutral notification are probably not sanctionable at the moment, but there is unquestionably a disruptive gap between how several sports editors vote and what the guidelines say. There was an outrageous case in which keep voters held that winning a minor google docs poll for 'best player' counts towards ANYBIO, and that a facebook post copied in a local newspaper constitutes valid independent and significant coverage under GNG. They were certainly not unaware of any of this, since most actually doubled down after someone pointed it out to them. At least one of them has made his way to several of the listed AfDs above, making arguments of similar validity, so it's clearly not an isolated incident. Avilich (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    probably not sanctionable at the moment Agreed, although I do think a warning is needed - the problematic actions continue, and hopefully a warning now will prevent sanctions from being required later. BilledMammal (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference with canvassing[edit]

I see a lot of the discussion above has turned to discussing the issue of canvassing people to AfDs and I felt that there's a point to be made in regards to why certain notifications would count as canvassing while others wouldn't. Many above are discussing intent and I think they have it well in hand there, but I think an even bigger aspect for these particular AfDs is outcome from said notifications. As a comparison, we over at WP:Women in Red do often notify about AfDs that are made about women's articles directly on the talk page. However, what we do in regards to that is distinctly different, we go in and improve the article in question, working together to find as many reliable sources of significant coverage as we can and adding them to the article, expanding it in the process.

Comparatively, this case involves notification of a number of AfDs to the NFL wikiproject. I will give Beaniefan11 credit as they did give sources in several of the AfD discussions, though only for about half. And, regardless of them doing that, for all the AfDs, what was the response from the other members of the wikiproject? Not to go in and improve the articles in question. No, they went and voted in the AfDs, frequently with "Keep because IAR" or also often with some variation of "Keep because played four professional games", which isn't anything related to a notability requirement. And it is that outcome that betrays the notification as canvassing, whereas it might not be in other cases. If a group of editors is being informed about an AfD discussion solely to go in and vote Keep without actually doing anything to improve the article or demonstrate notability with sources, particularly in this case with all the non-policy based arguments, that's what makes it canvassing. That's the difference. SilverserenC 16:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a member of the NFL wikiproject and I don't believe I !voted "Keep because IAR" or also often with some variation of "Keep because played four professional games", at least without some reference to available sources on any of these. If you are suggesting otherwise please provide the diffs. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, though obviously some !votes might be swayed by it. I'd trust a closer would ignore mere "Keep because IAR" !votes, unless it also provided a compelling reason why IAR is helping WP. —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may piggy-back on that slightly: I'm a big fan of IAR. I listed it as my favorite policy at RfA, and just today wrote a bit of a love letter to IAR on my usertalk in the context of how sometimes rigidly following guidelines can make a situation worse. But the thing about IAR is, you do have to have a reason for it. You don't always need to give that reason at length up-front, but, if challenged, you should be able to say, clearly, "This is why I think deviating from policies and guidelines is in the best interest of the encyclopedia". I've seen some comments above about how IAR comes up rarely or only at extremes, and I don't think that's true. If it appears to be true it's only because people don't realize just how many damn policies we have and how often they're noncontroversially bent or broken. But the best IAR invocations are the ones where you don't have to explicitly say you're invoking IAR, because it's just obviously the right thing to do. And the second-best are the ones where you say very clearly which rule you're going against and why that's beneficial. "Keep because IAR" is neither, and in general an IAR keep is a very high standard, because many of the reasons one might cite (article quality, navigational benefit) are ones the community has affirmatively rejected as sufficient absent notability. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...what we do in regards to that is distinctly different, we go in and improve the article in question, working together to find as many reliable sources of significant coverage as we can and adding them to the article, expanding it in the process. - So does the NFL WikiProject. I think most WikiProjects try to do this in cases where articles in their particular field of interest are nominated, and I think that's a very good thing. What's not a good thing is that you're insinuating that the group is acting in bad faith. Every project will have inherent bias but the NFL WikiProject is not always voting keep as a group. There are differing opinions on notability ever since WP:NGRIDIRON was removed, and yes I understand that votes should still be within policy. I'm very involved in the project so I recognize the editors involved, and I very often see some of them voting to delete or redirect. I don't think the label being applied to the group as a whole is fair. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pragmatically speaking, if you want people who actually care about sports writing sports articles, you will have to give them some of what they want. At least treating them respectfully, and maybe you will have to factor in what they consider notable. You don't want me writing about sports - I hate sports. --Rschen7754 05:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Place edits relating to the notability of sportspersons and deletion discusssions relating to the notability of sportspersons, both WP:broadly construed, under general sanctions.[edit]

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

  • Per Robert McClenon, I'm increasingly thinking that having this be under a community DS would allow for more civilized discussions and would allow administrators to better ensure good behavior in this area more broadly. In that light, I would like to propose the following community-authorized discretionary sanctions regime for this perennially contentious topic area:
    • Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
    • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
    • If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing within a general sanctions area when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. Prior to any editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) being imposed, the editor must be made aware of the existence of these community general sanctions and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve their editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
    • Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Administrators must add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page.
    • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator, at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
    • Editors may make good-faith requests for an uninvolved administrator to enforce these general sanctions by posting their concerns to the administrator's noticeboard or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I believe that the existence of these sanctions would help to keep the area calmer and would be an improvement to the current situation in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not opposing out of a "fear of sanctions," but because I think its truly ridiculous what this would allow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it fear that individual administrators would misuse the existence of these general sanctions to win content disputes? There's a place to deal with that, as that would be desysoppable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as an incomplete remedy. The underlying issue appears to be with wikiprojects brigading AfD not with sportspersons per say... Perhaps we need to be more clear about whether wikiprojects are meant to be fan clubs and begin taking action against those who are members of a wikiproject first and wikipedia second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you be in favor, then, of general sanctions on notability and deletion, each broadly construed? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think I would be, the current system seems to do a good job of eliminating individual editors who create issues at AfD... Where it breaks down is in addressing groups of them (especially when the edits on their own are not sanctionable but the group conduct is). I would be in favor of a sanctions regime for fanboy wikiprojects (perhaps progressive page locks?) though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe we should let Wikiepdians be free to be enthusiastic about any topic they desire.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As long as they can remain impartial of course. The problem for many is that their enthusiasm throws their impartiality out the window and if they can't edit a topic area impartially they aren't allowed to edit it at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One person's "partaility" is another person's "common sense" -- that's too big of a judgement for people to make at an online encyclopedia. If editors are being "partial" one way or another, other editors are free to metion that and the closing editor is free to take that into consderiation. We can do that now. We DO do that now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could you present some evidence that these sanctions are needed? My experience of AfD discussions is that the problem (if it exists) is too small, but my experience may not be typical, as I usually ignore discussions about sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok. I've read the discussion above and it seems that this is just about one sport, and that there are two issues with it - one editor's behaviour and canvassing at the Wikiproject. Surely admins have enough tools to deal with those without using additional sanctions? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Brigading in the more general sense absolutely happens at other wikiprojects, and not just the sports ones. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There are at least a dozen wikiprojects with a major brigading problem, off the top of my head WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Skepticism, and WikiProject Highways all have issues which exceed those of WikiProject NFL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      But can't that be dealt with by enforcing behavioral guidelines such as WP:CANVASS? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Question is "brigading" another way of saying that a lot of editors are enthusiastic about a topic, and other editors are not enthusiastic about that topic? I don't know how that could be stopped, nor do I think it should be stopped. That's not the problem that's the point --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose As unneeded bureaucracy, ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (I'm invovled in the discussions in quesiton) As long as it is WP:CIVIL, editors are free to WP:DISAGREE in discussions. Consensus can change, and the only way to change it is to discuss it. Editors are even free to speak against a policy if they like--even policies change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As long as it is WP:CIVIL and not WP:DISRUPTIVE. Repeatedly rejecting existing consensus in discussions where consensus cannot change is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I agreee. There is a right and wrong way to disagree. I don't read the link provided to mean that someone can never disagree, but to repeatedly disagree in the same discussion is certainly disruptive per essay WP:WABBITSEASON. Repeated disagreements can be a burden, but remember so can repeated agreements! However, to mention once something like "I disgreee because" and provide a short description isn't disruptive in my eyes. Is that in alignment of understanding or am I off base (which is ALWAYS a possiblity!): I would offer there is a difference between "I didn't hear that" and "I heard that but I think it's wrong." I observe numerous times where one editor presumes that Editor A is "not hearing" them but really Editor A "heard them" and just disagrees.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - utterly disproportionate to the problem and unnecessary bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This feels like it would raise rather than lower the temperature. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Seems like a poor tool fit to this particular purpose. If the issue was that the prior RFC was too complex to be useful, then start a clarifying RFC on VPP or something and get clarity from the community. --Jayron32 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Unfortunately, the ArbCom case has failed to resolve the issue, and while this won't solve the problems of brigading and disruptive WP:IDHT behavior I believe it will reduce the scale of the issue and hopefully prevent a second ArbCom case from being required. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The issue more relates to the near-impossibility of reaching any consensus for changes to WP:NSPORT. Until that changes this sort of incident will continue. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments offered above regarding "unneeded bureaucracy", disproportionality, and potential to "raise rather than lower the temperature". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ‘’’Oppose’’’. I disagree with Beanie on some of the afds where he argues to keep per IAR but I understand his passion. Beanie is one of the best editors we have working hard to expand football articles with actual reliable sources And encyclopedic content. I would say more in beanies defense but I am getting married in South America tomorrow morning so I will leave it at that. :) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see nothing to justify this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contacting WikiProjects[edit]

Will we need to (or should we) establish whether WikiProjects should or shouldn't be contacted about related AfDs, RMs, RFCs etc? As a member of WP:HOCKEY, I can promise you that we (the members of WP:HOCKEY) don't agree on everything concerning ice hockey. If contacted about an AfD, RM, RFC, etc? we WP:HOCKEY members do tend to not be in sync. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified about AfD discussion by adding the appropriate templates to the discussion. In this case, they are shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts - interested editors can monitor that, and go to the discussion, no more should be needed. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about someone posting on a project's talk page asking for help in finding and adding sources that might establish notability, but if the talk page is being used to drum up a group of people who all do and !vote in similar ways that does strike me as inappropriate. Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would note that in most projects that is what happens. Its only in some projects that people post "This guy is deleting our articles! Please help!" and others let them get away with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's presumptuous to think that all WikiProject members operate as a herd, merely because they are interested in a common topic. WP:AGF. —Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support WikiProjects being notified. WikiProjects will often improve articles that have been nominated to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that should be encouraged, though I can understand how that might look like canvassing. My experience with the NFL WikiProject is that I routinely see members of the project voting against other project members at the relevant AfDs, not acting as a herd. If editors are believed to be voting in bad faith then those can be addressed on an individual basis. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified about AfD discussion by adding the appropriate templates to the discussion." That says pretty much what needs saying. There is nothing productive in coming up with some new rule because of allegations of abuse. Ravenswing 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're saying that we should ban notifications beyond the templates? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(blinks) ... and you read "There is nothing productive in coming up with some new rule" as meaning that we should come up with some new rule? That's ... kinda breathtaking. Ravenswing 17:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused then, this isn't a discussion about template notification. This is a discussion about personalized notification in addition to the standard template. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just another person chiming in to say that WikiProjects are routinely and uncontroversially notified of deletion discussions without any issues. The notion that there's some sort of unfair uniformity within WikiProject members is not accurate in my experience either. For example, in the music-related Wikiprojects, there's much disagreement between editors as to when songs get their own article or are simply covered in their respective album article. In the video game area, there's constant discord between members on when a video game character needs its own article. It already feels like AFD participation is down in recent years, so I'd really prefer not to make any changes to further impact that, especially in efforts to solve something that I have not observed be an issue in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Members of wikiprojects may disagree on some types of AfDs, but if enough unite around particular internal standards that are at odds with global consensus and then implement them outside of projectspace, they are being disruptive. This would include casting anti-consensus arguments at AfDs, as we saw with the IAR arguments; the cricket project examples last spring (pinging @BilledMammal); and the approach various projects' members have used of refbombing with UNDUE/trivial/routine sources claiming NBASIC (and using them to "improve" the article), asserting minor awards meet ANYBIO, mischaracterizing the independence or secondariness of sources, rejecting NOT, and then !voting en masse based on those arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To elaborate further. A message about an AFD at a related WikiProject is proper if worded - "Input is required at 'linked' AFD". A message that would be improper? - "Calling all members support, to stop the deletion of [linked] page". GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GoodDay, Well said. — Jacona (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is this discussion happening at ANI? ANI cannot create policy. --Rschen7754 04:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Beaniefan11 is warned[edit]

  1. BeanieFan11 is warned against being incivil in AfD's
  2. BeanieFan11 is warned against disrupting Wikipedia by rejecting broader consensus in AfD discussions where the broader consensus cannot be changed
  3. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan individuals to AfD's, even when the individual has requested to be canvassed
  4. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to AfD's, including groups organized as WikiProjects
  5. BeanieFan11 is warned against canvassing partisan groups to ANI, including groups organized as WikiProjects

This list compiled by BilledMammal covers a range of issues that have been raised here. Please respond with either Support followed by the specific numbered warnings that you support or Oppose to oppose any warning at this time. –dlthewave 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support 1,2,3,4,5 as nom. –dlthewave 16:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all: Disclaimer: I'm involved with the NFL WikiProject and have worked with Beanie a great deal in the past. (#4) I don't believe it's been established that WikiProjects should not be notified of relevant AfDs in their area of interest. I maintain that notifying any relevant WikiProject of deletions in their area of interest is beneficial and likely to lead to improvements of the articles that have been nominated. (#5) Considering this ANI has been discussing the NFL WikiProject as a whole, and unfairly labelling the group as voting with a herd mentality, I think it's relevant to include the group in the discussion at ANI. (#1) The comments that are being labelled as "uncivil", in my opinion, don't rise a level to be worthy of a warning. (#2) I think this ANI has been enough of a warning to them and others involved (I myself have changed my view of football player notability based on this discussion, striking several of my votes). While there is still a question of whether using IAR at AfD is disruptive, I do not believe they'll be using that rationale moving forward based on their comments on this discussion and them striking their IAR rationale from the currently open AfDs at the American football deletion sorting. I'm also noticing that they're asking for articles to be draftified so that they can work on improving those articles to the point that the community accepts them as meeting GNG. (#3) I think this was done in good faith, given that the user asked for a link to said AfDs. I think it's clear that moving forward it'd be best to link to the relevant deletion sorting page in the future instead of the individual AfD pages. I believe the lashing that's been taken here is enough and we don't need to pile on further. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all - Nothing BeanieFan11 has done merits a warning. (1) The comments at the start of this ANI thread are hardly of the sort that warrant a civility warning. (2) BeanieFan11 has not disrupted anything by rejected broader consensus. In most cases he has found sources for the subjects in question. If in a couple of cases he claimed IAR that hardly disrupts anything - it takes an admin literally a second to read an !vote claiming essentially "IAR because I like it" before dismissing the !vote. And in every case I can recall BeanieFan11's IAR claim has gone beyond what was explicitly rejected in the NSPORT RfC, i.e., notability claims just for playing a number of games, by adding the fact that they played in a pioneering league. We can agree or disagree that that is enough to warrant IAR but it is not simply rejecting the consensus. (3) An individual asked BeanieFan11 to let him know about AfDs needing rescuing. It is hardly canvassing to respond to that request. In any case, BeanieFan11 now can see that the action was controversial, at least the way he worded it, and can address future behavior without any formal warning. (4) and (5) There is nothing inherently wrong with notifying WikiProjects of a relevant AfD or (especially) ANI, and broadly calling this particular WikiProject a "partisan group" is frankly inappropriate. [Adding - After all, the WikiProject is the place where editors are best positioned to find sources to support keeping the article, which presumably no one is opposed to.] Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? Most discussions are not closed by admins. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your point? Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you don't seem to understand what you're talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What don't I understand? And how does that impact whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't even understand basics like how AfD's are closed, why are you competent to offer suggestions for how to address AfD issues? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've closed many AfDs myself and none has ever been reversed at DRV. And I am well aware that many AfDs are closed by non-admins (although of course close or controversial AfDs should not be - see WP:BADNAC). So again, what is your point and how does it relate to whether BeanieFan11 should be warned? Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not appear that such arguments are dismissed out of hand by the closer, they would include that in their written reasoning if they were doing that and none of the examples we have here mention it (unless I'm missing something, if so please point it out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? A closer does not necessarily refer to each !vote in the close. But of the recent AfDs that were NACed as keep: Willie Flattery was clearly based on GNG !votes, I didn't notice any IARs. Joe Williams had some IARs but also many GNGs and no delete !votes, so no need to address the IARs in the close. Ja'Quan McMillian was also clearly closed on the basis of many GNGs and no delete !votes. The other keeps appear to have been closed by admins. Which NACs are you referring to? Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, but I agree 1, 2 and 3 are big no-nos. I think a lot of people are doing that, and all should already know that that’s not allowed, so I think an explicit warning to one person is not indicated. We have a chronic Wikipedia culture issue with behavior in AfDs and that should be addressed by responding consistently to that behavior. No need for a special sanctions policy, just better policing of AfD behavior. If getting a Wikiproject involved causes problems, then there’s an issue with that project that should be addressed, rather than banning Wikiproject notification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Above, BeanieFan11 rejected that there was anything wrong with their actions in relation to 1, 2, and 3. This is why I believe a warning is needed; they should already know that that isn't allowed, but they don't. In addition, warning one editor sends a warning to other editors that this is not tolerated, while failing to issue a warning sends the opposite message. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, if we come back here with another case involving BeanieFan11 or anyone else whose behavior is discussed in this case, we can act further. I think the discussion here has been clear enough without having to wave a yellow card. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2, 3, and 4. Undecided on 1 and 5.
For #2, In the NSPORTS2022 discussion there was a consensus that participation alone was insufficient to establish notability, but despite this BeanieFan11 votes to keep articles solely on the basis of participation, as can be seen at discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock. This is disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, and as BeanieFan11 is unwilling to recognize this and commit to not continuing to do so a warning is required.
For #3, BeanieFan11 notified a partisan editor of a group of contentious AfD nominations. This is clearly canvassing, and the fact that the canvassed individual request to be canvassed doesn't change that, and if we allow this action to stand without a warning and without the canvassing editor acknowledging their mistake and committing not to do it again we place a loophole in WP:CANVASS that will be abused.
For #4, WikiProject's aren't immune to being partisan any more than any other group of editor is. Above, I have demonstrated that WikiProject NFL is partisan on this topic and as such a warning for canvassing them is appropriate.
BilledMammal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of curiosity, because I haven't seen this addressed by people (or may have missed it), would you be opposed to users linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football if a user requested a list of related topics at AfD? Or do you think that a request like that should just be ignored altogether? I'm curious how users would view the situation had that been linked instead of directly linking the related discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not ignored, the person who asked to be canvassed should be rebuked by those they asked to canvass them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there would be an issue with linking to the deletion sorting list as informing an editor of a tool existing isn't a problem, but I also agree with Horse Eye's Back that they should be rebuked - softly, if they are a new editor and don't know better - for asking to be canvassed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose 1; I don't think BeanieFan chose the right places to vent, but I also don't think the language they chose is sanctionable, especially when complaints like this about more directly insulting language close with no action. Neutral on 2; they may not have chosen the best approach, but I agree with others above that they've already shown they're willing to adjust their votes and that they shouldn't be singled out for voting this way. Strong oppose 3, 4, & 5; no one should be sanctioned for doing anything that is explicitly permitted by a WP guideline (in this case WP:APPNOTE) unless and until the exceptions are noted within. Hatman31 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exception being discussed here is already included in APPNOTE: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions..." If they're consistently only notifying one of the half dozen relevant wikiprojects that's a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They weren't. Throughout this entire thread, you seem to be assuming that WikiProject NFL members have a uniform opinion on these discussions, which is untrue. Hatman31 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They weren't what? I don't see any AfD notifications at WikiProject Biographies which is the primary WikiProject for all the pages under discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Above, I proved that they did, and that this opinion was out of line with the opinion of the broader community making them a partisan group. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's as straight forward and easy to claim we're a partisan group. Many members of the project abstained from voting and some of those that did vote were not included in your list, such as Hatman31 and Cbl62, both of whom voted to redirect or delete on some of the AfDs. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've "proven" nothing of the sort. At best you've expressed an opinion that a majority of editors that commented on it agreed with to some extent. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the comparison to the EEng discussion is a bit misleading, since a major factor for that discussion was that EEng's incivility was in response to a frivolous MfD that implicitly attacked their character. The same outburst in the context of an actual article content dispute or procedurally-compliant AfD likely would have received a sanction. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was worth being dragged to MfD and ANI if it means I can act as a benchmark or lesson to my fellow editors. EEng 06:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:APPNOTE does not permit any form of canvassing; it provides examples of what can be appropriate notifications, but it explicitly states Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE. In addition, by opposing #3 you are supporting creating a loophole to CANVASS; above JoelleJay made the satirical comment As an editor who is highly experienced in turning 5kb keep discussions into 25kb no consensus shitshows, I hereby publicly declare my interest in contentious sportsperson AfDs and invite editors to link all such ongoing discussions on my talk page. Thank you. that demonstrates the issues creating such a loophole would cause. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every editor of any experience, and Beanie has plenty of experience, in spite of one editor's uncivil SPA assertion, knows that incivility is improper, so I oppose proposal 1. We all know about number 2 as well, but Beanie has chosen to express their disagreement. They've done so strenuously, and has probably overstepped to the point of disruption, because we've come to this point, so yes, I support that warning. That doesn't mean that Beanie must totally be silent about their disagreement with the outcome of the RFC, but they need to express it in a way that admits that it is consensus and therefore holds sway, even if they believe the consensus should change. As to 3, 4, and 5, I believe that if we have wikiprojects, they should be used to pass on information about articles that relate to those wikiprojects, and therefore notification about deletion to the wikiprojects should happen, so I oppose 4, and oppose 5. As to 3, it boggles my mind that we have fallen to the elementary-school level where if Suzy talks to Joey Billy won't be her friend. I oppose 3 as being a childish and uncivil proposal. Jacona (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2, as that's a no-brainer. Simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question are we really having a lengthy discussion about whether or not a reasonably experienced editor should be warned?? I'm pretty sure the editor has already gotten the message... and I'm just as sure that any position of support or oppose that I take would not have (and should not have) any bearing on warning another editor. Do it, don't do it--your choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Oppose. Although maybe admins should give out WP:CIVIL warnings more liberally at AfD discussions.
2. Oppose. The WikiProject National Football League should however accept that the RFC happened and if they wish to overturn it then AfD discussions are not the correct location, and continuing is disruptive.
3. Support. Based on this edit. Giving a "always inform me" is just a way to try and create a loophole.
4. Oppose. If this was unacceptable there would be another group to look at first.
5. Comment. I must have missed this, if there is a diff for it then it seems unacceptable. Informing a project about AfDs is one thing, but asking them to join a discussion about a users behaviour seems problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: See here for the notification #5 is based on. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested @BilledMammal not taking a position but for the sake of full picture, that was their second notification to the project about the ANI. The first is within: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#NFL_deletion_discussions Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I missed those; for ease of reviewing, the two relevant diffs in that discussion are this and this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you. As you well know from prior discussions we've had, I'm far better at content than I am at syntax, hence also the ugly underscores in my URL. One day! Thanks for making it more user friendly. Star Mississippi 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eeh. It was within the ongoing discussion they were having, rather than anything explicit. If they had opened a new section to point towards the fact it would be different. This looks like "I'm exasperated" rather than "please pile on". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 00:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: They did both; the post I linked is them opening a new section to point to the fact. The diff for that is here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The project had been mentioned in the thread by that point, this post was made ten minutes before the post to the WikiProject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the bigger problem here is not one editor, but a project spamming AfDs due to an RFC they disagree with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 01:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but I'm not sure how to resolve that other than to issue warnings to the worst offenders and hope that other editors engaging in similar activity take notice that the project does not tolerate such activity. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I was the recipient of BeanieFan11’s supposed incivil comment and I wasn’t bothered by it. I’ve been the recipient of much worse. And Beanie apologized to me anyway. Water under the bridge. Time to move on. Cbl62 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose all, or #1? BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose all. Beanie is a bright person, and I am confident he understands the lay of the land without being taken to the principal’s office for a formal “warning”. Cbl62 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately, they don't. If they did, I would agree this is unnecessary, but as things stand it appears like they will continue with these actions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all. This is a nonsense witch-hunt for ticky-tack pseudo-infractions. If we had ten divisions of editors like BeanieFan11, our troubles here would be over very quickly. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose all agreed. I wanted to leave this thread alone as pure nonsense, but a number of editors seem absolutely serioius about it. The message being sent is that if an editor disagrees with the current block of activiely powerful editors they need to keep quiet or be sanctioned. "They" can argue against consensus until "they" get "their way" and then "the old consensus" needs to shut up and take it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Consensus can change. People can disagree. That's what discussions are for. If everyone is required to agree in discussions, then discussions are pointless.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jweiss11, Well said, we want more Beanie. we NEED more Beanie!!! — Jacona (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2 but I'd also support a warning for WikiProject NFL as well. I'm not sure warnings can be given to WikiProjects, but if they are, I'd support one. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A warning to the WikiProject on what basis? They are not voting as a herd. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 2 and 3 (and support warning Randy Kryn as well for soliciting the canvassing and repeated IDHT behavior); I think 4 needs to be explored on a general basis re: propriety of AfD notifications beyond transcluding deletion sorting and identifying what makes a wikiproject "partisan".
On a grammar note, I would change "incivil" to "uncivil" and "AfD's" to "AfDs". JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2 which is what we have evidence for. Warning should be logged. I agree that selectively notifying partisan editors is a problem but I don't see a logged warning as needful at this stage.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all, none of these make any sense in the context of their wording or deeds. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2-5 per above, mostly per the oppose votes. If people still think this is acceptable, then I guess a formal warning is needed. Levivich (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To Gabber's point below, I would support some/all of these warnings being phrased as "general reminder to editors". I don't care about warning Beanie individually so much as I care about establishing what the consensus expectations are for everyone. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2 The lunacy about declaring WP:IAR to circumvent a community-held RfC that one opposes needs to be squashed. Don't care much about the rest. ValarianB (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose all Remarkably silly proposal Toa Nidhiki05 14:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2, Oppose 4, Else Neutral 2 as per the above ad nauseam. I want to specifically oppose a formal warning for 4 because while I believe that what has been presented is a serious canvassing issue, I think it's so endemic to Wikiprojects in general that a formal logged warning against a single editor doesn't feel fair, in that you can't blame/shame/indict a single fish for the state of a 20 fish aquarium. I hope I picked a non-insulting enough animal GabberFlasted (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Addendum: Also Weak Support 5 upon further review. AN/I is about editor behavior, and we can agree that pulling fellow members of your wikiproject into a review of your conduct is fairly scuzzy. But A'ing GF and looking at the timing of this AN/I and their post about it (only about 6 posts to the AN/I at the time) I can see it either as an attempt to validate their interpretation of IAR as normal in WikiprojectNFL, or to "notify" an entire project that they've been mentioned in an AN/I in the same way you'd notify a mentioned user. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support 2 IAR should not be WP:GAMEd to regularly reject community consensus. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Mike Novikoff removing links without good reason[edit]

User:Mike Novikoff is removing links and information from the infobox of the Vladimir Putin article.[74][75][76][77]

The stated reason for removal of links and article content was WP:OVERLINKING. I believe this does not apply here. With other articles concerning world leaders, such as Joe Biden, Chris Hipkins, or Justin Trudeau, their birthplace does contain a link, and also the region they were born in. Additionally, there is not a link to Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg, present in the lead of the article.

User:Mike Novikoff also has a history of removing links and content without good reason from other articles, as seen in the following diffs: [78][79][80][81][82][][83][84][85]

There are more examples, but to keep this ANI report short, I won't include them all.

When I added the links and removed content back to the infobox, User:Mike Novikoff threatened to report me here for edit warring, despite never violating WP:3RR.[86]

Michael60634 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show him WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, his accusations are so stupid that he deserves to be punished prevented himself for that, doesn't he? — Mike Novikoff 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Novikoff: Please see WP:NOTPUNISH. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was just about to correct it. Of course, the right word is "prevent". :-)) — Mike Novikoff 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahem. No, the accusation is not "stupid" -- it is certainly a content dispute, and I'm curious to hear from you why someone else restoring such material constitutes edit warring and worthy of an ANI complaint, while you removing such material doesn't. You want to explain that? Ravenswing 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see it as a content dispute. Such a closure would be too weak. We have some rules described in the MoS, and we have a user who wouldn't obey. So it's about his behaviour. And since he had started this topic himself, it's about him getting a boomerang between his eyes. — Mike Novikoff 07:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The MoS is a guideline, and while it should be generally followed, there is no compulsion for editors to "obey" it, nor have you been designated its judge, jury or policeman. I agree with just about everyone who's commented in this thread other than you that your pugilistic I'm-right-and-everyone-else-must-be-wrong attitude is not remotely helpful. Ravenswing 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is largely a content dispute. On the one hand, I can see why Mike Novikoff wants to remove some of those links, as overlinking is an issue I, at least, am often guilty of. Easter-egging is also a thing we should watch out for, although I would argue some degree of it is almost unavoidable given the nature of this encyclopaedia. Mike [Novikoff]'s contribution in tidying up articles in this fashion is therefore very useful, as not many people take the trouble of checking these 'technical' issues. At the same time, I believe he is operating from too literal (and too strict) an interpretation of policy - some of the links (as well as some of the elements, such as references to the RSFSR) he's removing strike me as useful enough to warrant keeping, something that is subjective and on which some sort of compromise or consensus could be reached. His language in edit summaries, as well as here, is also perhaps too confrontative (I'm not judging, sometimes frustration gets the best of us), and given that he threatened to bring the OP before ANI it is also understandable that this ended up here one way or the other.
TL;DR - I think this could be solved by civil discussion/through mediation without the need for disciplinary sanctions for either party. Ostalgia (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this is a content dispute, and should the issue with the links should be discussed. I only made a report here because Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR, which I did not do. And I would prefer to not defend myself against something I didn't do. I find Mike Novikoff's repeated attempts to boomerang me ([87][88][89]) quite strange and petty, as I feel I haven't done anything to warrant it. My worst offences are most likely not providing enough detail in my changeset comments and/or not discussing a reversion of a content removal. And these ([90][91]) changeset comments in responses to this ANI report are neither helpful nor appropriate. Michael60634 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this is a content dispute – but I don't. "A content dispute" means "just close it", and I hope you'll not get away just like that. Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR – I've never mentioned 3RR, I've said that I'll report you if you don't stop, and you have shot yourself in the foot. Now face the music. — Mike Novikoff 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be blocking Mike Novikoff for continuous trolling and refusal to discuss anything (communication via edit summaries is not really a valid dispute resolution avenue) during many years would be not such a bad idea. May be they should once face the music themselves. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, this sort of pugilistic rhetoric on his part does nothing except inflame further interactions, when we all should be working to try and de-escalate. He's not quite at a block yet, but both parties ought to take a step back since ANI does not resolve content disputes and no further good can come from continuing to beat the war drum. WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agreed. This is a content dispute, and the MOS is not a rule or policy, it is simply a guideline - which can often be irrelevant or even incorrect. Mike Novikoff needs to dial back the passive-aggressiveness quite a bit, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question the OP and the accused both seem to be Russian/Russian-born/native Russian speakers, and Ymblanter seems to be suggesting there seems to be a long history of similar behaviour by the accused. It might be the ultimate coincidence, but is there some previous issue porting over from Russian Wiki that we should be aware of, or am I reading too much into it? Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to provide some clarification, I am not Russian, nor do I speak Russian. I'm from the US, and I natively speak English. Maybe you made this assumption after reading my userpage. The Russian language quote at the top is from the TV show Chernobyl. I just liked the sound of the quote so I used it. I am trying, with limited success, to learn Russian. At first, it was out of interest, but now it's mostly because it's my girlfriend's native language. My only experience with editing the Russian wiki was updating the name of the De Havilland Canada Dash 8, an airplane I am quite interested in, and creating a move request to change the name of the article for said airplane. Michael60634 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guilty as charged - read the quote, quickly scrolled down and saw a userbox with ru, and just made a quick assumption (and a false one at that!) without even checking the level of Russian in the userbox. Just to clarify, I was asking not out of any national prejudice but because not long ago (2-3 weeks ago?) there was a dispute here between two users who, as it turned out, had been duking it out at the Spanish wiki (a language I do speak!) for a while and both had gotten blocked for their troubles. It was important context. The dispute here, luckily, was in the end solved to everyone's satisfaction through mediation. Anyway, my apologies.Ostalgia (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't assume you were asking out of national prejudice. And no offence taken. Michael60634 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a native Russian speaker, and as far as I remember Mike Novikoff is blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia, but I do not think this is relevant for this dispute. They demonstrated similar behavior here for a long time, making edits which are probably mainly good but having very poor communication style, sometimes going to clear trolling. When they get called out, and, especially, when they get dragged to ANI, they typically disappear to under radar, wait until the case gets closed as stale, to reappear and continue in a few weeks. I will try to get some examples later, the ANI notices should be on their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[[Reply[reply]
This is an ANI thread about the user I opened a year ago. They narrowly escaped a block then, and, apparently, did not learn much.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
refusal to discuss anything – If you search for my contribs at e.g. WT:MOS, you'll see that I had started some topics there in the past, and had even won some cases, so it's not true that "I never discuss anything". On the other hand, I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either. — Mike Novikoff 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you should learn at some point, and we are not yet there, is that (i) Wikipedia is not a battleground, it is not about winning or losing (ii) your communication style is not really appropriate. Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English is not my native, but I believe that "to win a case" is an idiom that has much less to do with military than, say, "AWOL". — Mike Novikoff 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you should consider that “battleground” itself is being used metaphorically. (This comment to which I’m responding is a great example.) (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't insist on my proposals if there's clearly no one to support me, so "I'm always right" is not true either – Your comments here contradict this statement. Michael60634 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You see, my discussion with OP goes like this: I'm making a lot of effort to describe the rules, then our frined just dismisses it. Please defend me from such style of discussion. — Mike Novikoff 08:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not discussion. That's edit summaries. Use a talk page for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now, quite predictably, Mike Novikoff went AWOL again, clearly waiting until this topic gets archived without a summary. After that, in a few week they would reappear and continue the same behavior. This already happened in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I noticed that. Mike Novikoff was quite active here, particularly with trying to get people to boomerang me....until that didn't happen and everyone else said it's a content dispute and didn't defend him as he requested. Now he has disappeared. Michael60634 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)