User:Pineapple Storage/Discussions/Community/ANI

Disruptive editing pattern by User:Wolfdog on Bahamian Dialect and Bahamian Creole articles. Related interference from Pineapple Storage, which doesn't itself arise to disruptive but is coincidental.

I'm seeking guidance on the contributions involving two editors following the merge proposal regarding Bahamian English and Bahamian Creole language. User:Wolfdog in particular is problematic.

Background: I developed the Bahamian Dialect page years ago, which was redirected to Bahamian Creole. Since that time, another page - Bahamian English was created that overlapped substantially as there was no clear distinction between the two pages. I initiated a merge proposal, which was opposed by Pineapple Storage.

Following a merge proposal, I compromised by rewriting the Bahamian English to cover the varieties of English spoken and written in the Bahamas.

Despite that Pineapple Storage seems determined to police by behaviour by giving me unsolicited advice. Both he and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.

Having changed the Bahamian English, I procdeded to revise Bahamian Creole page, which seems to have incurred the ire of Wolfdog.

Despite admitting that he is not well versed in the matter, he has reverted my changes and insisted that I discuss them on the talk page, despite the fact that they reflect the literature, are sourced, and include substantial quotes.

Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the Bahamian English page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.

Bahamian Dialect is what the language is called in the Bahamas. Since the 1980s, it's been suggested that it's a creole language although this was still being discussed as late as 2015.

Both Pineapple Storage seem to have some stake in the language being called Bahamian Creole when it is only the creolised varieties that constituted Bahamian Creole English

Concerns:

User:Pineapple Storage:

• Repeatedly provides unsolicited advice
• Makes condescending suggestions
• Dismisses evidence of independent reliable sources, such as newspaper sources showing 2-1 usage patterns in favor of academic sources only
• Continues giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering he has looked up source material

User:Wolfdog (acknowledged early on that he was "not well-versed on the matter")

• Kept out of any further discussion, however, as soon as I pointed out that the Bahamian Creole page has only ever referred to Bahamian Creole in the title and in the body to Bahamian Dialect throughout, immediately changed the first line to say that Bahamian Creole is Bahamian Dialect without any proof
• Reverted my edits and insisted on a discussion for information that was sourced and reflected the literature
• Unilaterally changed Bahamian Dialect to Bahamian dialect (despite it being a proper name) and then told me I should go to the talk page if I wanted to change without following his own advice
• Acting with apparent ownership over articles despite limited expertise.

Pattern: Both editors seem invested in enforcing "creole" terminology despite acknowledging limited knowledge, while avoiding substantive content contributions. When I've attempted to incorporate reliable sources, they've responded with process manipulation rather than content discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmemaigret (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mmemaigret is heading down the road to WP:PETARD. Administrators will have to make their determination. Wolfdog (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why this has been brought here, when WP:DRN would probably have been a more suitable venue. I haven't made a single edit to Bahamian Creole (see here) and have only made one edit (diff) to correct an obvious error in Bahamian English (see here), so I'm not sure what Mmemaigret means when she says...

Pineapple Storage has made similar silly edits like changing the lead of the Bahamian English page to refer to "spoken" English but leaving the body to discuss both.

... and...

Both [Pineapple Storage] and Wolfdog have followed up my substantial sourced edits by making minor changes as if they are checking my behaviour.

My only involvement has been commenting on the various discussions that Mmemaigret has started on the relevant talk pages:

1. Talk:Bahamian English#Merge proposal
2. Talk:Bahamian Creole#Page move proposed
3. Talk:Bahamian Creole#Bahamian Creole vis a vis Bahamian_Dialect

What Mmemaigret calls unsolicited advice and condescending suggestions, I would call "giving my opinion as part of a consensus-building discussion". I have tried throughout to remain civil, despite some inflammatory comments from Mmemaigret such as:

• "unlike you having your cute theoretical arguments [...] since you know more about this language that you don't speak" (diff)
• "It's like you insisting that a tomato is in fact a fruit so we should maintain two pages - one for tomato fruit and one for tomato vegetable and finding some sources that refer to tomato the fruit and some that refer to tomato the vegetable and arguing with a person who grows tomatoes that they must in fact be different because the 'literature' refers to them differently, when you've never seen or tasted, much less grown, one." (diff)
• "I created the Bahamian dialect page years ago, which was renamed Bahamian Creole by someone (I suspect a lot like you) who decided they knew better." (diff)
• "I speak this language that you think it a theoretical exercise. [...] You'd know that if came from the Bahamas." (diff)
• "You not of fan of linguistic diversity - that's what you tell yourself but that's not true. / All of the research says there are multiple varieties of Bahamian English and Bahamians call our language Bahamian Dialect. But you keep glossing over that. Now it's obvious why, you think the stupid native don't realise they need to be decolonised. [...] we don't need you to erase our varieties because you're on a crusade." (diff)

Also, while we're on the topic of condescending suggestions:

• "But since you know more about this language that you don't speak, maybe you indicate what the criteria is for distinguishing between the creole and the variation of English, so that editors can easily determine what goes on which page. Maybe you could indicate how may varieties there are on this spectrum." (diff)
• "If you read my last version and the sourced material and quotes, that would be clear." (diff)
• "Why don't you go and read all of the sources that you added on the talk page?" (diff)
• "Does that seem definitive to you? [...] Does that seem definitive to you? [...] Have you looked at a map of the Bahamas and seen how big it is? [...] Again, is this definitive?" (diff)

These are just the comments that were directed at me; Wolfdog might point to other examples.

Also, a very minor point: Mmemaigret says Both he and Wolfdog, but I haven't given any indication that my pronouns are he/him. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I've been accused of giving advice rather than engaging substantively with content, which is strange considering [I have] looked up source material, but I doubt that Mmemaigret would have preferred me to barrel in and start making contentious edits without engaging in the discussions (that she herself initiated), presenting my arguments and providing sources that support these arguments. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to come back to this again, as I would really prefer to put this whole thing behind us as soon as possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving some of Mmemaigret's accusations unchallenged. Given that she has not responded to this discussion since initiating it, I had a look at her contributions and saw that she has opened a discussion (diff) at @Liz's talk page (talkfork?) regarding this issue. She says:

At the same time, the other user kept going on about trying to get me to move a discussion about a proposed name change to another forum when I told him I was happy to leave the discussion on the talk page. He even proposed making a requested move himself because I wouldn't.

(Aside from the pronouns, which I have already pointed out above...) Mmemaigret continues to misrepresent me; I never proposed making a requested move [my]self because [she] wouldn't. In fact, I considered doing this, decided against it for the sake of diplomacy, and then specifically did not make that suggestion. Instead, I laid out (here, here and here) my concerns about the potential problems with a move discussion happening outside of WP:RM, one of which is the fact that the article's move history makes it a potentially controversial move, so official guidance is to use RM.

I will say, also, that in searching for policy and guidelines that might be relevant to this ANI discussion, I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and the forms of WikiBullying listed there really feel like they could apply to some of the comments that have been made. Inaccurate claims have been made about my editing, and aspersions have been cast; false narratives have been used to discredit me;^[1] and the very fact that I've been included in this report—to ANI, which is supposed to be used to address urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems—(despite having made no significant edits to the articles involved) could be interpreted as an attempt to brand and discredit me, if I weren't assuming good faith. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that she has not responded to this discussion since initiating it

What do I need to respond to? Your selective quotes that take a long conversation out of context? You weren't upset with them at the time. But they helped to distract from the issues that I raised on this noticeboard. Anyone who takes the time to read the transcript and follow the edit history should be able to see what happened.

Instead, I laid out (here, here and here) my concerns about the potential problems with a move discussion happening outside of WP:RM, one of which is the fact that the article's move history makes it a potentially controversial move, so official guidance is to use RM.

Thanks for confirming that you pressured me. (It was premature to say the move was controversial when you didn't let anyone else comment. That you and I disagreed did not make it controversial.)

I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and the forms of WikiBullying

I'm fine with an investigation to determine who bullied whom so long as it's through and independent. Because I think you know those were honest mistakes. On the other hand, do you think that following this issue across pages, and reviewing my user contributions to see that I asked Liz for advice, might qualify as wikihounding? I'd also like to know is how you got involved in the merge proposal discussion in the first place when you weren't pinged. MmeMaigret (talk) MmeMaigret (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to anything, but I thought if I were in your position, I would want to address the comments made below by uninvolved editors (which I see that you now have).

You weren't upset with them at the time. I was, actually, but for the sake of diplomacy I didn't flag this, because I wanted to avoid raising the temperature of the discussion even more and potentially attracting more accusations and insults. I wouldn't have taken it further, because I wanted to avoid ANI or similar, but given that you've reported me to ANI, I think I'm allowed to lay out my own perspective on the comments that have been made.

It wasn't premature to say the move was controversial, and I never said that the reason it was controversial was because you and I disagreed. It was always a potentially controversial move because—as you well know—the page has been moved several times in the past, including by you in 2006 to the same title that you were proposing this time (Bahamian DialectBahamian Dialect), and then twice subsequently (this one to Bahamian dialectBahamian dialect and this one to Bahamian Creole). Not only that, but you had already encountered resistance from another editor in 2015 when you suggested a move back to the previous title; there was also a related discussion at Talk:Bahamian English just last October, in which @Wolfdog was involved and a definitive consensus wasn't really reached. Given the prior moves and discussion about the title, the requirements for going through WP:RM (as laid out in WP:PCM) were clearly met.

I think you know those were honest mistakes. I don't know that, and how could I? Casting aspersions in multiple comments over multiple days doesn't imply honest mistakes. Purposefully using a pronoun I have told you I object to, as you did below (diff), also doesn't strike me as an honest mistake—especially since you bolded it, deliberately making it clear that you had seen my objection and were ignoring it.

following this issue across pages I joined in the move discussion for Bahamian Creole because it directly followed on from the merge discussion for Bahamian English; you even said (diff) I have already proposed the name change on the Bahamian Creole talk page. I look forward to your objection. This can only be interpreted as an invitation to contribute to the other discussion, so again, please don't misrepresent my involvement.

reviewing my user contributions to see that I asked Liz for advice Having not heard from you for two days, I was interested to know whether you were still actively editing articles and choosing to ignore this discussion. It turns out you weren't, so there's no problem there. You didn't just [ask] Liz for advice though, you also introduced a new accusation against me (quoted above), at another venue, without offering me right of reply by pinging me or otherwise letting anyone else from this ANI discussion know that the accusation had been made.

how you got involved in the merge proposal discussion in the first place when you weren't pinged. As I told you before (diff), the merge proposals appeared (diff) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Article alerts, which is on my watchlist because I'm a participant in WikiProject Languages. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one condescending person here, and it's not Pineapple Storage or Wolfdog. Maybe a read of WP:OWN would help. All participants should discuss the articles on the talk pages in good faith, which means being prepared to accept that consensus might be against you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Mmemaigret, this discussion should be occurring on the article talk pages or on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject (if one exists), the only reason I see for you bringing this disagreement to ANI is because you are seeking sanctions against the other editors. I see some disagreement between editors but that happens on a regular basis all over this project which is, after all, a collaborative editing project. We don't "vet" editors and require a certain level of personal familiarity with a subject before they can weigh in with their opinion on changes to an article. I think it would actually be more unusual if all involved editors actually agreed with each other! You may not like the "tone" of another editors' remarks but I don't see any actions involve policy violations. I'll echo Phil's comment that everyone involved has to dismiss any OWN behavior and be willing to discuss any significant changes in an article regardless of any editor's specific level of experience with a subject. You are not writing your own article, book or encyclopedia here so I think it would be best to move some of these discussion points to the article talk pages where all editors (and maybe some new ones) can be involved in developing article content.

If you want to have an article version that is 100% yours, I'd suggest creating your own blog or website where only your editorial opinion matters. I'm sure there are plenty of subject knowledge experts on Wikipedia who maintain their own sites off-Wikipedia where they don't have to edit according to the strict policies and guidelines present on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Phil (well, and Liz too!). Mmemaigret, you've been on Wikipedia a long time, however much your edits were few and far between up until three years ago. In that time, you should have absorbed a few concepts. Besides what's been pointed out to you as far as article ownership or civility goes, there's another basic principle: we have no way of knowing whether your self-professed expertise is accurate, any more than you actually "know" that the editors you're dealing with are wholly ignorant. You have to have seen, over those years, that many editors exaggerate their expertise/credentials, a large factor in why WP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia.

Take a look at my user page. I list a number of credentials there. And for all you know, I'm lying about all of them. That's why I don't barge into hockey talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. That's why I don't barge into legal talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. My having published or contributed to a dozen RPG books doesn't mean I get to barge into RPG talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. Ravenswing 08:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenswing (1) My expertise My only 'expertise' is real world knowledge. In the same way that if someone told you that a book said Levine Street intersects with Heller Street and you know that's wrong because you live in the city. The book is a reliable source and has value on Wikipedia but you'd expect someone to listen to you when you say you actually live in that city, and not keep telling you that they read it in a book. Or to keep talking about the city as if neither of you had ever visited it. Or to listen to you when you point out that the book clarifies the issue on another page. Pineapple Storage has quoted from my interaction with him from a talk page discussion - one that has increased the talk page of Bahamian English from 7500 characters to 44,000 characters. A conversation that went nowhere because even when I disapproved a point, Pineapple Storage would ignore it or concede it only to return to the same point over and over again. Then move the same discussion to the Bahamian Creole talk page. But let's talk about why I actually came to this noticeboard because talk page discussions and article edits are different things.

Woldogs edits After the merge proposal was closed, I set about amending the two pages to remove the overlap that had led me to propose the merge. I took on board Pineapple Storage's suggestion that the Bahamian English page could cover all of the varities of English, then I started to amend the Bahamian Creole page so that it only covered the basilectal (ie creole) varieties of Bahamian Dialect. Despite that, Wolfdog, who had indicated that he was unfamilar with the topic, started making unsourced opposing changes. If you look on the [Bahamian Creole page history], you will see that I made 3 significant edits. I came back after half a day to find a minor unsourced edit by Wolfdog. I didn't argue with him or assert my expertise (as the quotes above might suggest). I simply continued my edits from the night before, making another significant, sourced edit. To which, Wolfdog responded with a comment accusing me of 'steamrolling his edits' and ordering me to discuss things with him on the talk page (ie ownership and gatekeeping). But (i) he didn't have multiple edits and (ii) he and I hadn't had any discussion, so what was he eluding to? He had made a single comment on 22 August on the talk page of Bahamian English. Why did I need to discuss my factual sourced changes with him? And, if I was having a running discussion with Pineapple Storage who hadn't edited the page, what did that have to do with Wolfdog? Meanwhile, on the Bahamian English page, Wolfdog had changed "Bahamian Dialect" to "Bahamian dialect" throughout and advise me that, if I had a problem, I should discuss it with him on the talk page before amending again. If he knew there might be a problem, why didn't he take his own advice and discuss it on the talk page first? And since Bahamian Dialect isn't a normal dialect but a creole as Pineapple Storage had been keen to establish, or the proper name for a post creole continuum which I kept pointing out, why had Wolfdog made the change in the first place? (The lower case was inconsistent with both propositions.) But what did Pineapple Storage's discussion have to do with Wolfdog's edits and what did a lower case/upper case style preference on one page have to do with sourced vs unsourced edits on another? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Mm, it seems you missed my point. The reason we don't credit "real world expertise" is because there is no way of telling whether a "real world expert" is genuine or talking out of their ass, and as we all know, a great many people badly inflate both their knowledge and their credentials to get their way. The only real world experts we credit are those who have multiple reliable, independent sources confirming that expertise. Ravenswing 08:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss your point and honestly, I'm not convinced that you missed mine. This is why I don't engage on discussions on Wikipedia. I was clearly explaining that this actually isn't an area of academic expertise for me. But I know enough that, when Donnelly says on the first page "Bahamian Dialect is Bahamian Creole" that I wouldn't stop there and instead read further to where she says "A good many Bahamians speak a more mesolectal variety (which is still referred to as Bahamian Dialect)". But what I have learned in my last 3 years at Wikipedia, is there's no winning for losing. That when you guys lecture me, I should just quietly accept it. MmeMaigret (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems very simple to me. When explicitly told to stop editing and to discuss, you ignored that request and kept editing (as you admit above). It doesn't matter how many credible sources you use. Discussion through consensus is what's paramount on WP. (For example, we often require discussion to properly interpret those same sources.) Any of your arguments would hold more water if you simply stopped editing and talked through, specifically, what you liked or didn't like that I was doing. We could both pause and actually come to some agreements. Wolfdog (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

(1) You don't have any authority to stop me editing.

(2) There was no reason for me to believe:

(a) that because Pineapple Storage was still debating whether the page should be moved that I should take that as meaning that I couldn't edit the page in any way without discussing it with the two of you

(b) that I should take Pineapple Storage as having anything to do with you.

(3) I think you have now clearly admitted WP:HOUNDING. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)