Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19[edit]

Category:Golf clubs and courses in Fort Worth, Texas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bitwig users[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 11:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems this category could have been created to generate a list of noted users of a particular commercial product. It certainly fails WP:CATDEF. A spot check of six of the articles placed into this category by the category's creator shows that none of them mention the use of the product. The creator used for each artist or group placed in the category an edit summary listing as a source a dedicated page on the product's website and also added this category as a See Also link in the article about the company. Largoplazo (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagrees: Author here. Maybe I should introduce myself: I am an amateur musician, happy user of Bitwig Studio, not related to the company. I have created this category inspired by Category:Ableton Live users which is linked in the Ableton Live article in the same way. I wrote this because of a recent high-profile artist endorsement for Bitwig Studio (Richie Hawtin did some videos and released his add-ons on github). This got me interested to find out what other notable artists use Bitwig, and I couldn't find a good overview on this, so I created it. Less than half of the entries in the category are based on artist endorsements on the Bitwig homepage, the others are based on publications e.g. on http://www.equipboard.com, other media, artist's Facebook postings etc. The source is usually in the edit summary of the artist article (there are very few exceptions, e.g. Sweet Trip asked to be included via message in the Bitwig user chat). I am happy to add this also to the text of the artist pages, and/or to remove the tags for artists not sufficiently documented. The equipment used by noted musicians is relevant for fans and other musicians. If this kind of category is not wanted, you should also delete the similar category for Ableton Live as well as the top level category Category:Musicians by software and further categories like Category:FL Studio users so that people like me don't get a wrong idea. I spent some hours on research for this... Hirnlego (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FC Vorkuta players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club was renamed from FC Vorkuta to FC Continentals in 2022 Shotgun pete (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provinces of Canada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that the target category already exists, and had in fact already existed nine years before this subcategory was created, I'm not seeing a compelling reason why the provinces need their own double-door subcategory to segregate them from the territories (which are still just in the parent itself, and don't have or particularly need their own dedicated "Territories of Canada" subcat.) For comparison, Category:States and territories of Australia does not have a dedicated subcategory to wall off the states away from the territories, but just directly parents all of the eponymous state or territory subcategories itself. Once again, this was most likely a case of "if the United States categorizes states and territories separately, then Canada automatically has to do the exact same thing on principle" — but with 50 US states and only 10 Canadian provinces, there's a size differential to consider when evaluating what categories are necessary and what categories aren't, so each country should just make its own decisions based on its own circumstances and needs rather than always pairing a US category to a replicant Canadian category. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with 10 provinces and 3 territories, there is no need for both. What surprises me is that I do not quickly get to a series of subcategories that are the head category for each province or territory. I am sure such must exist but do not seem to be in this tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge irrational separation. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in theory separate categories make sense. In practice, we got too few to bother. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Mahesh Sty (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jomontgeorge, see investigation)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:West Prussia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Category:West Prussia

Category:Fishing in Ukraine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And no uk wiki interwiki to check for potential. That said, I think the category does have potential to grow. I have added two entries to it, so now it has three. Ping User:Marcocapelle Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle? (see above). ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added a few entries. Ukraine has many rivers and Black sea access, it has quite a bit of fishing and there is scope for further growth. There is a Ukrainian Fisheries of Ukraine category with more potential.--Mvqr (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mvqr's reasoning, it seems there's a lot of potential growth should the English Wikipedia cover all relevant notable topics. Hecseur (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Weak interaction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the main article and two subcategories which are incorrectly included — nuclear fission and nuclear fusion do not involve the weak interaction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagrees: Taken straight from the weak interaction article: “The weak interaction participates in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion“. —Kri (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/disseminate one of the four fundamental interactions. There's a slew of physics associated with this. Also, fission and fusion most definitely involve weak interactions. For example, take the this decay chain. Every time you see a β±, that's the weak interaction getting involved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All of these topics, Weak interaction and the three below, are the fundamental forces of nature. They are massive, extensive topics, and the main issue seems to be that filling out the Categories has been neglected. With a few minutes of thought there are numerous articles that should be in the category of Weak interaction and those below. For weak interaction, one could perhaps add Fermi interaction, beta decay, double beta decay, standard model, nuclear fission, neutron, C.S. Wu, C.N. Yang, F. Reines (and others), W and Z particles, positron, electron (all flavors), muon, tau, neutrino, neutrino oscillation, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, etc etc etc Bdushaw (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Strong interaction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Quantum chromodynamics and Category:Nuclear physics (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the main article and a subcategory that is getting speedy merged with this one per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/disseminate one of the four fundamental interactions. There's a slew of physics associated with this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point The article Nuclear force has been merged in with Strong interaction. The nuclear force is a different thing, a different category, it not being a fundamental force. To implement this merge would put "nuclear force" in with "QCD", which would be...odd. I don't know all the parameters here, but the nuclear categories ought to be separated from the fundamental force/theory categories, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdushaw: the nuclear force is the residual strong force. It doesn't need to be a fundamental interaction, as long as it's related to that fundamental interaction. It belongs in the category, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I don't disagree...I find I expressed what my sense was badly. It may not actually be the case, but I get the sense that the categories concerning the nuclear realm are being merged away into categories of the more fundamental physics. I am opposed to the disappearance of nuclear realm categories...nuclear physics is still a topic on its own. The only evidence I have of this is that the "Nuclear force" category was removed and merged with "Strong interaction", and now "Strong interaction" is proposed to be merged with "QCD". There seems to be this drift, you see...Bdushaw (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The solution could be as simple has having Nuclear force as its own category, and have that category be a subcategory of this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Claimed coups and coup attempts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (as noted below, Merge also equals delete in this case). A side note: comment on the content, not the contributor. If there are behavioural issues to address, address them at a more appropriate venue, such as one of the sub-boards of WP:AN. - jc37 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective inclusion criteria with WEASEL word 'claimed' that could open the door to all manner of FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting. This category is useful to distinguish from Wikipedia articles about coups or coup attempts that have been verified as such by a consensus of reliable secondary or tertiary sources. If a Wikipedia article about an alleged or claimed coup or coup attempt is unverified by a consensus of reliable secondary or tertiary sources as a coup or coup attempt, the Wikipedia article still may be permissible if the allegation or claim is notable, but it properly falls within a different category. There’s nothing subjective; either a coup or claimed coup has been verified as such by a consensus of reliable secondary or tertiary sources, or it hasn’t. As for the issue about fringe, if this category is deleted then all the articles that could be put in this category will instead go into the category for “coups and coup attempts” so there would still be the same potential for mixing fringe-y and non-fringe-y stuff together in a single category. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to FRINGE: as category creator, Anythingyouwant has argued both JFK Assassination and the 2021 United States Capitol attack merit inclusion. This demonstrates the subjective, weasel-word nature of the term 'claimed'. It muddies the waters of reliable sourcing on the one hand while elevating fringe conspiracy on the other. Feoffer (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that your primary motive is to ensure that claimed/alleged coups and claimed/alleged coup attempts are mixed in with actual verified coups and coup attempts at Wikipedia, instead of distinguishing between these very different things, so that mere allegations are given added credibility and respectability (i.e. undue weight) at Wikipedia. In particular, am I correct that you seek to put Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and/or 2021 United States Capitol attack into Category:Attempted coups d'état even though there is no consensus among reliable secondary sources that that was an attempted coup? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. I see that 2021 United States Capitol attack was placed in Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States by that article's editors way back in November of 2021 after discussions having nothing to do with me. My intention is to avoid subjective categorization of "claimed coups", "half-coups", "not-according-to-Hoyle coups" and other weasel-worded inclusion criteria that requires editors to make subjective judgments. Feoffer (talk)
Well, sure, other people put 2021 United States Capitol attack into that category, but if this CFD succeeds then it will remain in that category instead of going into a category (or subcategory) indicative that there is no consensus (at present) of reliable sources verifying that it was an actual coup or actual coup attempt. Anyway, how about if we leave this matter now for others to discuss? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an important aspect that no reliable secondary sources say these incidents were attempted coups, and do not say any attempted coup happened? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marcocapelle, if you would like to change the word “claimed” to “unconfirmed” in this category that’s now up for deletion, that’s fine with me. But deleting it altogether would eliminate all distinctions in our categorization between confirmed incidents and unconfirmed incidents, correct? Why is that wise? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to that, too Six is still half a dozen, regardless what you call that number. Since the last time I asked, have you found any RSs that use analysis (not just handwaving) and conclude Jan 6 was neither a coup nor self coup? Have you come up with a first proposal for text to add to the list article via Template:List criteria? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am not interested in treating January 6 any differently from any other claimed or unconfirmed coup attempts, and so I’m not interested in presenting any sources here about that particular event. In any event, if there are reliable secondary sources (not merely primary sources) that call January 6 an attempted coup, I’m not aware of it, but if there are such sources then it might be worth my time to see if there are reliable secondary sources that take the opposite position. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never suggested you want to treat it differently than other members of the same set and ok we don't need to talk RSs here. What about second question you ignored? What text would you propose to be added to the article via Template:List criteria to address your concerns? I believe a consensus on that question at the article would resolve the question of what categories we should have. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already said elsewhere that the list criteria should explain “that some of the listed items are unverified by reliable secondary sources as actual coups or actual coup attempts”. But we’re talking here about a category, not a list. The category criteria say, “This category is for instances where reliable secondary or tertiary sources have reported about claimed coups or claimed coup attempts without confirming any consensus that these claimed coups or claimed attempted coups actually happened.” I wrote that and so I obviously support it and have no objection to it, but have an open mind about any suggested changes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to possible recreation per proposer. This category was rushed into WP:POINTY creation by Anythingyouwant in the midst of a prolonged (and continuing) multi forum multi thread effort to form a consensus about this editors concerns, but there is no consensus yet, just a lot of table pounding. What we need is to focus on proposed text that would be added to the source of the original dispute, List of coups and coup attempts by way of Template:List criteria. We've had enough protestations of issues in principle so its time to stop arguing in generalities and argue instead over actionable template criteria language. That debate will establish a baseline for whatever categories are appropriate in light of this user's concerns.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Attempted coups d'état. It may be necessary to purge a few items into a new Category:Coups d'état plots, with a headnote saying that it is for those that never came to fuition. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would merely create an unnecessary subset because any big effort always starts with a plan, er go, once you have developed your "plot" you have already completed the first step of the attempt. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We’re talking about incidents that are not coup plots according to reliable secondary sources, and that are not coup attempts according to reliable secondary sources. Instead, reliable secondary sources merely say that someone alleged they are coup plots or coup attempts (without confirming whether the “someone” is correct or not). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about unconfirmed attempts, not about confirmed hoaxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. I would have no objection to moving this category to Category:Unconfirmed coups and coup attempts Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the rationale for the deletion request is that the word “claimed” is a weasel word, if this category is deleted, then I may create a new category titled “Category:Unconfirmed coups and unconfirmed coup attempts”. This would apparently remove objections raised here and elsewhere (e.g. at the category’s talk page). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Feoffer (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No per MOS:CLAIM and the original identical debate at the list article (here) per [{WP:Categorization#Category_description]]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that, because the word “claimed” is not a good modifier for the word “coup” therefore all modifiers of the word “coup” are unacceptable, except for the word “attempted”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2022 (UT
Per WP:MULTI and WP:GAMING I'll just refer back to the original venue where the main discussion (and your RFC) is still open, at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started this category three days before starting an RFC at the List of coups and coup attempts. Then this CFD started after I started the RFC. I did nothing wrong. Was I supposed to be silent at this CFD because I had started an RFC elsewhere? I don’t see why you won’t actually engage in reasonable discussion, as opposed to claiming that I’ve done something wrong. You’re occupying a lot of my time trying to get you to produce a reasonable explanation. Are you saying that, because the word “claimed” is not a good modifier for the word “coup” therefore all modifiers of the word “coup” are unacceptable, except for the word “attempted”? There are coups that have been confirmed as such by reliable secondary and tertiary sources, which are different from coups that are only described as such by primary sources. But instead of discussing that significant distinction, it’s all accusations, all the time. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to accuse me of obstructing the consensus process, go ahead, but do it in the right place... ANI/AE. A superior use of time would be returning the original dispute (your article contribs [1] and article talk contribs [2]) both of which started June 11. The category was created June 15 in the midst of heated debate at article talk over the same issues. So we should get consensus there and then do whatever categories reflect that consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you don’t want to address the substantive issue here, so there’s no point in my trying again to discuss things with you here. That’s not an accusation against you, just wish you’d told me sooner so I wouldn’t waste time trying. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MULTI, WP:GAMING and WP:NOTHERE, this discussion has been raised in enough venues to be considered a behavior issue if it persists. Feoffer (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You started this CFD discussion. Please stop with the constant stream of accusations and threats. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WITH PREJUDICE and OPEN an WP:ANI@Feoffer @Anythingyouwant Feoffer... I sympathize with your frustration, as this is a blatant WP:STICK that needed to be dropped days ago, and it is LONG-OVER DUE to finally open a WP:ANI on this. CASE IN POINT: A TBAN was just lifted on Anythingyouwant for similar disruptive behavior and POV-pushing, and so this isn't a surprise, as most troublesome editors fall back into bad habits given the reality of wikipedia trolling. Clearly this latest attempt by the editor in question is another lame, easy-to-spot WP:GAMING violation by a WP:NOTHERE editor with an WP:FRINGE axe to grind and tired-old-agenda playing itself out in fringe media like OAN and TruthSocial to censor the reliable sources (and their facts) over the failed 2020 Trump coup in 'easy-to-grab-information-places' where the average reader will go for their information (i.e. places like Wikipedia).
It is clear from the recent discussions that this is targeted at deprecating what RS describe as Trump's alleged-failed coup attempt. But given that goal, these discussions will never end, because "coup" is the mainstream NPOV description of the event, and the user here. For anyone else tuning in, and being gaslit by this nonsense, the meaning of "claimed coup" is unintelligible, and dishonest.
This is twisting us and our readers into a hyperpretzel just to validate Jan 6 denialism. Since every coup is like a snowflake, a little different than any other, one way to mitigate any ambiguity is simply describe the severity of such events in the voices of the RS, and strictly let them qualify the severity of the coups. The famed business plot, for instance, apparently never that planning stage. We don't mention the Kennedy assassination, for instance, because the RS doesn't support it outside oblique references to conspiracy theories. The Trump coup may have been a novel, very passive-aggressive 'non-traditional attempt' to overturn a democratic election (i.e. a sociopathic-scam-as-coup by sociopathic political conmen) BUT if the RS are clearly in consensus in calling this a new-fangled-kinda-coup, then simply say as much in the body of the content so the readers can see how they compare to other coups. There is NO doubt or argument in the credible press that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election, so to present another side in the form of arbitrary categories as this is a form of WP:PROFRINGE.
Clearly the troublesome editor in question knows ALL this and is angling at this now, in a clear pattern of WP:GAMING we have seen over and over again from him that lead to his LAST TBAN. I don't have time to do a proper ANI to reign in the troll pushing this, but this is wasting valuable time of valuable editors, misleading the readers who occasionally tune in to read this, and requires disciplinary action to nip it off at the bud. Maybe if I have time I can log into my account proper when I get home and see what I can do, but asking others with the time and expertise to step so wikipedia is inoculated by this latest WP:PROFRINGE violation. Someone please help spare us from further toxic disruption, and file an ANI ASAP. 71.211.141.234 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t start this CFD, but it’s true that I did !vote about it. I’ve already agreed to not discuss the merits of this CFD further, while a similar discussion is ongoing elsewhere. But if you’d like to start an ANI discussion about my mundane decision to vote in a CFD that I didn’t start, please feel free. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant No, nice dodge. It’s not about your “mundane” banal angle here to push WP:PROFRINGE Jan.6th denialism on Wikipedia. It’s about your disruptive WP:GAMING + WP:POINTy = WP:NOTHERE behavior ‘everywhere’ on this “possible claimed alleged herpa derp coup” nonsense. This “mundane CFD” is just the WP:STICK that broke the Wikipedia’s camel’s back. P.S. When under the gallows the last time with your last TBAN you also tried to play chicken with the rules and tried to play it down according to your history. And how well did that work for you then? Doubling down?!? If you really want an WP:ANI then just say the word, or maybe just drop this offensive BS and save everyone the trouble, troll. Food for thought 71.211.141.234 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the date in question is January 6 not January 16 as you say. If and when there’s consensus among reliable secondary sources that that event was a “coup attempt” then I emphatically support putting it onto a list of attempted coups and into a category named “attempted coups”. If you think that’s an unreasonable stance, and a disruptive trolling stance, and a fringe, pointy, gaming stance, then you are not worth any more attention from me, much less from ANI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant Says the editor with baggage who begged and begged AND BEGGED for another chance, and promised to do better, after admitting wrongdoing ONLY AFTER his last TBAN for trolling (looking at you). Be careful what you wish for. ;) TL;DR version- No one’s buying it, the least of all, YOU. 71.211.141.234 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t apologize for anything, and this is not a good place for your harassment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
71.211.141.234 (talk · contribs) I agree with AYW that this isn't the place. If you want to say such things, the place to do it is ANI or AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even ANI and AE have limits I presume. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, see WP:BOOMERANG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy@Anythingyouwant Then hold my beer, gents, because boomerangs are double-edged for a reason. See you on an the ANI board. 71.211.141.234 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy Agree all you want with the disruptive editor. Doesn't change the fact that another editor broached the subject, which is why it is germane to the the discussion, hence my response. So maybe take it up with the original editor Feoffer, who I'm extending AGF given his experience, which easily exceeds yours. You are also giving this fire oxygen, with your own appeasement and attention, of a barely transparent attempt to deprecate what RS AND second RSes clearly describe as Trump's alleged-failed coup attempt. Again, the meaning of "claimed coup" is twisting us and our readers into a hyperpretzel just to validate Jan 6 denialism,.
As the fallacious logic goes according to certain disruptive editors in the habit of pulling this sorta thing every now and then, "the term [coup] was only applied to the illegal seizure of power by small cliques. Now it refers to any contested transfer of power, even when ostensibly legally sanctioned". However, a coup is a coup according to the RSes, not us. Also, most coups are historically dishonest affairs given that it is rare that those leading the coups admit to stealing anything, typically they lead with gaslighting, claiming an election was stolen from them. Even the misleading idea that "the 2020 election was contested", is absurd given that it is a disproven conspiracy theory. There is nothing "contested" about it by the RS and secondary RS.lol
Also, the disruptive editor in question here makes it a point to never quite comes out and says this all about the 2020 failed attempt by Trump. With him clearly making it sound like the bigger issues is simply ALL coups, real or imagined. But his agenda couldn't be any less clear. The only real debate in the RS and secondary RSes is the severity of the failed Trump coup. So the battle should be over the body of each and every entry, in how the coup is described, not some arbitrary forgotten category that is set up so that the disruptive editor can then bury the 2020 coup in a way that serves the propagandists and makes it appear that it's not a REAL coup. Just the subject heading alone of that WP:gaming edit, (i.e. "Moving 2020 alleged coup down this page per discussion at WP:RSN") which is blatantly UNTRUE given that the RS clearly says no such thing, even quietly acknowledged in a slip by the disruptive editor himself that he's hoping no one will notice. Given all that, and your odd enabling of this disruptive affair, certainly means that your behavior should be discussed as well in any possible inevitable ANI. Maybe you should both take a break from politics for a while.
P.S. If you don't like my candidness here, then perhaps you both can file an ANI on my typo, since I will give an editor here enough credit to take responsibility for his violation of the rules when apparently being candid & typos 'trump' (pun intended) the alternative-facts he's peddling here with your help-- intentional or otherwise.
TL;DR version- I'm done with this nonsense, and you should be too. 71.211.141.234 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other editor AYW is speaking for, but just FYI, it isn't me, and if I have something else to say here, I will do so.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s surprising to me. Per WP:MULTI and WP:GAMING it seems advisable to have a centralized discussion at the RFC Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as I said earlier in the thread. If I do not have anything to say here, I'll do that, too. Just don't presume to speak for me please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_19&oldid=1109731565"