Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003

user:Levalbert

• Levalbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some very strange edits by user:Levalbert. Uploaded an image of male genitalia as own work and then added the picture to numerous articles (Human penis size, Human penis, Male reproductive system, Sex organ , .Foreskin, Glans penis, Body hair, Pubic hair) Arguably good faith, but all additions removed as not needed, not an improvement, or simply bad illustrations (an end-on picture is not very useful in most articles). After warning from me and comment by user:Ianmacm Levalbert redirected talk page to Wikipedia:Levalbert , blanked the page, and then redirected this to Wikipedia:DêsaasABC. Blanking warnings is allowed, but hiding them by moving them to a soon to be deleted page is not appropriate. I can't undo the moves so this will need admin (or at least someone with page mover permission) to unravel. Meters (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levalbert has been rather naughty here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI they have been blanked again. Please speedy delete them. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I did a history merge to combine the old talk page and new talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's perfect. The history is back. Meters (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument for including the image at Pubic hair, but it's a substandard example for the rest of those articles. Leviv ich 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out that taking a picture of your member and posting all around the site is not the thing we are discussing... because it technically isn't a violation the way he did it. Gosh, Wikipedia is so freaking weird sometimes.. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

...that anyone can edit... Leviv ich 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When we say anyone can be a member here, this isn’t what we mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

All users are equal, but some users are more equal than others. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd agree it's not a violation. While we normally do not consider people adding images they created to articles a COI problem, IMO they can be especially when there is clearly a promotional aspect to it. To give a simpler example, if I took an image of myself where I am readily identifiable, and then started adding it to the human, Man, Chinese people, Overseas Chinese, New Zealanders, Malaysians, Malaysian Chinese, European New Zealanders, Chinese New Zealanders, and a bunch of other articles, it seems to me this is a COI problem or something, even if the image is technically on topic on each of them. There's also the question of WP:NOTHERE, was this editor adding these because they believed they made those articles better, or for some other reason? Note that I'm not saying there's already need for sanction, simply that do think there's a fair chance it violates one or more guidelines or policies. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps some new COI-declaration templates are in order: {{thisismypenis}} and {{thisisnotmypenis}}? Leviv ich 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this is can be debated is the real kicker here. Also, this thread is honestly slightly hilarious. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The files have been nominated for deletion at Commons, but until that takes place I've requested they be added to the WP:BIL. Home Lander (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive image replacements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see his contribs.

I have been reverting, so am involved, so will leave this to other admins.

After multiple warnings by a number of other editors, this user simply reverts the usertalk posts and carries on. The problem is generally replacing good lead images with objectively worse ones.

Recent examples:

• At Chicken noodle soup, user swapped in File:Samgye-tang 2.jpg to replace File:Chicken Noodle Soup.jpg. This new image shows a whole chicken in soup with no noodles replacing an image showing actual chicken noodle soup.

• At Birthday cake, his choice replaced this previous image. This new image is a top view which makes the cake appear two dimensional, and has no ubiquitous candles.

• At Fruit cake, this image of fruit cake actually shows the fruit cake. He replaced it with an iced birthday cake. The icing obscures the fruit cake, and the fact that it is a birthday cake, covered with fresh fruit and words, really makes it unrepresentative of a fruit cake. He also added the caption "birthday furit cake", misspelled and with "birthday" lower case "b".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think you forgot to notify him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're right. I seldom post here so I forgot. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I seldom post here so I forgot: obviously smarter than the rest of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

According to tests, I am marginally smarter than a lemur, so not sure what that says about you lot. (However, I "...can harvest vegetables...and do domestic work...", so there's that.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anna, the editor hasn't posted since you left your notice on their talk page. I don't think immediate action is called for here on ANI. Let's see how they respond to your message (and whether they respond to it) before taking additional action. Let's hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Good plan. I really just want a few more eyeballs on their contribs. Taking things slowly is a good idea. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree that these image edits are suboptimal and I have added those articles to my watchlist, as well as the user talk page. On the other hand, those articles ought to have a worldwide perspective. We have no Chicken noodle soup article, and that is a redirect to Chicken soup. Adding noodles to chicken soup is commonplace in the United States and Canada, but less so in the rest of the world. So, it is not inherently wrong to add a photo of a whole chicken in chicken broth to an article about chicken soup that discusses that broad topic worldwide. I just served chicken soup to my wife who is not feeling well, and it was more of a broth and had no noodles in it. But this editor needs to discuss these images and the ones that they have tried to replace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For me (with my Asian connections) there's a big difference between chicken soup and chicken noodle soup. But putting that aside, a whole chicken in a bowl of broth is not a good infobox illustration of chicken soup - I've never been served a bowl of soup (anywhere in the world) with a whole chicken in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Boing! said Zebedee. Had you been served that, it would have been on the menu as "whole chicken in soup" rather than "chicken soup with a whole chicken sitting in it". This seems to be something I want the editor to understand: the main element in the infobox photo should match the article title. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just glad I didn't order beef soup! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I'm not sure how I didn't notice that. It was early here and my coffee level was low. Anyhow, yes, the article is about soup. The replacement image's main element is a whole chicken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And just to point something out, what I think about an image is not so important. Many editors are reverting most image replacements. That is a problem. Ideally, the editor will communicate back and forth on their talk page take our advice. They seem to ignore guidance on images as well as BRD. I think they mean well, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we don't have an article on this type of chicken. —CambridgeBayWeather 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If offered, just say neigh. DMacks (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary section break

I've noticed the user seems to be aware of this thread but continues to make edits replacing photographs in articles. @Geoffreyrabbit: You're at risk of a block if you keep this up without saying anything. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, this activity has been going on for quite a while. Proposal: I suggest a topic ban from replacing images in any Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that topic ban. I'm concerned their consistent failure to engage with other WP contributors will lead to an inevitable WP:COMMUNICATION block. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the user should be blocked until they respond to the concerns raised, which they are clearly now aware of and are ignoring. Communication is key to a collaborative project. Fish+Karate 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't say to join the discussion or even that it's an advisable or appropriate thing to do, nor does it link to the particular thread. Maybe that should be changed, but until then... I have posted a more direct suggestion on the editor's talk page here. It seems there may be a language barrier that could be causing some misunderstanding. Leviv ich 23:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! My talk page post has been read. Leviv ich 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And they promptly went back to replacing images, Enough. I have blocked the user until they communicate with others and respond to the issues that have been raised. They can do so on their talk page. The block is indefinite but not permanent, I'm happy for any admin to lift it once Geoffreyrabbit responds to these concerns, no need to check with me first. Fish+Karate 09:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's been read. [1]. Fish+Karate 10:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this can be closed, if an uninvolved person would like to do so. No haikus this time, I want a limerick. I'll keep an eye on the user's talk page to see if they want to resume editing, until they begin communicating there they can stay blocked. Fish+Karate 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an old lady from Caerphilly

Who could not engage in civility

She was taken to ANI

Where she was warned about using semprini

And in a huff deleted her activity. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There once was a young man named Steve, whose rhyming left all most aggrieved. While he gave it a go, it was rubbish, and so, never do limericks please. Fish+Karate 11:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you expect in 3 minutes, Vogon poetry?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, but now I know what I'm doing for my next ANI close. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw a thought in... after reviewing the editor's activity on WP, it's fairly clear they are not particularly fluent in English, and I would question their ability to function adequately as an editor. Wikipedia:Competence is required Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but until they respond in any way we'll never know for sure. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Wikipedian version of the saying is, but something like, "Better to stay quiet and let others AGF than to speak and prove CIR." Leviv ich 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MPants at work reported by User:Luciusfoxx for severe Personal Attacks and threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: User talk:Luciusfoxx (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MPants at work has engaged in severe (at times, even verbally violent) Personal attacks and threats:

1. [2]she tells me,"fuck off"
2. [3]tells me to "get over myself" for refusing to agree with her unsolicited opinion on politics
3. [4]threatens to wiki-lawyer me with frivolous ANIs
4. [5]she tells me,"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"

1. Personal attacks evidence Personal attacks from User:MPants at work began with remarks like "get over yourself" and unprovoked, pre-emptive thinly-veiled threats like "you just are just begging to be quoted in an ANI thread about you". They are clearly uncivil, lack good faith, and are forms of personal attacks. Yet after my humble polite warning to keep it civil, the editor doubles-down on her personal attacks from with verbal sexual assault telling me in her edit summary"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube."[6] and then vandalizing my talk page, saying "fuck off" and proceeding to threaten me with an ANI over what she considers to be "the blatant hypocrisy" my opinions.[7] Just because she does not like my opinion, does not mean she has the right to attack me. I would imagine anyone with enough knowledge and experience to threaten with an ANI is also knowledgeable enough to know that this kind of severe NSFW language and sexually derogatory harassment of another at least constitutes a personal attack, let alone language never acceptable here.
2. Warning given: I politely gave a warning to apply good faith and to cease the personal attacks.[8] In retaliation, the disruptive editor attacked me again, with two severe personal attacks, one of which (again) was verbally violent and sexually derogatory.

Personal attacks and threats against me AFTER my warning:

1. [9]
2. [10]

This is pretty cut and dry. For those reviewing, thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
@MPants at work:

• I'm not inclined to dig through the history here, but for a bit of background see the OP's fuckwittery and disruption at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza#Felony status, which appears to be the root cause of the dispute that led to this. Sure, losing one's temper is a bad thing, but it's clear there are very much two sides to this particular story and only one is being presented here. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The sandpaper comment is ... a lot, but I don't think this is really actionable. I'd recommend looking at the context for this, regardless: Talk:Dinesh_D'Souza#Felony_status. This looks like another case study in (a) how much leeway do we give someone when dealing with brand new blatant-POV-pushers with woefully poor grasp of NPOV or RS and a greater-than-their-edit-count grasp of templates and process, and (b) how much leeway do we give someone concerning their own talk page. The latter has typically been quite a lot. The former has typically been greater than when engaging with other editors clearly here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. Maybe better to just ignore, report to NPOVN, or wait for the inevitable TBAN... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Whose sock is this?" is a popular parlour game for American Politics articles... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll play, Only in death. Five bucks says it's Hidden Tempo's latest. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Tsk. I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead paragraph. However, it speaks for itself if you honestly think that sexually derogatory attacks or verbally violent language from an editor who has already been warned and been banned over this kind of behavior "is not actionable". Why have rules at all then in the presence of said anarchy and open-sport on depravity? However, flawed your logic is, thank you for your time and opinion.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead paragraph.—you are aware that we can read, right? Incidentally, see also this. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Substantially, I was referring to my one edit on the actual article itself. Not the talk. On the talk page itself was only one primary rebuttal, and three short replies (I think) to different editors. Not including minor edits to fix grammar and the like, it was hardly what you are making out to be.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess there are two options here (at least there are two that aren't counterfactual). (1) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be sanctioned, or (2) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be told to calm down and avoid one another for a while. I think the shortest route back to peaceful editing (which ought to be the objective) is number 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Broken promise on civility

MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and his alt-account MPants at work have engaged in gross incivility yet again. In October 2018 there was a turbulent ANI subthread about MjolnirPants' incivility: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Incivility. The closing statement was MjolnirPants (and MPants at work) has agreed to treat fellow editors with respect and to dial back on rhetoric when addressing blatant racism, and has been warned that any additional commentary suggesting a threat of violence will be met with an immediate block.

The ANI thread also lead to the widely-participated "Fuck off" RfC. During the RfC, MPants self-requested to be blocked and was done so for 3 months[11]. After coming back after the block expired on February 5, he has apparently returned to his old ways:

• Violence fantasies[12] The context here is humorous, but it's worth noting that MPants was warned for threats of violence in the last ANI thread.
• After being given a civility template by a new user called Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs), MPants removed it from his talk page with the edit summary: fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube.[13]
• He then banned Luciusfoxx from his talk page with the title "You can stay the fuck off my talk page"[14]

Clearly treating others with respect was just an empty promise to avoid being blocked in the last ANI thread. I have been banned from his talkpage for requesting him to remove a -180deg code there[15], so I am unable to bring this up that way. --Pudeo (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Luciusfoxx passive-aggressive bullshit really is tiresome. It does need to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. That is of course, not the same as saying Luciousfoxx needs to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. A distinction which is pretty small to be fair. Asking for comments from 'non-liberal objective' editors is pretty much asking to be slapped with DS warning let alone being told in plain English 'keep this up and you will end up at a noticeboard'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This kind of comment speaks for itself, and the problem here.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have too much more to add to this beyond what I wrote above, but .... violence fantasies is nonsense. Objective3000 said, in the context of the sometimes unpleasant atmosphere in parts of Wikipedia, "I treat it like a video game with AI characters designed to annoy me." MP followed on that line by saying "I usually shoot annoying NPCs in video games." To read it here you'd think MP was issuing subtle threats rather than carrying on a jokey metaphor about nobody in particular... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

However, this is not simply jokey and you are placing less of a priority on that kind of behavior than what you just complained about. Obvious red-herring is obvious.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of responding to MP: “Wow, you need help – or more bullets.” Obviously, this wasn’t anything like a threat or even fantasy. And, I differ with MP as he likes guns and I think the age for ownership should be raised to 100. I am a strong believer in civility WP:5P4. Civility is lacking everywhere in human discourse and that’s problematic. But, I also believe in frank characterizations, which may border on incivility. Fact is, MP’s history clearly displays a willingness to argue for additions/deletions contrary to his own beliefs. That is, he takes the side of neutrality over what might aide a case for his own beliefs. We need more of this. We need editors that can call out POV editing even if it fits their own beliefs. How else can we stay true to our concept of neutrality and honest presentation in a time of great controversy? O3000 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious why Pudeo keeps showing up to complain about me, given that we've never interacted outside of these threads. Check our contributions; this editor has never interacted with me except by starting ANI threads in an attempt to get me sanctioned. It's childish and pretty much textbook harassment. And their "evidence" above is pure spin. "He enjoy playing Far Cry, therefore he must be menace!!" Give me a fucking break. One might note that in all of Pudeo's contributions at any of the drama boards, they've never once failed to a) attack a liberal-seeming editor or b) defend a conservative seeming editor. Add to that the fact that they kept a swastika on their user page with a pithy little note that reads more like an excuse to keep it up every time I see it, and a pretty clear picture begins to emerge of what, exactly, Pudeo is doing on this project.

As for Lucious; they insulted me twice while trying to be subtle about it (once asking for "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral) editors" after I responded to a ridiculous edit suggestion, and then again claiming they would be offended if someone called them a liberal after I self-identified as one), then had the audacity to template me for non-existent personal attacks. This playing the victim schtick from obvious POV pushers (how obvious, you ask? How about claiming that a convicted felon is "a law-abiding citizen unlike Weiner or the Clintons" in the same comment in which he directly accuses Hillary Clinton of treason).

So yeah, my response was salty. It was also another experienced editor's "favorite edit summary", because it is exactly what I wrote it to be: snort-milk-out-your-nose funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a quarrel with you. I pity you. I never baited or directed an insult, Mpants. My remark was clearly a general remark asking for non-partisan, non-liberal and, yes, non-conservative editors to come in and chime in on the debate since a non-biased editor who is not invested politically in the article carries weight. There was nothing in that remark directed at you, and I dare you, Mpants, to show any one where that was the case. And, yes, I did say that labeling someone as liberal, (or even conservative, etc.) would be insulting...as you don't know me and I don't know you. Labeling, period, is insulting. Again, nothing there directed at you personally. Your thin-skin is not my sin. You are just trying to rationalize clearly inappropriate behavior, behavior you've apparently been admonished for before. Thank you taking the time to open up about your motives.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. It's hard not to notice you since your hostile discussions take place on noticeboards. Just a while ago you had a spat with Walter Görlitz on RSN and said he might be blocked for insults like saying your thinking isn't clear.[16]. You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? That is very arrogant. For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. --Pudeo (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Name one.

Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. Bullshit. I just responded to a message that was essentially the same as Lucius' templated message by welcoming it.

You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? Walter directly insulted me, and is not blocked, so that's some bullshit, right there. But maybe you should ask yourself why other editors don't seem to want to come to your defense, while they seem happy to come to the defense of a guy whom you seem to think insults anyone who disagrees with him.

That is very arrogant. Being defended by others is arrogant? That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. You keep patting yourself on the back like that and you'll get tennis elbow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• And the editor who described it as a favorite edit summary was me. (Actually, my real favorite was when I reverted an edit at Flying Spaghetti Monster as being "unsourced and unsauced", but whatever.) The bottom line here is that MPants was baited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I get very uncomfortable excusing things because of "baiting" as though Wikipedia editors cannot be held accountable for their actions if someone else did something first. I wish that MP would just keep it mellow, or at least leave the spicy personal massagers and whatnot out of it (and, well, everything). While I don't think that baiting is a viable excuse, I do think that those rules about civility stem from the idea that Wikipedia is a community of editors. A probable sock clearly with no intention of contributing to a neutral, well-sourced article is not the same thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK, maybe "baiting" wasn't the most precise word choice (although the project has no shortage of master baiters), but I really do think that the dispute here begins with Luciusfoxx, whose user page is a declaration of pro-Trump POV-pushing, starting a discussion by saying that Trump's pardon of D'Souza means that D'Souza was innocent and was the victim of a "hit-job". Does that justify an angry dismissal from a user talk page? Well, the anger didn't just come out of the blue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• PS: found that gem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• TY! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I know it's a little early, but it's never too early to celebrate pasta. Dlohcierekim (talk)

• Welp, MjolnirPants, Any hopes I might have had for a collegial work environment with collaborative editing partners died long ago. Though the metaphors are quite . . . charming. On the other hand, Luciusfoxx, you ever here of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or even (for either if you) Wikipedia:Don't take the bait? If I were either of you, I'd have probably just thanked the other for their thoughts and let it go. Before it got to ANI, but here we are. Not sure I'd endorse any sort of admin action here other than to say SMDH. What Rhododendrites said. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm always polite to polite people, even when they look like fringe POV pushers (case in point). It's bullshit like Lucius' smarmy condescension and not-so-subtle insults that lends itself to smartassery on my part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll give you better odds - 2:1 - than Bishonen - it's User:Hidden Tempo. Purposefully trying to provoke one of his "old enemies" with passive aggressive bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I' will not take that bet. I know a bad deal when I see one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Without the tools, too risky a bet as Hidden Tempo is a chameleon. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The D'Souza talk page has gems like this from LuciusFoxxx: "the treason that Hillary committed by sharing classified emails and trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination". If I read that correctly he thinks Hillary Clinton committed treason by trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination. There's so many idiotic claims packed into that short phrase that regardless of whether it's HT or not, it's got to be either a troll or an extreme case of WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Yet democracy had its say on both Hillary and Kavanaugh. Winners don't call losers "idiots", they don't have to. Now that we both had our 2 cents, since it seems you are really obsessed with my opinion in no less than several posts from youabout me, can we keep the soapboxing out of this thread now that you got your fix? ;) As for the business of this thread - Having read up on Hidden-Tempo. All your PTSD and projection makes a little more sense. If he's a chameleon, then an elephant is an oversized rodent. Don't give that apparently no-there editor too much credit. For everything you must've put up with you'd have my empathy if it wasn't for all your subtle cligue(ish) trolling against me. Objective3000l, I'd listen to Mpants. Everyone else. I will take that bet, on me of course. Wishing this was Vegas about now. For once you are making sense, Mpants. I suppose even a broken record, I mean, watch can be right once a day. I know it's twice, and I have the feeling with your jokes and distractions, enabled by the other disruptive editors, that is your way of acknowledging the mistake in your actions in your own "salty" way. Your tonal change and h-mming and h-awing insecurity just barely under the words gives it away. So I guess that makes 2. If that's all it takes to get away with clearly and deliberately disruptive behavior --- bad joking around, distracting and whataboutism --- then the time is officially up insofar as my duty bring order to this unmanagable chaos. There is nothing "salty" or "jokey" about that kind of personal, sexually derogatory verbal attack. Lame excuses with even weaker words. Maybe wikipedia like the rest of the world is hitting rockbottom. Thankfully I have a thick skin, though I confess comparing me to someone like this Hiddentempo stung a little. Regardless of the outcome of this row, everyone, lighten up a little next time. Will ya? LoL Your blood pressure(s) with thank you for it.Luciusfoxx (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to close

Now that the spleen-venting and dazzling repartee have run down, and the discussion degenerated to base pasta-pushing, with an unknown effect on our blood pressures, can we close with no further action as victim and victor (whoever they might be) seem ready to move on. And shan't we all just "lighten up"?

• Support as proposer Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I really don't know why the OP's are allowed to !vote on proposals. IMHO, and as we already know the OP's opinon regarding evisceration and defenestration, !voting should be confined to those who are at least putatively neutral. Pudeo. Kindly. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd like to see Lucius blocked as an obvious sock, first. Or for the equally obvious WP:NOTHERE POV-pushing. I mean, we're already here, right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CIVILITY policy needs to be enforced in the light of one of the most egregious violations there have been, unless we are to stop enforcing the policy altogether. Again I refer to the civility RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Can an admin please explain to Pudeo that this campaign to get me blocked is not cool? Especially when it requires twisting the truth into a gordian knot to make a case. This thread was far more of a disruption than my edit summary was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support close and boomerang it's clear as mud from here, and the trolling's not getting any clearer.——SerialNumber54129 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Obvious sock has been blocked; we should try a little harder not to get trolled so easily. MJP's "fuck you, you goddamn fucking fucker" shtick is getting old, but I assume we'll wait to do something about it until he isn't being obviously baited by a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ye gad! Who saw that coming? Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Now, how do we react more quickly than by baiting the baiters? Seems we need to go through this timesink process whenever.... And, these events are becoming more common. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: indef block for MjolnirPants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(I've renamed this section from "Pants Reopened" since a !vote for indeffing the user is apparently underway below. Isa (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

• The latest news is that I declined MJP's unblock request, since it did not adequately address...well you know the phrase. Admins, go see if you think my decline was fair. I do not like blocking an editor like MJP any more than Cullen328 does, I'm sure; I wouldn't have placed the block, but Cullen did probably also because he's more courageous than me. I would have likely granted a serious unblock request; maybe one will come, and I then someone should grant it. But here's the thing (see also Floquenbeam's comment right above this)--I do not really think MP was baited, and I think this might have been handled better earlier, with the help of an admin/ANI, and then Lucius (whoever he is) would have been done away with earlier. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• For good measure, I also declined an (even longer) unblock request from Luciusfoxx. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not really think MP was baited...

REALLY? Oh for the love of God. He was not only baited, the baiting was aided and abetted by Pudeo. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with both the block, and the rejection of the unblock request. As with some others, I'm not seeing the baiting. The Dinesh D'Souza suggestions were silly, but while there were some minor personal attacks like "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral)", if people can't tolerate these sort of minor things without blowing up like that, I think the American politics topic area, or really any politics topic area, is not one for them. Likewise WP:DTTR does not mean if someone does template you one time, you can blow up in a way seriously out of proportion to the templating.

Note that I do not consider the silliness of the proposals at Dinesh D'Souza in any way baiting, or justification for blowing up like that. For starters, while the proposals may have been silly, they weren't someway intended to attack MJP. Or if there is some background that I'm not aware of which means MJP takes such silly proposals very personally, while they have their sympathies, but the best solution is for them to stay away from that article when it means so much to them. The non personal aspects of dealing with silly proposals is not justification for reacting in that way.

Ultimately paraphrasing what someone else said, while there are a lot of problems in the American politics area at the moment, comments like that of MJP aren't helping the situation any, they are making it worse.

(And frankly, I think there's a bias in the way we deal with these sort of things. I get the feeling if an Indian or Pakistani or a Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian had left a comment remotely similar in response to basically the same thing i.e. someone making a completely silly proposal, then say they wanted the opinions of non 'other side' editors (read neutral), then being templated with a civility warning, they wouldn't have received a block as lenient as 31 hours.)

Incidentally, I'm unclear what role Pudeo played in this. They don't seem to have made any comments at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza or made any recent at User talk:MjolnirPants. They did comment in this thread, or more accurately open this subthread but whatever the rights and wrongs of their comments in this thread, clearly they are not the cause of MjolnirPants making comments which are part of the reason this thread was started. Unless MjolnirPants is a time traveler, in which case can they tell us when the US gets rid of Trump?

P.S. In case it's unclear, I'm saying in my opinion the block was justified before the whole thread was started from what MJP had already did which was raised in the beginning of this thread, in particular that edit summary. Therefore comments in the thread itself are largely irrelevant to any baiting suggestions and I've only skimmed through it.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As a point of clarification, I would have far more sympathy if Luciousfoxx was expressing racist, sexist or other beyond the pale sentiments, but they weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have left a note on Pants' talk page endorsing the block. I understand exactly where he's coming from on this, and get the frustration that comes from trying to keep ARBAP articles in check; however I cannot possibly work out any way that suggesting the other party inserts sandpaper in some unpleasant bodily part is in any way conductive or helpful to resolving the dispute. I suppose if I had to link to something it would be WP:NOTTHERAPY - you cannot say "fuck you, fuck you and fuck you .... who's next?" and not expect to get criticism over it being "an appropriate cathartic response". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also support this block and (not for the first time since they got the bit) I'm very grateful to Cullen for being willing to step in and take an administrative action necessary to enforce our baseline behavioural standards. And I say all of this as as someone who does think that Mjolnir was baited here--or at a bare minimum, the other party's conduct showed such tendentiousness and was so laden with a lack of self-awareness regarding their own personal attacks, that MP was well within their rights to treat those comments as functionally identical to trolling, regardless of original intent behind them. Indeed, I was contemplating opening an ANI on Lucius when I noticed that they had already opened their own here and torpedoed themselves, saving me the trouble. But Mjolnir's response was beyond the pall and well past anything that can be tolerated on this project, even had this been long-term and express harassment.

When I was a child, I was taught a simple maxim (indeed, it is so simple that Mjolnir may find it patronizing to have it raised here, but it nevertheless represents the crux of what cost him a block and why I think the same thing is likely to happen again if he doesn't make some adjustments to how he deals with conflict on this project): two wrongs do not make a right. Not only was it not appropriate for MP to respond to this behaviour with a counter-PA, his response in this instance was far, far more disruptive to good order and violative of our conduct standards than was the comment to which he was responding. Violent sexual imagery (or for that matter, any string of vulgarities directed at another user in the context of a personal dispute) is never the solution and it's never going to be ignored here. All one accomplishes in making such comments is to become assimilated into the troll's disruption. Bluntly, if a random strategic template is all that it takes to get that response out of someone, they need to adult-up and fortify their emotional discipline by a factor of about 10,000%, because that response to that situation was that out of proportion. Most users would have rolled their eyes and ignored that comment, maybe remove it from their talk page without comment. Mjolnir is not required to do that, of course, but his response needs to be something short of a nuclear offensive of sexually threatening language, as he is surely aware.

Indeed, not only do I have to reluctantly voice support for the short-term block for MP, seeing as this is this the first time that the community has asked him to turn down the volume in personal disputes (even where he is not the aggressor starting the brujaja), I think if we see anything of a similar tone in the future, the community will have to consider a more substantial, long-term response. I say this without enthusiasm, as MP was dealing with a clearly WP:NOTHERE editor, and because he delivers not-insubstantial contributions to the encyclopedia. But the costs to the project that accrue when we do not enforce our basic behavioural standards will always end up dwarfing the contributions of any one editor. I hope that Mjolnir will be able to see that almost every response that he has received asking him to make adjustments (both here and on his talk page) come with caveats expressing appreciation for his work generally, and he will thus be able to understand this is not a dogpile that embraces what might have been the troll's objective from the outset (tearing him down in the eyes of the community), but rather an effort to preserve a colleague's valuable contributions without compromising our standards on civility and disruption. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• As long as we are here again, I was going to wait for the dust to settle and then open an RfC on Pants excited utterances. SO I endorse his block and ask that he be admonished to just plain stop the problem behavior we are so aware of. Going forward, it needs to stop. Baited or not. Violent sexual imagery is right out; it should result in an immediate block if it recurs. He needs to learn to ignore or respond in a manner that does not worsen the situation and make him look like a hothead with poor impulse control. And, yes, I like most of what he does here, but he's becoming a net negative. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  oppose indef Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think an indef is too extreme at this point. First block for this particular issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing against MJP but personally I endorse the block, It's one thing telling someone to fuck off but it's another to say what he did, Sure I've on the odd occasion told someone to "F Off or even "Go F Yourself" ... but IMHO they're nothing compared to his comment. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Am I the only one here who thinks that "Pants Reopened" was not the most felicitous choice of words? Anyway, Looking back at this ANI thread from top to bottom, I'm struck by all the piling on with endorsements of the block, after pretty much crickets along those lines before the block happened. Yes, it's very courageous to agree with it after someone else has taken the first step. I actually think in hindsight that the block was justified, but still. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• TBH, I recommennded closing too soon as I thought the fire was out, and then it was closed, reopened and closed again. That was my fault in trying too hard to get us past the issue w/o someone getting blocked. All fell apart, didn't it? Now both are blocked. Now that he is blocked, well Cullen was right. And as this has been reopened, we might as well as deal with the conduct here and now. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ironically, and in my defense, I was going for :Tryptofish option 2 Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• And in your further defense, both of us were right. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not only possible but likely (given the sentiments expressed above) that most of those commenting since the block are admins who were absent for the initial (and very brief) discussion who would have been willing to let the matter drop without blocking MP, seeing as the discussion was already closed. But when Cullen did block MP and received a response from Mjolnir suggesting Cullen was out of line/"stirring up shit", those very same admins felt compelled to point out (in a civil but blunt fashion) that at the end of the day no one was responsible for that block but Mjolnir himself. That all seems pretty above-board, good-faith and perfectly reasonable to me--and I suspect that many of those users (just as yourself on MP's talk page) have his best interests in mind and are trying to make sure he takes away the right lesson from this, rather than just feeling embittered. That said, the message I hope he listens most attentively to is yours--particularly as regards the practical benefits that can be leveraged from using a reserved/civil approach even when dealing with those editors who deserve it least. One doesn't have to to be a saint to understand the advantages of keeping cool in the face of provocation, as you quite rightly point out there. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block And if the editor doesn't directly address the reasons for this block (I couldn't see any in his unblock request), extend block indefinitely to avoid disruption. I've seen many of his types and like his verbosity at a personal level (humour, et al); but crap is crap and should be sounded out and blocked. Childish behaviour really. Lourdes 00:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a truly terrible idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the number of times we waste our community's efforts discussing this editor at ANI is truly terrible. And the allusions to movie lines as being his reason for misdirected humour, are childish. This editor doesn't have a long future at a project where we should commit to stop abusing. I'll probably ping you and offer my happy condolences when the editor's tenure finally ends here. Editors like this are simply not welcome. Lourdes 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the principle of what you are saying, but you don't understand the particulars. Anyway, I doubt that it will have consensus. (And I'll be fighting like hell if anyone acts on it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Meta-humor: "Pants reopened"? Was there a zipper failure?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, this one broke open: 🤐 Leviv ich 00:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Zip it, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Open this link at your own risk! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Is it safe to hover over, or can I catch mice?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yawn. The good news is that MPants exposed a sock. The bad news is that MP went too far. I support his brief block, much as I really enjoy and value his presence. But, we’re piling time sink upon time sink. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse and endorse indef extension until the editor addresses the reasons for the block. This is a long-term behavioral pattern, and the current block is not achieving the goal of preventing continued disruptive behavior. I warned this user in March 2018: "Don't confuse our generally lenient civility enforcement with a lack of enforcement of non-negotiable policies. If you're under the impression that we're going to play games with you, you're wrong. You've established a serious behavioral problem, and I will be blocking you if it continues. ... As it stands, your behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project, and I'm not going to be spending my time arguing with you about it. You either need to do something about it voluntarily, or you're going to lose your good standing over this. None of this combativeness is going to be tolerated." (Note: This was after I left them a very respectful, amicable message attempting to resolve the issue voluntarily.) Here they are, blocked, and still not taking any of it seriously. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with swarm above, there is no excuse to use angry edit summeries referencing torture or sexual assault, I am very disappointed that some editors think being frustrated with a sock gives anyone a free pass for all abusive language. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, oppose current block as over the top. There's an encyclopaedia to be written, and some people here seem to have got themselves completely (over)invested in this. ——SerialNumber54129 12:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, oppose current block per Serial Number 54129. This pile-on is insane. Nihlus 12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihlus. ∯WBG^converse 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Swarm. I've had a few run-ins with MjolnirPants, particularly [17] and [18]. This recent discussion just reinforces my view that his behavior is unlikely to improve ever. He has already been warned many times, yet continued UNCIVIL combative behavior. This even towards admins who just blocked him for behaving poorly! "I mean, seriously. The ANI thread was done, the troll was blocked and everything was settling down until you showed up and decided to act like johnny fucking law. You're not preventing shit: you're starting more." and "That was created between me reverting the troll here and the troll starting the ANI thread. But now, we gotta deal with this new shit that you brought here by deciding to punish me.". The pattern is extremely consistent and has persisted for years, in obvious violation of WP:CIVIL. ALL his last 5 edit violate WP:CIVIL often on multiple grounds. "Jesus, dude, did you even glance at the article before you decided to mansplain to us what's in it?", "If you can't understand how what I said directly addresses your objection, then you don't have the competence to participate in this discussion.". The user seems to be given repeated leniency in violation of so many different policies over many years. Deleet (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Deleet: Interesting that you cite an AN3 report that I closed and told MPants to knock it off, so if anyone has a right to complain about civility in that report, it's me. What I see is that you tried to get MPants punished, and it didn't work, so you've turned up to this thread trying to get your pound of flesh back. I saw nothing blockable at Talk:Eugenics and neither did any other admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shame on the editors minimizing/defending/making excuses for this behavior. ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Shame on you, Swarm for personalising what is already an-excessively personalised issue. If you think remarks such as that are in any way helpful... ——SerialNumber54129

• Swarm, this's a way out of line comment. Please retract. ∯WBG^converse 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Imagine being more offended by a generalized comment criticizing incivility apologists than by sexual violence. I kindly refer both of you to the quote at bottom of my userpage for my stance on what behavior is "out of line". ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, Swarm; I am not referred anywhere. But I note that you do not see the paucity of casting shade on editors in the middle of a discussion about that very subject; indeed, doubling down on it with suggestions that they are also "sexual violence" apologists is hardly an improvement. ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As you can see above, in the AN3 report linked by Deleet, I told MPants to just let things go and dial it back a bit. On his talk page I've advised him to resist the urge to retaliate. Yet I think kicking him off the project is a totally disproportionate response, and there's not been enough thought into what caused the outbursts in the first place. It is possible for a whole bunch of people to be wrong, to varying degrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you're being so defensive regarding a simple, general comment that criticizes editors who are defending egregious behavior like casually invoking sexual violence. That's something that's actually offensive, protesting such behavior is not, at least, not from a policy perspective, and not from my basic standard of morality. Honestly, it's a little concerning that you see an equivalency between egregiously toxic and uncivil behavior and simply criticizing such behavior. I had always thought you to be more reasonable than that. ~Swarm~ {talk} 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef if not explicit from my earlier comments. The October 2018 ANI thread already had an extensive diff collection of astounding personal attacks which he promised to dial down but did not. The hostile attitude is well conceived with his talkpage edit notice. No one should have to deal with a person who's this abusive. Nowhere did MJP admit any wrong-doing in this ANI thread despite the violent sexual imagery which I think is pretty much unheard of in Wikipedia, and instead attacked the admin who placed a short block. This attitude and failure to change it is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. --Pudeo (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Deleet. This isn't a one-off incident, or even a set of incidents. It's a long-term pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

Note that MJP's abusiveness is so ingrained that it is even in their editnotice, which is now up for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, after an even more abusive editnotice was deleted last year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose indef as completely disproportionate, no real opinion on this block. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocks at this time Walk a mile in MPants' shoes please. I haven't been blocked directly, but my local library was long-term blocked and I didn't want to log in, so I was prevented from improving the encyclopedia by a block. Yeah, I was pissed off about it and wrote a grumpy unblock request that was declined, making me even grumpier about it. A bit of empathy goes a long way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ritchie, you describe the situation as if MJP was blocked for some technicality and lashed out in shocked hurt.
    The reality is that this was an escalation of a long-term battleground approach. Yes, of course I empathise with MJP's clear need for improved anger management (or even for a few first steps on that path), but that doesn't alter the fact that en.wp has conduct policies which need toi be upheld for the sake of community health. We can't continue to indulge these systematic violations of core policy in the hope that MJP will develop anger-management skills which they have resisted for so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me try and give an example of how this has blown up. Consider the following statements, which superficially might appear to meet WP:CIVIL but are quite unpleasant : "I sincerely believe that there is strong scientific evidence that white people are biologically equipped to have a greater intellectual capacity than black people. For example, consider these citations : [a][b][c]". Or "I think there's been a noticeable anti-Brexit sentiment appearing on Twitter. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting this? Those who voted remain should just accept a democratic result and stop being annoying. Britain is a white country and we are Christians. No deal!" Those aren't actual comments, but an example, although they are broadly based on real things I've seen on social media. I think my point holds - we really need to look at the underlying circumstances calmly and carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block but oppose indef mostly per Dlohcierekim. GAB^gab 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef If this is an example of his learning his lesson [[19]], seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your comment is a demonstration of the point he is trying to make. Nihlus 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How, that post is a massive PA against both a specific user and unnamed users (also outing, what are all those external links, they are not showing any edits here that would be problematic, what a user does off wiki is irrelevant). If he does not have the patience to deal with POV pushers, then this is not going to go away. Thus we will be back here the next time he decides to "not have patience", and we will go thorough this whole circus again, an indef prevents that (and that is what blocks are for, prevention). Just how many violations can you cram into one post?, it look deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

FFS I did not follow those exlinks. If it is outing, then that does require and indef and those exlinks need revdel. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They have been redacted for that very reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well MJP's comment was shockingly unhelpful/unpromising/uninsghtfull. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Way out of line for the offense. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose further action as it's clear from certain sets of comments both above and below that everyone has become too emotionally involved in this, myself included (see below), to make objective judgements. But MjolnirPants ought to consider this their super-ultra-final warning, boss mode bonus round: to put it simply, another incident like this and you'll be gone, and it's entirely on you to not let that happen. If you're being harassed, see WP:DWH, and ask for help. (edit conflict) I also think there are too many editors commenting here who still have swastikas displayed on their user pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef A couple of thousand article edits compared to 13,500 talk and WP is a lot of arguing. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• While I was writing my comment above, MjolnirPants wrote a bunch of grossly inappropriate things on their talk page which require oversight, and I have blocked them indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's funny what happens when multiple people over-personalize an issue, constantly badger someone, make ridiculous and unwarranted blocks, and continue to pile on before the user has even returned. This whole charade is disgraceful. Nihlus 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MjolnirPants:Request for specific remedies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What exactly do we need from MjolnirPants going forward? I mean, we’ve all applauded Cullen for blocking, but what next? I say no more sexually violent imagery. That using “fuck” to me indicates loss of self control, I would ask MjolnirPants to step back and not respond when angry. Yep, I see a lot of anger referenced in the earlier thread. (I am not talking about the word '’per se’’, but the anger it represents). And, pray to whatever god you worship we don’t meet in real life? Really? As Cullen put it, “By far the best way to deal with trolls is to deny them the attention that they seek.” And my way of dealing with trolls, as I mentioned-- I'd have probably just thanked the other for their thoughts and let it go. I guess that’s the point-- don’t rise to the bait; let it go. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I am inclined to say that there is no further need for action at this moment in time. Mjolnir already received a sanction for the immediately relevant conduct. I suppose we could enter a "no sexually violent language" statement into a formal close, but that almost seems to be suggesting that such a prohibition is particular to MP, while such statements are in reality always inappropriate for this project and should be met with immediate community action--so it seems rather redundant. Besides which, the previous ANI already included a statement in the close that MP is warned that any kind of violent language is inappropriate on this project and likely to result in a block the next time he used it. Although I think Cullen may have been unaware of that prior discussion, that is exactly what occurred here and so the community's resolution on that matter has been satisfied. Had the circumstances here been even just a little more different, I may very well have supported an proposal for a longer-term block. And make no mistake, I am very concerned about MP's WP:IDHT-heavy response to the block on his talk page and worry it won't be too long before we have to undertake another discussion, especially considering that MP landed here at ANI again very shortly after his previous (self-requested) block following the previous ANI.

But under the circumstances (ballsy provocation by a WP:NOTHERE editor and Mjolnir already sitting out a block for his comment, albeit a short one), I am not inclined to support further action at this time. I think if a formal close is given any teeth, it should be only to extent of making a clear statement that Mjolnir is being given WP:ROPE here but that such indulgence is almost expended and that further demonstrations of an inability to not escalate personal disputes will be met with further blocks which are to increase in duration from here--particularly where they involve violent or threatening language. Mjolnir does indeed need to accept once and for all that this is a work environment and that nobody should be subject to such language whether it is said as the result of an effort at intimidation or a loss of temper. But again, for the present situation and conduct, I think Cullen already established the community response and that matters should be dropped here in the hope that this will be the end of this behaviour. Given the attention this pattern has received thus far, I suspect the next occurrence, if any, will result in a lengthier block, which would be appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think that would work right there. I think @MjolnirPants: needs some specific guidance to avoid . . . problems. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Something I'd like to see addressed, that was brought up in an earlier ANI report, is MjolnirPants' habit of removing his opponents' talk page posts. The earlier report included a warning about this behavior from Ritchie333 [20] [21] along with three more examples of talk page removals from shortly after the warning. [22] [23] [24] Here are two current examples from a few days ago. [25] [26] The comments that he removed may have been clueless, but none of them clearly violated talk page guidelines, so these removing these other editors' posts is WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:OWNTALK. Nihlus 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  That is absolutely a non issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the diffs? The posts that he removed weren't in his user talk, they were posts on article talk pages. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything really wrong with those removals. WP:NOTFORUM applies as well. Nihlus 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply to any of those edits--they all concern policy, content, and editorial issues. I'm not saying that they are great arguments, and it won't benefit us much to dig into the context much here, because whether they are right- or wrong-headed is not really particularly relevant: the IP (whoever they are...) is correct in at least this much: WP:TPG allows for the removal of another editor's comments under only very particular and narrow circumstances, none of which are satisfied in these examples, as far as I can tell. MP definitely needs to cease that habit immediately. It's a somewhat separate issue from the one we were previously discussing here and I really hope to not have a subthread develop concerning it here, but it would be cause for a separate ANI complaint at the least if it continues; editors are not allowed to sanitize talk pages of comments they don't like unless they are disruptive with no editorial value, and other than maybe this one, that test does not apply to any of the examples the IP listed. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I disagree on your personal interpretation of the policy and how it applies here as the policy is ambiguous in many areas. While it would be in MjolnirPants' best interest to err on the side of caution, I see nothing here that shows it is a clear violation of policy. Nonetheless, I'm not really invested enough in this to discuss it further than I already have. Nihlus 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policy language is at WP:TPO, which outlines the very small handful of situations in which removing another editor's comments are allowed, none of which were at play in the diffs the IP provided. Again, I think it would be just as well if we can avoid opening that can of worms here, in this discussion, but to the extent you're insisting again that these removals are not a problem, I have to point out that they are in fact against policy, and not just "in my interpretation" or that of anyone else who has commented as to this habit; take a look for yourself and then tell me which exception to the otherwise outright prohibition you think applies if you really want to insist MP was free and clear to remove in the context of those diffs. Otherwise, I suggest we just drop it for the sake of keeping this discussion as focused as we may under the circumstances. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• As mentioned above by me and Swarm above, we've repeatedly seen Pants pulling down other editors using inarguably abusive language. We've asked Pants in the past to come clean and stop behaving like this, but he has repeatedly continued this. I would propose the current block be made an indef block till Pants gives an unequivocal statement that he will stop using double entendres and abusive language, broadly construed. Lourdes 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  A ban on double entendres coming from someone who uses the phrase "Pants pulling down" in the same contribution? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest an extremely broad topic ban on sexually violent imagery in discussion, with known heavy sanctions for breaking it. I don't think this includes the word "fuck" or variations of it, but, you know, rape imagery is bad, mmmkay.--Jorm (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Adding absolute TBAN on removing other people's talk page comments, regardless of any possible reason to do so. This user sounds over wrought. May need a rest. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, the problem appears to be, quite simply, a straightforward lack of regard for the fourth pillar. "Civility sanctions" are silly, because they're redundant to existing policy. The most obvious solution is to extend the block to indefinite and unblock as soon as the user makes a commitment to changing their attitude. If we don't, the block will expire, and we'll just be back here down the line again. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Egad! has anyone seen the edit notice on his talk page. That needs to go too, though it seems to be yet another attitude adjustment requirement issue indicator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looking at the lede of his user page, he unapologetically WP:DGAF, admits to being uncivil, and we can pound sand if we don't like it. All of that is consistent with his actions. I see no reason to believe that, even if offered, a promise to change his attitude or actions would be sincere, let alone be something which he would actually fulfill. I don't want to have to run into this guy on a dark article or talk page somewhere, and neither should anyone else (especially newbies). We have a right to expect civil, collegial discourse. The obscenity that spews forth from this user's mind simply has no place here. "Society has a right to protect itself." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I thought he already has a "never be uncivil" restriction in place? (Note I have been (and am currently) in dispute with this user on a regular basis, and have been on the receiving end more then once of his attitude problems). As such I am sure about supporting an indef (I am hardly neutral). I support the idea of a ban on removing other users talk page posts (he can always ask someone one if they are genuinely a problem. Maybe the answer is to make it "no offensive or abusive language, be polite and respectful AT ALL times", thought I suspect he will find a way to wikilawyer around even that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• It's not "anger", it's typing words on a keyboard. If MP was actually angry he wouldn't be composing perfectly-spelled and coherent screeds of fucks and dildos. What it is is showing off. It betrays an absence of understanding (or, worse, caring) that the Wikipedia username you're directing this stuff at in order to show how Internet Bad Ass you are is another human being. My concern is that just a few months ago, MP pledged to change his ways, agreeing to "treat fellow editors with respect", and just four months later - most of which he was on a self-imposed break! - we're right back where we were with him. The next infraction must result in a lengthy, lengthy block. It's not acceptable to speak to other people like this in a collaborative environment, whether you agree with them or not, whether you are upset or not; there's no justification. None. Had I been the blocking admin it would have been a far longer block than Cullen imposed. Fish+Karate 09:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Great Dlohcini-- sees all; tells all. Dlohcierekim (talk)

• • It's not "anger" .... That's mind-reading. No one but MPants knows his state of mind/emotions when doing something. It is however something that is controllable. Anyone who writes coherent content for an encyclopedia is by definition capable of communicating in clear, neutral, impersonal terms. This can even be done when communicating with trolls or other exasperating people. It may take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification like stepping away from the keyboard when needed, but it is something that's required on Wikipedia, and something MPants had promised to change. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I stand by my view that it's showing off, not anger. The benevolently chortling it off as "oh dear, look what MPants has said now, sometimes he says the things I wish I could say, what a rascal! Please don't do it again let's go back to editing with no further actions" attitude some editors and admins show to this sort of behaviour exacerbates this acting to the gallery and encourages further pushing of the envelope. Fish+Karate 11:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest that all the problems comes under the heading of WP:BATTLEGROUND. MJP repeatedly takes a confrontational, personalised approach to disagreements, and often sets out to "prove" that his "opponents" are mad+bad. He has a systemic unwillingness to consider that there may be more than one way of looking at things, or that he himself may be mistake.

If he'd drop the battleground approach and commit himself to collaboration, then the specific behavioural issues would follow.

Conversely, if he retains his the battleground approach, then lists of unacceptable conduct are merely going to displace the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification"-- Yes. Yes it does. If I can do it, anyone can Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• A number of comments above appear to be referencing my close of a previous discussion as a warning against incivility. I want to be very clear that it was not, it was a pledge by MjolnirPants to be more respectful of editors with differing viewpoints, and in the same discussion I somewhat endorsed aggressive treatment of overt racists. The only warning I wrote in that discussion was this: "this ("pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person") is a direct threat of violence, and I don't care about context or emotion or whatever else, or whether or not you think you intended it to be read this way, if I see you write something like this again I will block you, and it will be for a good long time." I've already commented that I don't think this incident is a "direct threat of violence" though it certainly describes a violent act. I agree that we shouldn't need to warn editors not to respond to confrontation with descriptions of violent sexual acts, and at the same time I agree that we should do so in this case since MjolnirPants doesn't seem able to draw that line for themselves. However, I oppose any restriction against using the word "fuck", and I oppose any restriction that is generally worded as to prevent MjolnirPants ridiculing overt racists in ways that do not describe violence. (Racism itself is violence, but there is no need to respond in kind.) Frankly if racists don't edit Wikipedia because they fear abuse from editors like MjolnirPants, that's a good thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If MJP was reserving his abusiveness for racists, then you might have a point. But he isn't.

And in any case, there are plenty of ways of dealing with racists without being abusive. There's no need for other editors to reduce themselves to that level, unless they share MJP's battleground approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let's wait and see if the problem persists after the obvious WP:NOTHERE trolls are removed from the equation. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It has almost as soon as his block ended [[27]], what possible justification is there for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

60 hour block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not happy about BrownHairedGirl dropping a 60 hour block on MPants immediately after his previous block expired. While some people support a block above, there is nothing like a consensus for it, and unless anyone has got any good objections, I plan to unblock sometime this afternoon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the point is to drive him away, an immediate re-block would seem quite effective. If the point is to temper his language, I hardly think a re-block would be the optimal path. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Per the comments on his talk, I have lifted the block per WP:ROPE. Let's see if the sweary personal attack stuff stops; if not a reblock will be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And people wonder why MJP uses foul language. Hope he takes the message to heart. It should be coming through loud and clear. Again. First time blocked. If he learns, we are done. He escalates, the blocks escalate. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So far there have been two messy ANI threads with fighting over who gets to close them, different interpretations with no real solution and one WP:CENT-advertised civility RfC with no clear result. To be completely open, I'm thinking there might be enough failed dispute resolution for an Arbitration request at this point. The only reason I did not file RFAR yet is because Cullen328 issued the 31 hrs block so there actually was some kind of an action. But with the unblock request and new block being issued and unturned, it seems to be unconclusive again with no clear indication what would happen next if the F bombs continue. --Pudeo (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are stirring a quiet pot. O3000 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Historically, "fuck" is not actionable here. Perhaps unfortunately. Even WP:civil makes note of that. And I'm sure we can count on you to provoke MJP whenever you can. potted beef? Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BF93

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• BF93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Signature Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BK10021

Despite multiple attempts to engage in conversation with User: BF93 on their talk page and the Signature Bank article talk page, they keep reverting updates made without explanation. They've indicated, in the comments tied to their edit history, that they feel the bank is "removing negative facts/truths" from the article, but this is untrue. The edits in question are not being made by the bank and I'm not removing any negative information - simply removing redundant information and trying to better organize the existing information. You can see a list of the most recent proposed edits on the article's talk page. I've attempted a WP:30 filing, but that was declined due to the fact the user will not engage in conversation with myself or other moderators. What're our next steps? Welltraveled (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They’ve not edited since the 20th of Feb and edit infrequently. Blocked twice for edit warring by EdJohnston. I warned them that they must respond to the ANI thread before editing further. Both BF93 and Welltraveled have been slow motion edit warring. BF93 has spurned requests to discuss. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User: BF93 sock blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Large rangeblock needed for Guatemala vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a persistent date-changing vandal from Guatemala described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/190.104.120.240 who has been active since November 2017 in the range Special:Contributions/2803:7000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Since this vandal is the only one using the /32 range for the last 15 months I would like the whole /32 blocked for a long time. Can that happen? HJ Mitchell blocked the /32 for two weeks but that was two weeks ago, and disruption has resumed. Previous rangeblocks listed below. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dl’oh-nuts! Dlohcierekim (talk)

• 2013 – 190.111.10.32/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2013–2015 – 190.106.222.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:1661:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:379:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019 – 2803:7000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• SOft blocked the /32 for one week. Someone more experienced w/ rangeblcoks should check my work. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  The CIDR is /32, so it looks like I blocked the entire country of Guatemala. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

D'loh! Jip Orlando (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: - that's almost Stocks worthy! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I grabbed the list of contribs for 2803:7000/32 and played with it a bit. Of 2336 contribs dating back to 2016-11-24, all but 146 are in the 2803:7000:4800/48. Most of those outside that range are old. The ones that are within the last few months don't really fit the pattern, though some are undesirable as well. I suggest tightening the range to the /48. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsure if there are actually any good edits from the /32 since 1 January. But whatever rangeblock is chosen might have to be in place for more than a week. Scanning all the edits from the /32 since 1 January I only found this edit which is not an edit of a song article. But this one is vandalism as well. My guess is that *all* the edits of song articles are by the same guy and are worthy of blocking. Suggest that the one week block might need to be extended up to a month. The same guy has been active since 2013 according to the LTA case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y’all, soft block /32 1 month. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the /48 for 6 months - as far as I can see every single contribution on that range is them, and they've been at that for more than 2 years - Dlohcierekim I've modified the /32 to display {{rangeblock}}; I have to agree with AlanM1 that I don't think the /32 rangeblock is necessary - every edit that is in the /48 appears to be the LTA and every edit outside doesn't, so a /48 range block accomplishes the same without blocking other users (although 495 of the last 500 edits from the /32 range are from the /48). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot. Since the operator (Smith609) has not edited in almost 2 weeks, it is requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Sandstein 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relatedly, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#CiteSeerX and Citation bot for an unrelated but also problematic behavior of the bot and its maintainer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prior to today, we had a long-established template called Template:Infobox medical condition and a more modern version called Template:Infobox medical condition (new), which works in conjunction with Template:Medical resources. To a first approximation, the contents of {{Infobox medical condition}} were split between {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} and {{Medical resources}}.

Following an undiscussed request for move by Zackmann08, Template:Infobox medical condition was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition (old); and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition by JJMC89, although can see no trace of the corresponding talk page archives being moved. Maybe that's just how it shows in the log. Later today, Doc James moved Template:Infobox medical condition back to Template:Infobox medical condition (new).

The situation now is that we have three templates, but both Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and Template:Infobox medical condition are redirects to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). So the original template has disappeared completely without discussion. However, Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old) exists, but Template talk:Infobox medical condition redirects to Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new). The talk page archives are now at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 1,2,3,4 and Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)/Archive 1. Could we please rationalise this and actually get some discussion on the steps necessary to deprecate the original template? Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh what is this doing on the incident noticeboard? What misconduct are you asserting? Also if you are asserting misconduct by me, you have failed to notify me which you are required to do. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So the issues with removing the "new" from the template name is that it breaks all the wikidata inter language links. This confuses the content translation tool such that it no longer can use the "new".

Content translation / wikidata inter language links have trouble with redirects. A trouble that should be fixed but one that I do not have the ability to fix.

Thus I have moved the template back to the "new" name. I and a number of others have deprecated the remaining instances of the "old" template such that it is no longer used in main space. So IMO it makes sense to redirect the "old" one to the "mew" one to discourage people from using it going forwards.

I do not think we have any misconduct here. Simple that all the issues need to be dealt with before doing such a move. And the move was made without taking these issues into account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I'll just direct you to the notice at the top of this board: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." My post has nothing to do with behaviour or individuals. It's merely a problem that requires administrative attention. You were pinged as a matter of courtesy, but I have not started a discussion about you and there is no requirement to notify you. Is that clear enough?

@Doc James: This board is used for more that just behavioural problems. If you believe it's okay to delete an unused template without discussion, who am I to disagree? However, it leaves us in a position that it is no longer obvious where to find talk page discussions or file histories. Having studied what went wrong, I suggest that if you want to fix it, an admin will need to move Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and its subpages over Template:Infobox medical condition without leaving a redirect; and Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old) and its subpages over Template talk:Infobox medical condition without leaving a redirect. That would restore the position of two templates, with the page histories intact and the talk pages and their archives in the obvious places, with Template talk:Infobox medical condition as a redirect to the new template. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing urgent about this... It needs to be discussed at the template's page for sure before proceeding, but opening an ANI incident because you don't like the way things are going is nuts. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to note that RexxS made ZERO attempts to discuss this anywhere else before opening an ANI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS. Agree and have restored the other bits to how they were.

This by the way this is the number one used template by Wiki Project Medicine. A template on pages with more than 50 million page views in English a month. We need to move carefully and we need to make sure we have the involvement of core members of this project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: You call me 'nuts' once more and you will find yourself on the end of behavioural report at ANI. I hope you understand NPA. Your precipitous action triggered this mess and you should learn to discuss moves that you don't understand before requesting them in future. It is not acceptable to have page histories, talk pages and their archives marooned in no-man's-land for any length of time. There was absolutely ZERO point in my posting a note at one of the talk pages, because thanks to you, they had all been moved. I have no idea how long it would have taken to attract more eyes to the issue on unwatched talk pages, but I felt that getting more eyes on the problem was a priority before it became any more complicated, hence the post here. If you feel embarrassed by your actions, I'm sorry to hear it and didn't make a point of drawing attention to your failures in my original post, but you don't seem to understand when to drop the stick, do you? --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it we have the issue solved and happy to see this archived. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've modified the Template:Infobox medical condition page and restored it back to the original template code before it was replaced with the redirect to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). This is what was missed during the effort to undo the template page moves and fix what became broken, and what was causing the original template to no longer be displayed. I don't see this discussion here as necessary, as administrative action isn't required here. Mistakes happen; communication and proper processes break down, connections get severed, and things break... it happens. As far as a discussion and action on this noticeboard goes: Just let this be a lesson to those involved (as well as anyone out there) that moving any live templates, modules, scripts, or other transcluded pages must follow a wide outreach and communication along with very careful planning and pre-rollout steps first so that deployments and changes like this go forward smoothly and with as little disruption as possible to the project. Anyone considering executing a page move with a template or other page should look at the "What links here" link and look at the number of transclusions as a first step. If it has a high transclusion count and to many pages, that's a red flag to say, "No - this needs to be discussed and planned carefully first." :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RBL2000's WP:POLEMIC Behavior at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Hello all! This is my report.

Summary: I have sadly noticed on this talk page that a lot of users seem to be engaging in decently obstructive and divisive behavoir.

Diffs:

• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia

Background:

SandyGeorgia has given this user a LOT of WP:ROPE. They have finally begun to expand editing outside of the current mentioned talk page, but however their WP:POLEMIC remains as prevalent as ever. I do not know the solution, but I will imagine that a topic ban may be appropriate here.

Thank you all for addressing this issue! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, MattLongCT. I have long been on record as opposing topic bans for first offences; I believe they should be reserved for truly last resort. Something needs to be done with RBL2000's editing behaviors, but I am not sure what. There is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE, and it has been remarkable that only three editors on that article (which is on the main page) are taking the lion's share of editor time, preventing other more productive editing from the few of us who are bilingual. Other than those three, it seems that the article is weathering the main page OK ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let's try this. RBL2000 (talk · contribs), you are admonished to make no more polemic edits on any talk page. You will confine your edits to policy concerns. You will not accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. You will not use "you", "censor," or "revise history". You will address content only. Citing twiiter likes is OR. It is not citing RS. You will stop soapboxing. You have gone past a final warning. This is your last opportunity to avoid a topic ban or outright blocking. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, that works for me. SandyGeorgia, any further thoughts? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping; that works, but I am not sure how we get RBL to see and digest it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK. There is need to point out involving twitter is being extensively being used/cited/referenced in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and what I used/cited/referenced involving twitter involves Hands Off Venezuela which as you can see has article on Wikipedia and is their official account as evident by in their articles in Contact Us part linking twitter account @HOVcampaign thus there is clear connection, twitter links I used are not OR otherwise ones used in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis would also constitute as such. At heart of it is my view that article is not neutral considering overwhelming coverage and focus on Pro-Guaido and issue of official government sources such as involving Morocco have been disputed by SandyGeorgia when same is not applied for twitter accounts and tweet from politicians of various government such as Albania with their prime minister(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#cite_note-271) which are treated as RS. RBL2000 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am not going to get drug into trying to explain WP:RS to you for the nth time at ANI. I will say this one last time (because this is typical of how you have taken so much editor time).

  See this section in archives where I tried to explain to you under what circumstances WP:SELFSOURCE can be used, and also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article has almost 500 sources, and I cannot speak to every one of them; I can speak to the instances on the talk page that I have engaged, and Albania is not one of them. (Presumably the editor who added that did a translation and was convinced that is the official account of the president or some such thing-- I don't know. I am not responsible for every edit. YOU are responsible for YOUR edits.) You would like to use sources like HandsOffVenezuela Twitter account in ways that do not conform with SELFPUB. And that is only one of the many ways in which you have not shown an understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, no matter the time and good faith I have put in to trying to explain them.

  Again, you are intransigent in your response here.

  My suggestion is that you might need to be restricted to no longer editing the article, and proposing sources on talk, and then ceasing the IDIDNTHEARTHAT when multiple editors explain what is and isn't a reliable source for certain kinds of text. If that tweet is from the President, or Foreign Minister, or whatever of Albania, and if it is a verified account, and if it says Albania recognizes Gauido, then it is speaking correctly for itself and Albania. But I do not speak the language, did not make that edit, and do not know what the tweet says or who it's from. I know that YOU are repeatedly and exhaustingly using non-reliable sources, and not making a good effort to digest Wikipedia policies and guidelines and learn from other other editors what are appropriate kinds of sources for different kinds of text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  And I have an extreme amount of patience in trying to help new editors learn their way around in here, but you are running out of even my rope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I give up, because of your last edit I lost entire response due to your edit when you added this. Thanks. RBL2000 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I am really sorry about that; losing text due to edit conflicts is exasperating. And I have been losing article content because of your editing behaviors, so I hope you understand how much more frustrating that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I compose in sandbox or a text editor and then paste into wherever so I don't lose txt in an edit conflict. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:HOUNDING by User:Binksternet

I don't edit Wikipedia nearly as much as I used to, but I've been making more edits in the last couple weeks, creating several new articles and making big expansions to existing ones. Binksternet (talk · contribs), with whom I've clashed in the past (years ago), has been engaging in WP:HOUNDING over the last 24 hours since he apparently found out I was active again.

• At Susan B. Anthony List he used Twinkle to roll back a dozen edits I made that were either extensively sourced, or potentially controversial but I was willing to address objections from other editors. Binksternet unilaterally declared that I cannot edit Susan B. Anthony List because of WP:COI. I volunteered a few hours a week for the organization about 10 years ago when I was a senior in high school trying to bolster my resume for college. As stated on his talk page and mine I was never paid, never on staff, haven't had contact with them since then, and have edited the article in the years since --including a number of back-and-forths with Binksternet himself-- without anyone finding it necessary to ban me from editing the article.

• At Artur Davis he rolled back a bunch of non-controversial copyediting. He said I was trying to make Republicans look good or Democrats look bad by removing the timing of when Davis switched from Dem to Rep, but it's clear Binksternet didn't actually read my edits. Because prior to my edits, the article redundantly repeated three times the same sentence about Davis switching to the Republican party. All I did was to remove those repetitions and make the lede more readable. But Binksternet rolled them back anyway saying in his edit summary "political activist at work".

• At Andrew Cuomo he declared that I could not use Fox News as a source for a factual sentence talking about how a liberal bill angered conservatives. He ignored that my edits cited The Buffalo News and a governors office press release.

• At Tommy Norment he rolled back two "non-neutral removals" of content. The content in question was a single source that said Norment or someone using his information was named in the Ashley Madison leak, and I removed it on WP:BLP grounds because of the accusation. Debatable perhaps but not "non-neutral". The other edit removed a single article making anonymous accusations from ThinkProgress, which is owned by Center for American Progress and not a WP:RS. According to Binksternet, Fox News is not a reliable source but a blog owned by a liberal activist group is?

• At Theodore McCarrick he rolled back an extensively sourced expansion of the lede tracing McCarrick's history as archbishop and cardinal. He objected to the fact that I characterized McCarrick as a "progressive". That characterization was sourced from The New York Times in an article written yesterday, and Bloomberg in an article written years ago. Binksternet clearly did not read the edits before edit warring to roll back my edits.

Binksternet is WP:HOUNDING me across six different articles I've recently edited ([33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]) in the last 24 hours, making wholesale reverts of sourced content he has not read and citing "political activist" in the edit summaries and abusing Twinkle by engaging in edit warring. Binksternet has a history of engaging in this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and it is one reason why his 2013 request for adminship was denied. I've clashed with Binksternet in the past but have no interest in doing so now. I admit I've made some mistakes on Wikipedia for sure and I've faced sanctions for them in the past. Binksternet is trying to drudge up old controversies that happened years ago in order to get me topic banned because of some sort of vendetta. All I want to do is contribute to the encyclopedia without being hounded. I am requesting that Binksternet be told to stop hounding my edits and instead discuss them constructively. If he does not, I request an interaction ban. Instaurare (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This request for an interaction ban should boomerang on Instaurare, who is a political activist holding goals not in alignment with Wikipedia. He carries and continually implements a non-neutral long-term agenda of promoting American conservative ideas and people while putting down American liberal ideas and people. He should be topic-banned from all American politics starting from the 1970s when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Background: Instaurare caused a big problem nine years ago when he was caught socking extensively, especially with the accounts NYyankees51 and BS24. (See the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive.) The only reason the socking was a problem was that Instaurare was continuing his politically slanted editing. I can compile an extensive list of edits showing the non-neutral slant of Instaurare/NYyankees51/BS24 but in the interest of brevity I will simply ping some active admins who have dealt with this guy: Mojoworker, HJ Mitchell, Jpgordon, JamesBWatson, Carrite, NuclearWarfare, EdJohnston, SarekOfVulcan, Black Kite, and Nakon (who just retired). In January 2012, NYyankees51 was banned from abortion topics for three months.[39] Later the same year, NYyankees51 was topic-banned from all LGBT-related articles. At that discussion, Carrite said, "NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet."

In April 2011, I wrote up a report about how Instaurare held a conflict of interest with regard to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List, but only he and I took part in the discussion. The point was that he had edited from an IP address registered to the activist organization, and that he continually removed negative text and added positive text. Yesterday, Instaurare resumed the same behavior, adding positive text and deleting well-cited negative text. That last bit is why we are here today. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How is adding factual references from the New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post "adding positive text"? How is a reduction of weight in a lede where a topic is given 25% of the lede but constitutes a fraction of the article body? Binksternet does not adhere to WP:AGF.

Again, Binksternet is trying to rehash stuff that happened 7-8 years ago. If Binksternet wants to play that game, I can point to his own extensive block log for edit warring on various political and abortion articles, and the previously linked failed request for adminship. I was sanctioned years ago for the dumb stuff I did. I regained the trust of the community to be able to edit again. Binksternet is acting as if any edit to a political article is unacceptable, regardless of how neutral and well-sourced it is, because of stuff I paid the price for nearly a decade ago. I've changed my behavior and I'm ready to move forward without being hounded. Instaurare (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

But Instaurare, has your editing style really changed since then? Have you completely re-earned the trust of the community just by disappearing for a couple of years, after all your early disruptive time here? You still seem to be the poster child for WP:CPUSH, and your POV still shows in many of your edits, despite numerous attempts by many different editors over the years to offer advice to you to try and bring about a change in your behavior, you never seem to take it to heart – all we ever get are apologies, your disappearance for a while, then your return to editing in the same manner without any resultant changes. Have you forgotten your promises? I'll note you were indeffed, considered for a site ban, and ultimately topic banned four days after I offered that advice. I'll quote some more advice from long ago when I warned you for electioneering on the Terry McAuliffe article: Instaurare, I would advise you to reread the advice that HJ Mitchell gave you when he removed his restrictions on your editing: "...if you start making edits that don't abide by both the letter and the spirit of policy (and relevant guidelines, ArbCom rulings, etc), I suspect it won't be long before you're in an even worse position than you were with the restrictions." I'll reassert the admonition from WP:CPUSH: "Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing." That has been your main problem all along – and your sanctions only the most obvious results of it. This editor has narrowly avoided additional sanctions several times in the past. Perhaps it's time for a larger boomerang, maybe restriction from articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 broadly construed. Nothing else seems to get through to this guy. Mojoworker (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker, can you point to specific examples of advocacy? I'm not citing Breitbart with my edits. I strive to only made edits that are extensively sourced from reliable sources. I often put multiple references behind a sentence. Instaurare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you are citing Glenn Beck's The Blaze and an anti-abortion group known for deceptively edited Planned Parenthood videos to suggest that Planned Parenthood doctors boasted about killing newborns.[40] Here you created a long list of Catholic figures condemning Andrew Cuomo and going into great detail on their thoughts on whether he ought to be excommunicated or whether he's just bad Catholic for being in favor of abortion rights.[41] I've seen numerous problematic edits by you, in particular on abortion-related topics, but these are only ones I can recall right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think The Blaze was not a reliable source in that instance, that can be discussed. If you think the New York Times, AOL, New York Daily News, Fox News, Syracuse.com, Associated Press, etc are not reliable sources for the Cuomo article then make your case. Does WP:BRD not apply anymore, and we're just accusing anyone who adds extensively sourced content to pages of politicians of acting with an agenda? Instaurare (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You were boasting about not adding Breitbart-level sources, yet in that instance you were adding Glenn Beck's The Blaze (which is absolute garbage) and a video by an organization known for publishing deceptively edited videos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody would bat an eye if I cited left-wing equivalents (BuzzFeed, Huffington Post) as long as it advanced a pro-liberal viewpoint. But one citation of The Blaze warrants a topic ban? And Live Action's videos were determined by a federal appeals court to have not been deceptively edited. But they make you uncomfortable and go against your POV. Instaurare (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Instaurare, what I'm saying is basically what HJ Mitchell advised you when he "stuck his neck out" and unblocked you: "Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles." You made a lot of promises to him that you never followed through with, and seemed, to me, to have taken advantage of his AGF in you. I'll reiterate what I advised you: "If you can't make an edit without your strongly held beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article – at least not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. That's a whole lot different than pushing every guideline and policy to the limit, which, ultimately, is only going to get you into more trouble." But apparently you can't restrain yourself, so perhaps it's finally time for the community to do so. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojo, you and I both know that if we were really applying the "nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits" rule, we would probably take out 80% of editors involved with US politics articles, including Binksternet. (How about this hugely problematic edit where he added the words "engaged in extramarital sex with a female lobbyist" to a BLP and cited two sources that say no such thing?) I do my best to contstrain myself by making edits that are extensively sourced with a variety of reliable sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, New York Daily News, Associated Press, and all sorts of regional newspapers and TV stations. You're acting as if I'm citing Breitbart or not citing anything at all. Instaurare (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Without bias towards the discussion below, both Instaurare and Binksternet should be blocked for the ongoing edit war on the SBAL article. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will stop reverting Instaurare. I saw it as reverting non-neutral edits from an editor with a proven conflict of interest, but I'll stop simply reverting him and discuss the changes. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the classic Binksternet head fake: Edit war until someone threatens you with sanctions, then remorsefully propose 0RR for yourself to get out of the penalty, and resume the behavior when nobody is looking. Instaurare (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Community examination, below, of some of Instaurare's edits notwithstanding, what's reported above is an abuse of Rollback, and is grounds for having it revoked. I'm not suggesting that it should be in this instance, but rather that Binksternet re-review WP:ROLLBACK, since a repeat of this sort of dogged misuse of the tool against someone who is not a vandal, troll, spammer, or block-evading sock, to mass-revert edits simply because there could potentially be a PoV issue to examine, will likely result in removal of the Rollback bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, there has not been any misuse of rollback that I see. Although the term rollback has come up frequently that is not the case. Twinkle was used to revert as seen here and here but that is not tagged as rollback. Please compare to this unrelated edit which does have "Tag: Rollback".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. That said, this sort of "reversion tsunami" approach is generally unproductive in the first place, and Binksternet should take this to heart. Being eventually shown to be correct about particular edits being problematic isn't an excuse (as an ahead-of-time prediction or an after-the-fact determination) for the editor-interaction problem of treating a presumably good-faith editor like a known vandal or sockpuppet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-term political activist edits by Instaurare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instaurare has been engaging in non-neutral editing for many years on the topic of abortion, demonstrating a conflict of interest and a persistent inability to view the topic objectively. He defends the Susan B. Anthony List by deleting facts and wording that make the political action committee look bad, and emphasizing positive aspects. His removal yesterday was just one more example in a long string going back ten years, for instance this similar removal from March 2011. Instaurare's first SBA List edit I know about is this misrepresentation and promotion from April 2009, following which the views of SBA List were given a voice here and here in October 2009. This example is relevant to the recent conflict – Instaurare again misrrepresents Susan B. Anthony's legacy by spouting the SBA List fabricated story about how Anthony held "anti-abortion views" and advocated against abortion (she did no such thing, ever.) It's this false co-opting of Anthony's legacy as a fighter for women's right to vote that drives me to correct the problems caused by Instaurare and fellow travelers. This removal wasn't neutral, and this addition was a promotional misrepresentation of the source. This promotional addition inserts an unnecessary pro-religion quote: "God knows what he's doing." This edit changed an appropriate qualifier to a blatant falsehood about Susan B. Anthony, who never signed a document with the letter "A". In July 2010, a sock of Instaurare edit-warred with me to retain the false depiction of Anthony.[42][43][44][45] The ideological battle grew beyond any one article, so Instaurare sock BS24 (rightly) started the article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute, giving more credence to the recent false/political views than to scholarly conclusions. I greatly reworked the article over time, to better represent the conclusions of the world's most respected authority on Susan B. Anthony, which is Rutgers historian Ann D. Gordon, a biography I started. Instaurare persistently fought against my changes, removing an establishing description of Gordon, for instance, to try to bring doubt to her scholarship. Instaurare persistently tried to reduce the level of scholarly opposition to the SBA List claims about Anthony.

Instaurare should be topic banned from modern American politics. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Notice how Binksternet is citing edits from eight years ago that he is apparently still holding a grudge over. How can an editor be topic banned over edits made that long ago, with thousands of intervening edits? This is little more than an example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR .Instaurare (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Instaurare, you are the editor who brought up Binksternet's unsuccessful 2013 RFA as part of your "evidence" against him, so it is a bit bizarre that you object to your whole editing history being scrutinized. I just took a look at your editing history in the last month and saw lots of problematic editing, including what appeared to be edit warring at Ralph Northam and a really bad edit at Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion when you went into excruciating detail about a current abortion related controversy involving Andrew Cuomo, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. This is recentism and undue weight, and is indicative of your long term POV pushing regarding abortion. It is completely legitimate to look at past behavior when that same type of behavior has resumed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, as I stated, I haven't any interest in re-litigating the past but if my credibility is being attacked over edits made nearly a decade ago it seems reasonable to examine the credibility of the attacker. What are you referring to at Ralph Northam, I don't think I even made a revert there. If you think what I wrote at Andrew Cuomo was a poor edit, then discuss the content of the edit. I don't understand this idea being pushed that any debatable edit at an article is now a critical violation of policy worthy of a topic ban. Bold, revert, discuss has become revert, attack, ban. Instaurare (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I did discuss the content of that particular edit, and I think that any uninvolved editor will see it as overt anti-Cuomo POV pushing, motivated by your obvious anti-abortion POV. I am sure that you will disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • How is citing extensive sources on a notable topic widely covered by a spectrum of media somehow POV-pushing? You know that this topic ban is a concentrated effort to snuff out any material that portrays a liberal/Democratic political in a negative light. And that includes snuffing out the editors responsible. WP:NPOV never existed but at least it had a chance. Now it's been replaced by orthodoxy. Go against the hivemind, even if you cite left-leaning sources, you will be run off the site. Instaurare (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Cullen328's list: topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. This is a long-term pattern that is continuing. I supported Instaurare by opposing his community ban, and really hoped he would change his ways, but I've finally lost patience with him. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that I have not changed my ways? Have you actually looked at the edits I've made? Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and American politics per diffs and WP:RGW. Miniapolis 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans at Susan B. Anthony, all politics and pregnancy and sexual health-related topics. As per Cullen328. He usually knows what he's talking about and I've yet to see him wrong. - wolf 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen to stop the time sink. Leviv ich 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans per Cullen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Note the mindless !supports from people who apparently have not examined the evidence but are simply going with Cullen. Topic bans are supposed to be for disruptive editing, yet nobody here has laid out a case that I actually engage in disruptive editing and not productive editing. Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Three weeks ago, you added text to excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion, deploying Wikipedia's voice to describe Andrew Cuomo's stance in favor of a common medical procedure as "unabashed support of abortion." You don't seem to have explained how supporting people's right to make personal medical choices can come with a word as inflammatory as "unabashed," nor why you conflated "abortion rights," which Cuomo supports, and "abortion," a distinct concept. (The sentence is cited to this New York Times article, where the word "unabashed" never appears and, because there's no such thing as "support of abortion," Cuomo is never described as a holder of that stance.)

And before you try to reach across the internet and psychically figure out how I found that edit, it wasn't because of Cullen. The above is one example of an astounding number over just over the past decade. Your edit history, including almost every time you've inserted a substantial amount of text to a political article, proves that almost anything you add to this subject area is probably going to contain something that, because of people like you, has stopped being a paradox: bog-standard extremism. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And just who might this be? Why aren't you logged in to an account? Instaurare (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Vote according to the party lines Binksternet himself is a political activist whose RfA indeed failed because of exactly that. He has also nominated the whole WikiProject Conservatism for deletion in 2011. So this is kettle calling pot black. But conservatives are less numerous, and especially anti-abortion stances are unpopular, so the opinion of the villagers is clear. Instaurare, sorry buddy, but you're out. --Pudeo (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is someone who's willing to admit the truth of what's actually going on. Can't begrudge you for that. Instaurare (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that both of you have a pretty tenuous understanding of what "the truth" is, which happens to be exactly what it appears to be on the surface: Instaurare screwed up, and he's being sanctioned for it. BTW, don't feel too warm about Pudeo's support, he would have said the same thing about any editor he perceived as an ideological soulmate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to always be angry at someone. Instaurare (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support I have the feeling this could have been handled better, and I don't think it has anything to do with specific political leanings – the recent diffs that have been posted by Instaurare do not conform with neutral point of view and I have no problem with them being rolled back or a topic ban given the prior history. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It has everything to do with specific political leanings, and everyone here knows it. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). Instaurare's edits are problematic, they have been going on for a long time, and they continue. I am also troubled by Instaurare's behavior in this discussion, such as calling it "mindless" not to take his side, and accusing anyone not in favour of the proposed topic ban not have looked at the evidence. That kind of behaviour shows Instaurare thinks the problem is only with the "others", and thus indicate that the same behaviour would continue if no topic ban was handed out. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not call it mindless to not take my side. I called it mindless to add a "support per Cullen" !vote without explaining reasoning. The problem is with the complete disregard for policy in this orchestrated effort. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • My reasoning was to stop the time sink, as in, to stop you from taking up the time of a bunch of other editors, as you are doing in this thread, and as you did with your recent edit warring at SBAL while this thread has been pending. It's obvious to me, at least, that you cannot edit in that area without being a time sink (unproductively taking up a bunch of other editors' time through edit warring and arguing). I'm not biased against pro-lifers or pro-choicers, I'm biased against tendencious editors. Leviv ich 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic bans as proposed, and as modified by Cullen328. I'm familiar with Instaurare's previous editing history, and repeated topic ban violations. [46][47][48]. All that has changed is the controversial topic(s) upon which Instaurare has inflicted his long-term POV pushing and poor editing conduct.- MrX 🖋 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per Cullen. And referring to myself and others who have expressed the same reason as myself as "mindless" is a violation of WP:NPA. It's a complete logic fail to say one's opinion is is "mindless" just because it is shared with another who happened to express it first. You need to strike that. FWIW, Instaurare, I too oppose abortion. You cannot tell that from any edit (save this one) I've ever made here. Why? Because I do not edit on politics. Outside of religious music, I do not edit on religion. Think about that in light of HJ Mitchell's advice quoted above. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Let's call this what it is: The culmination of an yearslong politically motivated crusade by Binksternet and many others to purge editors identified as conservative from Wikipedia. Back in the early 2010s, conservative editors were definitely a minority but could hold their ground and were allowed to make their case. The liberal editors actually had to try to build a consensus. Both sides could hash it out. There was some semblance of fairness. But most of those people providing balance are gone now -- run off the site, or just worn out from it all and gone without a trace.

Every editor in political articles has some sort of agenda. If you aren't willing to admit that you're lying to yourself. What used to make it work was the editors on all sides who were willing to put the time in to back up their edits and work through the battles that while bitter, eventually resolved themselves somehow. I've always known I've been under the microscope with Binksternet and others watching my every move and stalking my talk page. I've always striven to make my edits extensively sourced, using left-leaning outlets as much as possible. But that does not matter.

The crime I am really being charged with is, according to Binksternet, "making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible." How about this direct quote from Binksternet: “I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative." -- Binksternet, 2014. The only difference between Binksternet and me is that he is a liberal and I am not. He is allowed to take that approach to articles but I am not. He will go on, probably become an admin someday, and I will go down in flames. He can commit every policy violation in the book but none will bat an eye. WP:AGF is dead for any editor blacklisted as conservative.

WP:NPOV used to be a lofty goal achievable only by hashing it out, now it's dead and buried, replaced by orthodoxy. As has been documented, 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of editors. Most Wikipedia editors are male. Most Wikipedia editors are white. And Wikipedia is biased.

If you want to continue building a Wikipedia that is white, male, liberal, and insular, with no diversity of viewpoints, then go right ahead with the topic ban. That's what many of you really want. You can go on and on about "muh battleground" mentality and what an awful, terrible, biased, pathetic editor I am. But it's clear that Wikipedia is an orthodox oligarchy. Dare to rock the boat, you will be punished. Instaurare (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? If you push a viewpoint that is objectively wrong, and then attack everyone else for being biased when called out, what do you expect to happen? 72.69.98.176 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban as defined by Cullen, not least because of the astonishing rant just above which strengthens pretty much every point made by the topic ban supporters. ("Martyr"? Not so much.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. Instaurare (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just FTR, it is usually a good idea not to change your posts so as to make replies to them incomprehensible. --bonadea contributions talk 07:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Instaurare (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question. Obviously there's a hefty consensus for a topic ban from Am Pol and abortion. Instaurare hasn't edited Susan B. Anthony since September 2016, so perhaps that isn't worth its own topic ban? Do you people think an indefinite t-ban from abortion and post-1932 American politics will cover what's required? If you mostly do, I'll close with such a ban, to be appealed no sooner than in six months. (The Susan B. Anthony List would obviously be covered by a ban from abortion.) @Cullen328: I'm asking especially you, since nearly all the supports for a topic ban refer to and/or quote you. Theoretically I, or any admin, could impose a ban from abortion and Am Pol without a by-your-leave, since both topics are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but I won't do that; it would be pretty rude to the people who have commented here. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I do not object to Susan B. Anthony being left out of the topic ban, but if this editor starts adding disinformation to that biography, we will be back here again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: Support, as taking the least restrictive measure that effectuates the preventative goals of sanctions. It seems to me there are potential edits one could make to the SBA article that would not violate the tban, and others that would violate the tban, and this might actually be a pretty good way to determine good-faith compliance with the tban. Anyway, I'd support any admin action that ended the time sink. If we are back here again, it'll make for an easier decision next time. Leviv ich 17:41, 19 February 2019 What kind of newbie forgets to sign and then modifies a closed discussion to add his signature?! Leviv ich 19:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (Who are you, above? Anyway, I'll respond to Cullen.) I'm not sure why he would do that, Cullen, unless it was adding stuff to the short section "Views on abortion", which would naturally be covered by an abortion ban. But since it sounds like you think there's some risk, and so many people have agreed with you, I'll make the ban three-pronged: Anthony, abortion, and Am Pol. No supervoting here! Bishonen | talk 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New articles by Shevonsilva

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

There is a long thread at WT:NPPR about this, but the short of it is that Shevonsilva has been mass-creating geography stubs with a variety of problems. Despite multiple people trying to coach them and encourage them to slow down, they are continuing to create pages en masse. I feel some community sanction limiting their speed of creating new pages is necessary as they seem otherwise incapable of adapting their editing patterns to feedback, and they appear to intend to create hundreds more pages which may have similar issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)+

It is done. I have stopped the creation of new articles. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For the background, see this thread: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Stubs created by Shevonsilva. Shevonsilva's main activity here is to create one-line stubs on obscure administrative divisions of various countries. I know that some people do not like such new creations, but I actually find them useful, since these articles are then easier to incrementally expand than to start from scratch. They are sourced, but, as Shevonsilva is not autopatrolled, they go to the new page patrol queue, and this is how I became aware of them. The problem is that often these articles contain critical errors. I started the referenced NPPR thread with a number of examples (note that the diffs are not to Shevonshilva's edits but to the corrections): an article on an abolished department of Colombia, Fiji subdivision with a template of the Argentine province (a batch of five subdivisions all had this template), the name of the article does not match the content, a duplication of an existing article. These are just a set of examples, more examples are found in the same thread and at User talk:Shevonsilva. The reaction of Shevonsilva was to accept and to promise to correct the errors. (Sometimes they reacted defensively, for example the same NPPR thread contains a suggestion to me to stop patrolling their articles), but constructive reaction is more typical. The problem is that nothing changes. They typically come up with a reason why they screwed up (for example, caching issues when an Argentine template was added to Fiji articles), and they correct the issues, but next day something else happens, and new articles with (different) critical errors go to the main space, adding extra work to new page patrollers. Just today a couple of their articles were moved (not by me) to the draft space, because the sources did not confirm the information in the article, and there was no way to know whether the administrative divisions actually existed. They were repeatedly told to slow down and to change their workflow in such a way as to ensure that the articles do not contain critical errors, and they were responsive, but it just is not happening. Apparently, the issues were discussed at ANI before in 2014, and the user was already blocked for the same behavior by Anna Frodesiak prior to 2014. Whereas I have no doubts they have good intentions and act in goor faith, the competence issues are recurrent and are too serious so that we need to do something. May be a topic ban on article creation in the main space could help, may be we need escalating blocks, I am not sure, but we can not leave the situation like this. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I am very bad person by going to help wikipedia, and by doing so it will help to third party software tools like Grammerly by serving as a data repository, for example, to provide accessibility features too (Note: data mining is done by topics not the article content), and, these third party tools can also find a different repository too. It may be needed to understand that filling this large gap needs a heavy work which was alonely completed by me (effectively upto countries starting from letter A to M (partially inclusively) and almost African countries, and, I also appreciate the support given by reviewers. I had to create plethora of articles in order to complete this gap and some technical errors were unvoidable due to the larger number of articles. There are a few pending articles remaining and I am not bothered about those. Anyway, in the end, I really feel bad after giving much effort to complete this knowledge gap by thinking I was doing to good service to the world.Shevonsilva (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shevonsilva, this issue has been brought to ANI not so that you will feel like a bad person but that you will listen to your fellow editors and see where there are problems with your article creations. Do you understand Ymblanter's points about problems with your article stubs? Because it's not just a matter of you saying you're sorry, you have to understand what the problems are so they won't happen in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. To be honest, the issue is there are many articles missing, there may be a chance of 1-10% error may happen due to human error (I may not notice due to consistent pattern) or machine error (unmodified versions are poping up or cursor in the wiki editor is moving without my consent) [That is another reason I did not request auto-patrol permission as I needed other reviewers eyes too to complete these missing articles.] I have already changed the flow of creating articles that I will double check the references with spelling variances with different versions of publications of place names (that may be the reason due to which they are not touched before). I can try my best to gurentee minimisation of errors in this missing articles if I am going to finish the rest. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - this has nothing to do with being a bad person or a good person, simply about paying attention to what one is doing. Having created numerous geographical stub articles, I believe in their importance to the WP project, but I also understand the necessity of accuracy. There are other editors who have made "human error" mistakes, and when they are pointed out, work diligently to avoid making the same mistakes again. That cannot be said of Shevonsilva. They continue to make the same errors over and over again: creation of pages (using dab) which already exist, faulty referencing, spelling errors in article titles, etc. It would be one thing if, after having been informed of the corrections needed this editor then showed a propensity to abiding by the correct procedure. However, this editor instead seems to show the need to simply plow through creating inaccurate stubs regardless of accuracy. They seem to pull references from other articles, without verifying the validity of those sources, or whether or not those sources exist or not. And while they are polite and civil in their interactions, the issues persist.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ongoing problem. Shevonsilva started by creating dozens of articles on obscure units of measurement. Each was copied from a very dubious book (Imaginatorium did a source analysis here). Shevonsilva deletes talk page comments so it is not easy to link to the many discussions on their talk about the problems. My sandbox shows most of the original articles with working from five editors in the sandbox and its talk. Other editors had to do a lot of work to remove misleading information from stub articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks. I already understood the complications. As I mentioned before I already changed the flow of creations to assure minimum or very low errors. Anyway, I have stoped contributions for the moment as I got a surgery in my right hand and it is very hard to involve in contributions with a single hand. I will try to avoid future errors. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see need for any action unless this resumes. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jessewaugh canvassing editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice asking them to look at the AfD for Jesse Waugh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD.

Jesse" [49]

Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious canvassing and COI, but since the AfD was closed nearly a year ago, and isn't going to be overturned even if it goes to DRV, I'm not sure what they're hoping to achieve. I'm guessing the obvious action is to TBAN Mr Waugh about anything related to his own article. Incidentally, is anyone else mildly amused by the irony of someone claiming an article was deleted because it's about a white male? Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jesse Waugh has been deleted, recreated, and salted repeatedly since 2013. Somewhat confused as to why they're canvassing, as the last AFD closed in March of 2018? But clearly, based on "excuse any potential canvassing", they know that its against policy.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • You guys are so horrible. The person who got the article about me deleted canvassed an army of people to vote delete on the AfD, but when I canvas it’s suddenly against policy. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jessewaugh Can you find/provide evidence of that claim? Please attach diffs. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • It’s in the AfD discussion record. The pot calling the kettle black when he solicited WikiBigWigs to vote delete. It really was a politically motivated takedown. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of course they're canvassing — they're a painter! *ba dum tsch* —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lol 😂 Jessewaugh (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I may not know the whole story here, but it seems to me that there are two separate issues:

1. Is the artist known as Jesse Waugh notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? I would say "Possibly", whilst concurring that the version that was deleted didn't demonstrate notability and was borderline promotional.
2. A user knowingly created/edited an article about himself, can't see what was wrong with doing that, and is now seeking support to get it restored. It seems to me that the most effective way to deal with that issue is to block the user for a lengthy period (if not permanently). At the same time, there may be someone who is prepared to do the work to create a decent article on this artist - people can, after all, become notable over time. So let's just make sure members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts (or whatever group is most appropriate) are aware of the controversy. Deb (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • I did not create the article and please don’t block me. Jessewaugh (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ooh, several users were canvassed after a long period of inactivity after a block threat from two different admins, and as pointed out above the user knew it was canvassing: Special:Contributions/Jessewaugh. DRV would have been the proper channel and it would have been easily endorsed there. I'm satisfied with a WP:NOTHERE block. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Jessewaugh: What happened here was not canvassing. Theredproject contacted a single person, and asked for impartial advice on how to proceed. In fact, Theredproject said posting there on that talk page...and not the AfD...was fine. This isn't canvassing. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification to gain a better understanding of what canvassing is here. I don't see any "army of people" being canvassed. If you have diffs to show otherwise, please provide them. Second, rather than attacking the motives of people "behind the deletion", you should be finding reliable, secondary sources attesting to your fame. The more sources such as this that you have the more impossible it is for us not to have an article about you. If those sources can't be found, we're back to square one and the AfD stands. I remind you you are already on a final warning for personal attacks. If you're not clear about what a personal attack is considered to be here, then please read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?. Calm, rational discussion is needed here. Not speculations about the political motivations of editors here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes there was also perfectly fine notification of previous participants of the AfDs [50]. (Well at least the text seems perfectly fine and suggests the selection criteria was fine, I haven't checked to make sure it wasn't selective.) Meanwhile, there's this Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50 [51] which is clear cut inappropriate canvassing. (I have no idea how those editors were selected but even if their selection was somehow appropriate, the message was clearly not neutral.) To be fair, I think that canvassing also spectacularly backfired, and we have no way of knowing whether it could have been a false flag attack so we can't say for sure it was people on Jessewaugh's 'side'. Ultimately however, I think the AfD demonstrated one key thing namely that canvassing doesn't generally work. Especially in cases like this. The AfD happened because it was the correct result based on the sources etc at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments in this ANI complaint but I'm not sure what is being called for here. There are claims of an infraction by Jessewaugh who is asking not to be blocked and there is an ongoing discussion with this editor. It seems like there is no urgent or immediate need for action as Jessewaugh is being caught up to be speed on standard Wikipedia policies and practices. Needlesstosay, there is no conspiracy or expose required for standard operating procedure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Because his act is not new. Take a look at the AFD for his article -- a quick skim will do -- to see that this isn't his first rodeo. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a long or indef block for WP:NOTHERE and personal attacks. I have no problem with a topic ban of Jessewaugh from anything to do with themselves excepting BLP-vios obviously, although it's likely to have the same effect. While the canvassing is concerning, especially since the editor clearly knows it's inappropriate and there has previously been canvassing which appeared to be trying to support Jessewaugh's side i.e. keeping the article albeit not clearly linked to them (the only previous canvassing that I can see clearly linked to Jessewaugh is this dumbness [52]), the personal attacks are IMO much more concerning by this stage. Jessewaugh has already been told multiple times [53] [54] [55] (coming in part from this ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Jesse Waugh AfD) that crap like this [56] [57] [58] is unacceptable. Yet in the canvassing they repeat the same sort of stuff [59] impugning the motives of other editors with zero evidence. Even above, they continue to make accusations of a "politically motivated takedown". The latest messages are a little less extreme then the previous ones, they seem to have cut out the attacks based on where people live for example, and so if this was a constructive editor who let emotion of a COI get the better of them, perhaps a warning or short block would be sufficient. But Jessewaugh has done nothing since the previous AfD. Clearly they aren't here for anything productive. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have notified Theredproject of this discussion as they were named , and even before that, and this was because their actions ware called into question by Jessewaugh without direct naming but with it being clear who was referred to. I have notified Ad Orientem as they were the one who gave Jessewaugh a final warning for personal attacks. I have notified 104.163.147.121 and 81.44.32.50 as even though their contrib history suggest it's very unlikely whoever is behind those IPs will ever see the messages, I did mention their actions in this thread. I have not notified Drmies as although they also sort of gave a final warning to Jessewaugh and their actions sort of mentioned and likewise DGG, I felt it was unnecessary given the minor mention and unlikelihood anyone would call into question their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IP 104 is now editing as ThatMontrealIP--Theredproject (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to say here other than the contrast between Theredproject and Jessewaugh, in terms of their intentions, contributions and interest in the project is very, very large. A not here block would be appropriate for JW, given the long term single-minded promotional use of the wiki, and the repeated insults towards other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jessewaugh: Hi Jesse, I suspect this is heading towards your account being blocked as not being here to contribute to an encyclopedia. This is mostly because a quick scan of your contributions show every single contribution you have made to Wikipedia in the last 12 months has consisted of complaining about Jesse Waugh being deleted. It's on you to explain what you're actually here to do other than Right this Great Wrong. Fish+Karate 10:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• • EVERYONE here is pushing an agenda. In fact, it’s patently obvious that many are working in conjunction - and evidence would suggest they are being paid as part of a quasi-military / intelligence offensive to skew the information contained in Wikipedia in the direction they require for their (your) collective objectives. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Someone needs to tell Jimbo my check from the intelligence community hasn't arrived this month NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • This month? I've been here for over a decade. Maybe I haven't done much, but I guess I regularly push agendas like this. I figure I'm very rich now once they fix whatever problem stopped them ever sending one. Well to be honest I'd prefer a bank deposit. Either way, as a "quasi-military / intelligence offensive", I assume this post is enough for them to recognise their mistake and start to send me my cheques or bank in my money. Mine haven't changed in ages so I'm sure they can find it in their files. Yeah! On a more serious note, this pushes me even more to a indef or site ban. I mean a topic ban will still be okay, but their earlier comments suggested someone with a certain POV that isn't particularly welcome but could theoretically make productive contributions if kept away from problems areas. The latest comment is either pure trolling or suggests a POV so out of touch with reality that I'm not sure they can ever be constructive anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Why are we still having this discussion? JW wrote he solicited WikiBigWigs to vote delete not far above this (and EVERYONE here is pushing an agenda immediately above), essentially admitting to being WP:NOTHERE. Someone should just block him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Jessewaugh: Myself and others noted the problems with personal attacks. Yet, your very first rejoinder since this was raised, you accuse everyone of pushing an agenda and working in conjunction against you? There is no possible way this turns out well for you if your only attempts at rectifying this great wrong is to insult everyone. You're beyond your last chance at this point. I would not at all be surprised if an administrator blocks you right now. Drop the stick, and back away. Come back with reliable, secondary sources that attest to your fame. How about a major newspaper article? Doing anything else will just make it worse for you. If you get blocked, creating another account to circumvent the block and try to get your article undeleted will not fix the problem for you. So it comes down to this; why are you here? If you're here to work collaboratively on this project and work with us here rather the insulting all of us in an attempt to have your way, then you are quite welcome here. If instead you're just going to insult everyone here, this ends in a block and your article will never be restored anyway. Your choice. If you're really here to get your article undeleted, you'd better rethink your plan. Your current plan is abysmally failing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I have blocked for 1 week for personal attacks, while this discusssion is still ongoing. Any admin who deems it appropriate, feel free to extend or shorten the block. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The bizarre and obvious sock- and meat-puppetry in support of the various incarnations of the Jesse Waugh article that marked both Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh and Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination) strongly indicate that Jessewaugh is back to his old tricks. The reason he was already aware of the no-canvassing rule undoubtedly comes from the warning that his canvassing alter-ego aka 81.44.32.50 received here in March 2018. For the whole sordid background, see this SPI and this one. Note also that the personal attacks/conspiracy theories by the various SPA IPs in those discussions are virtually identical to the ones made by Jessewaugh here at ANI. Incidentally, the first attempt to create an article on the subject was circa 24 May 2013. It was deleted as a creation by one of the dozens of socks of Nickaang who ran a paid editing operation. At the very least Jessewaugh should be permanently topic banned from anything to do with the artist Jesse Waugh. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Bizarre", you say? A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t have anything to add here, that hasn’t been said here, or in the AFD. He has repeatedly made personal ad hominem attacks against me [60][61]. This is harassment. He has proven again and again that he is WP:NOTHERE in good faith. Hijiri 88 said it best: “Why are we still having this discussion?” --Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Other evidence for an indefinite WP:nothere block, (above and beyond the personal attacks) include the many years of Jesse Waugh articles, and the time consumed taking them down:

• Jesse R. Waugh (artist)
• Jesse Waugh (artist)
• Jesse R Waugh
• ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So that's Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh, Jesse Waugh (artist), Jesse R Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh (artist): five articles, six protections, five deletions, two SPIs, and two AfDs. Now to calculate the sheer number of editors and their precious time and energy that they all took up between them.... ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Add to this list Jesse Robert Waugh, created by an editor in April 2016 who was almost certainly a sock of someone. However, note that unlike the other 4, Jesse R. Waugh (artist) and Jesse Waugh (artist) were never actually created. They were pre-emptively salted. Voceditenore (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• Propose site-ban per my calculations above which I gave up on when it got to 50. And the litany IV lists below. And also because, no IV, it does not seem to have been officially proposed, although it was mentioned as a likelihood by Nil Einne above. ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (assuming someone has already proposed it): let's see, we have canvassing, conspiracy advocacy, repeatedly not getting the point, conflict-of-interest editing, and just the whole idea of gender equality and feminism being a quota-filling exercise, which any reasonable person should find incredibly offensive. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, pretty much the closest to a textbook case I've ever seen. Go write a blog; if the artist becomes notable someone else will write about them. But they'll have to ask an admin to get them started, these titles are now regex blacklisted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've said enough already although the list of creations makes it even more clear cut since even their minor historic edits unrelated to their article can't outweigh the amount of our time they've wasted trying to create an article on themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the additional evidence provided by Serial, Montreal, et. al., and the editor's unwillingness to engage in appropriate editing, it's clear cut now that a site ban is appropriate and in fact overdue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support after multiple warnings, personal attacks and deletion discussions, all of which is built around self-promotion, it's time for the time-wasting to stop.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Ivanvector; this is ridiculous. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I will add I was not canvased, but yes it does appear canvasing occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. A Dolphin (squeek?) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Jessewaugh makes a very convincing case above for why he should be shown the door. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Confirming my support mentioned above. (non-admin) SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (or at a minimum an indefinite block). The sole purpose of this user on Wikipedia (either under this account or sock accounts) from 2012 to the present day has been to promote himself. The result has been 4 articles about him created under multiple variations of his name (in some cases more than once) and all deleted and salted. Three AfDs, two of which were infested with sock puppets resulting in two ANI reports and two sockpuppet investigations. Relentless canvassing and serious personal attacks on other editors which has continued to the present day and even in this very ANI discussion. The sheer amount of editors' and administrators' time that he has wasted is appalling. He's not here to build an encyclopedia and never will be. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned User:Cinesis, an account that seems emblematic of these shenanigans. It's also from 2012, which shows real determination over time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's quite obvious who Cinesis is, for reasons which I won't go into here. The irony of all this is that Jessewaugh blames the deletions of articles about him on a "plot" by the editors of Art+Feminism but three articles about him (Jesse Waugh in its first incarnation, Jesse R Waugh, and Jesse R. Waugh) were all deleted in 2013 before Art+Feminism came into being in 2014. The first two were definitely "paid for", created both here and transwiki by Nickaang's paid editing sockfarm. I strongly suspect the third one and Jesse Robert Waugh were also paid for. Obviously not wise purchases. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)<

• Support site ban Clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. Clearly here only to cause further disruption. Clearly thinks the community is "horrible" for placing our policies and guidelines ahead of his agenda(s) Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I hear WordPress has reasonable rates, tough I imagine a blog there lacks the exposure of Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Clear disruption, express declarations of WP:NOTHERE/WP:COI objectives, hostile responses to any contravening opinion and WP:PA's in reaction to every community effort to help them acclimate to our policies and processes, consistent efforts to canvas and otherwise game process to restore (and then presumably WP:OWN) an article about themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Unmistakably, self-admittedly abusing Wikipedia for personal purposes rather than to work on encyclopedic content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Peanut gallery pile on support Been watching this for a while and figured this was inevitable. I was not canvassed in any way, shape or form. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - No-brainer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2600:1008:B16F:4C07:8517:D712:4C7E:F40B

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:1008:B16F:4C07:8517:D712:4C7E:F40B (talk · contribs) Abusing his/her ability to edit his/her talkpage while blocked to continue with personal attacks. example example 2. Please revoke talk page access. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP impersonation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 14 February, I reverted in good faith an edit by 125.178.201.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to then-TFA Chains of Love (TV series), citing its lack of sources and vague language. I left a standard warning on their talk page. They proceeded to edit my user talk page comments. I reverted and warned them about talk page refactoring. They then impersonated me on User talk:ChamithN and attempted to reset my password with Special:PasswordReset. I think these two actions cross the line from good-faith editing to disruptive editing, and need an explanation. – Teratix ₵ 23:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The filter log also shows that the IP attempted to make a small edit to your userpage. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And they are still attempting to reset my password. – Teratix ₵ 09:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Djln

User:Djln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) disagrees with a CFD nomination I have made, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_February 19#Category:Foyle_College.

He is of course entitled to his view ... but he has chosen to express his disagreement in a prolonged series of personalised responses which seem to amount to a determination to prove that he has somehow caught me out on something. If he'd read the guidelines he'd see that he hasn't, but he says[62] Please don't just quote guidelines. Not interested in reading them thanks.

It's a long way from the worst personal attacks I have received, more like sniping, but the persistent personalisation and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is tedious to be on the receiving end of, and disruptive to a discussion which is supposed to be consensus-forming. WP:NPA is clear "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia".

Here's some of Djln's comments

• [63] Oh please crying "personal attack" when you've been called out !
• [64] You've been caught out
• [65] you need to get a life
• [66] Don't make me laugh. If you were a teacher, you would probably tell your pupils one thing and then do the complete opposite. Just like you have done here

I let it pass, but Djln doesn't seem to want to drop the stick. This started at 17:14 yesterday, but Djlns' last comment (above) comes 21 hours after my last comment in that thread.

Please can someone try to persuade Djln to either read the relevant guideline (WP:SMALLCAT) and discuss the substance, or withdraw from the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I created the perfectly legitimate Category:Foyle College. There are over 70 similar categories regarding schools and colleges. BrownHairedGirl nominated the category for deletion because it only had two items. When had I had the audacity to point out that she herself has previously created categories with just a single article she took offence. I find BrownHairedGirls behaviour to be patronising, bullying and totally inappropriate for an administrator. Djln Djln (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that Djln is still holding to his refusal to read WP:SMALLCAT, which is only 90 words long.

If an editor explicitly refuses to read the relevant guideline, then a feeling of being patronised by being asked to read it is entirely their own choice.

And no, I didn't "take offence" at Djln's observation that I had created a one-article category. I pointed to the section of the guideline which permits smallcats in some cases, and invited Djln to nominate the other cats for deletion if you so choose.

As to bullying ... just read the thread, and see who's hurling the persona absue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have read WP:SMALLCAT. It is just a guideline, it is not sacrosanct or written in stone. It is not law. Throughout this discussion your tone has been extremely patronising with an "I know better attitude". Moving this discussion here and "reporting" me is itself an act of bullying. Djln Djln (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, @Djln:, hauling you off to ANI is not bullying. You seem to be ignoring the cited guideline out of pigheadedness? You've offered no policy based explanation. Sorry if you don't like the expectation that you should adhere to the same rules as the rest of us. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is bullying. Just because you think different does not make it so. Plus the term "hauling you off" is totally inappropriate to use. That term is used describe a physical assault. In fact you describing her behaviour as such kinda proves my point. Denying somebody is being bullied when they have bought it to your attention is just as bad. As I have said a guideline is just a guideline. As I have said BrownEyedGirl has ignored this very guideline herself but has taken exception to me doing the same. One rule for me, another for her. Djln Djln (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Djln, do not take things like a CFD nomination so seriously. I suggest you read the guidelines, and contribute to the discussion civilly. If you continue with your conduct it won't end well for you. GiantSnowman 20:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Djln, have it your way. Let's look at those edit summaries. They are wholly inappropriate, and your response to me adds to the appearance of inappropriateness. The whole category guideline discussion pales in its glaring brightness. Please, do heed GiantSnowman as they are wise. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. I guess there is no point trying to reason with a mafia of unreasonable editors/administrators over such a trivial petty matter. I suspect next you will threaten to block me and try to claim it is not bullying. Sorry for daring to express an opinion. Djln Djln (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• WP:SMALLCAT is guidance for the suitability of a category for creation. Djln has created a category which fails this particular test and cites at length various categories created by BHG which pass the test (if one reads the criterion properly). Djln is wrong and should make an apologetic retreat. Oculi (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Djln has been blocked before by BHG. Once bitten ... Oculi (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

I really don't think it's bullying. I really don't think "hauling you off" in the context of a disagreement on wikipedia implies physical assault. It's just an exchange between people who are passionate about the subject. His edits actually look fine to me. Contributions/161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Welp, civil, collegeal discourse seems right out the window on this site. Might as well change the name to Hooligans Den and be done with it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) @Dlohcierekim Now you're being childish. Maybe we should call it "Dlohcierekim's Nursery School Sulking Corner". 161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment How about we fix this like it should have been in the first place - User:Djln, if you carry on using demeaning edit-summaries like that you will be blocked. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and regardless of whether your sense of entitlement leads you to believe you can talk to others here like that, the fact is - you can't, so stop it. Now. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have withdrawn from this conversation. BHG can do what she wants. Not sure why other editors are carrying it on. I have learned that it pointless and a wasted exercise trying to reason with administrators. I have contributed 100s, perhaps over a 1000, quality articles to Wikipedia over the past 15 years. It would just be nice if I was occasionally just treated with a bit more respect instead of totally inappropriate and unhelpful responses accompanied by threats of blocks. Sadly this bullying behaviour is typical of some Wiki editors (and administrators) who are then happy to lecture others on their behaviour. Bringing up a previous block from seven years again is particularly childish. All this does is make me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm sure this comment will now lead to me being blocked. Djln Djln (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Not really seeing a lot to do here. Djln has created many CAT's, so I think we can allow a lapse or two. Perhaps a less escalative approach will allow for further editing? Perhaps an agreement to disagree and then move on? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek casting aspersions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know coming to AN/I usually ends up being a negative incident, so I am going to be as concise as possible. I am going to highlight the comment and diff and request a one way IBAN. I was brought to WP:AE ,and Volunteer Marek in his statement (after going through my talk page archives) (as uninvolved editor, not the one bringing the action) said that " Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself" He then lists 4 diffs:

[67] [68] [69] [70].

Now, even if I were guilty, the latest of those diffs are from 2016 and one is from 2014.

However, only one of those diffs actually show a real 1RR violation and I was blocked for it. The other diffs show discussions. In one case, someone said I violated 1RR and I said the article in question is not a 1RR article, and he's "oh, yeah, you're right." In another diff, the person thought that multiple edits were a violation of 1RR, when we all know that is not the case, we can make multiple edits to an article, as indeed, admin @Bishonen: pointed out to the editor. So VM stated I "routinely" violate 1RR and that I game the system, which is casting aspersion. He provides 4 diffs which don't show that. My only interactions with him have been negative. I hereby request that those comments be stricken and a one-way IBAN be implemented. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure why one issue should lead to a one-way interaction ban. Interaction bans are for long-term chronic behavioural issues where two (ostensibly) useful contributors are unable to work together due to (usually petty) personal differences. You not being happy about one issue is not going to lead to an IBAN. While I agree that two of the diffs VM provided aren't good examples (the other two are), it is not unreasonable for VM to suggest you have breached 1RR restrictions, here's other examples he could have used - [71],[72],[73]. We are not going to interaction ban people who comment on arbitration enforcement discussions just because you don't like what they are saying. Fish+Karate 09:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with F+K here. I don't see a IBAN happening and suggest Sir Joseph taking a step back from the whole mess because I am pretty sure a WP:BOOMERANG request is next. Regards SoWhy 11:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Sigh) "negative incident" usually means one failed to realize one was wrong to begin with in one's interpretation of events. Thanks, y'all. I sent 'em here from my talk 'cause I figured as much and I don't have the endurance for this much digging. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see dif's from 2016 as overly germane to a current situation. I also didn't/don't see an IBAN. WM can be quite outspoken, so you might want to question his neutrality at AE if you've had prior history. Don't know how that works, though. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

it's not just this one incident, and thanks for showing why this place is negative. Vm stated I routinely violate 1rr AND that I try to GAME the system, and I don't. That's casting aspersions. Why do I need to be worried about boomerang? Ani is where I'm told we are supposed to get report uncivil comments. So I did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I provided the diffs. Folks can check your talk page. It's not "aspersions". It's at WP:AE so I'm sure the admins there can evaluate my claims. Now, the fact that this post of yours is obvious payback for the fact that I had the audacity to point out something obvious at WP:AE (i.e. that you pretty much admit yourself you made a revert, but then try to deny it once brought to admin board) and the fact that you're trying to make an ANI issue out of this (oh no! Someone criticized me!!! How dare they! Ban them!!!) does indeed show you have a habit of trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, this place is not necessarily negative, but you do need to provide a full explanation of the issue(s) if you expect an informed response. If it's "not just this one incident", then please provide link(s) to the other incident(s); how are we to know what these are otherwise? Based on what you have provided thus far, this complaint is reasonable in that 2 of the 4 pieces of evidence provided by VM appear to be specious, but this does not make it an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I do believe Volunteer Marek could have worded his submission to AE more thoughtfully - for example, I would not have used the word "routinely", been more selective with the 1RR-related diffs (noting I managed to find 3 more which were valid, in about 2 minutes of looking), and just stuck to the facts - but that's not anywhere near enough to warrant an interaction ban. Fish+Karate 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

he did not just say that I do 1rr, he said that I also try to GAME the system. Your diffs that you found didn't show that. He also opened an AE against me that was mostly unanimously shut down by editors and admins alike. As for venue, where else am I to go other than ani? Again, he said I routinely violate 1rr AND GAME the system. Your diffs shows that I reverted when asked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Places you could have tried before ANI if you have a concern with evidence provided at AE:

1. The Arbitration Enforcement page itself (you did this and gave VM exactly 57 minutes to respond before posting here).
2. The other user's talk page (you did not do this)

I see you dislike the "gaming" comment VM made. All you need to say is, within your AE section, "I object to the representation of my edits as "gaming 1RR" by Volunteer Marek and note that no evidence provided supports this". That's it. It will be read. You don't need to coming bounding along to other venues - Dlohcierekim's talk page, here, wherever - asking for further action. Of any kind. It fragments the issue. Also, you haven't provided a single diff to support your (ahem) aspersion that it's "not just this one incident" (or why not one to support the claim you made on User_talk:Dlohcierekim that Volunteer Marek "has been gunning for me for a while"). If you expect a certain level of conduct from others, you need to be at least at that level of conduct yourself. Fish+Karate 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is just an impression, but coming to my talk as you did could lead one to feel you might be attempting to game the system by coming to a little-watched user talk page ex parte and requesting sanctions. And it is not at all confidence inspiring to see you requesting an IBAN because you did not like a user's comments at an AE. It would have been far better to simply rebut VM at AE instead of creating all this drama. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dessert anyone? Dlohcierekim (talk)

I came to your talkpage because I noticed you were online, and I wanted someone to address the comments because as you can see from the AE, people just look at someone posting comments and diffs and then go from there. And VM brought me to AE before and has a history with me. Again, I have no interest in prolonging this but if ANI is not the place, and asking an admin is not the place, and AE is not the place because you need an AE sanction to remedy for, then what is to be done? Just close this and be done with this. I've had enough. No wonder WMF comes out with surveys asking how they can improve the ANI process. For the record, here is the AE request he opened against me, [74] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You need to (re}read F+K's post above. AE was the place. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: 57 minutes, eh? And still had time to stop by at my place for lunch. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To his credit, I expected more words from VM. perhaps I misjudged him. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't do AE. Blood pressure, you know. As this is all discussable at AE, that's the place to discuss it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How is AE the place? Under what sanction? It wasn't under an article, so ARBPIA or US Politics wouldn't apply, discretionary sanctions only applies to articles to my recollection. That's why I asked you. In any event, apparently discussing this is considered lawyering, which apparently is the worst crime in Wikipedia. And since VM loves looking up archives, why not look up VM in the AE archives? You'll see how many times he's there. I truly have no idea why he is negative towards me and that is why I asked for the iban, I know it's a long shot but I have no interest in having negativity around me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of a discretionary sanction depends on the specific sanction. See WP:DSTOPICS, where many (the majority?) of the DS topic areas are defined as "pages" and not "articles". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of discretionary sanctions are generally understood to include AE complaints brought under those sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell not one of your diffs includes a posts by VM.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE-- Sir Joseph has been blocked regarding a matter at AE.' Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Would anyone care to close this as being without merit. VM has done nothing actionable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phadendra

• Phadendra (talk · contribs)

This editor came to my attention on February 20 after creating Template:Address and Rosmi Ghimire, which were CSD'd under A7 and A1. I sent them a personal message [75] telling them to slow down. They failed to heed my advice and have now created more than 6 pages all of which are being Speedied. I am coming here since despite my persistent requests for communication they just created 2 new pages right as I am typing ([76], [77]) which are not ready for main space yet and has still yet to respond to any of my messages. I think they are trying to fill in all the redlinks on their userpage but this is not the way to go. This is becoming very disruptive and has taken the valuable time of 7 editors to combat this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 I can't figure out why, but this pattern seems so familiar... If I think about the SPI case name I will post it to your talk page later. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Deleted the deletable, tagged pages. Left my standard deletion notices and a couple of warnings. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work/response. Hopefully it doesn't start up again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

According to their user page, they are 19 years old with less than 100 edits. Can we treat as the new editor that they are? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz Yes, I saw that they said they were 19 (somehow they were born in 2057 though) which is why I sent them personal messages instead of always templating them. That being said, their edits are still disruptive and they are still creating a lot of work to clean up. If they want to edit on English Wikipedia they need to communicate. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer, I’ve taken suspicion on their recreation of Samata Shiksha Niketan only minutes after the unsourced draft was declined. And yet they continue to create such unsourced Nepal school pages? At this point, WP:COMMUNICATION applies. Unsure about WP:CIR though. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

New editors are not exempt from policies and we had a 'crat who was 15 at the time. I educated them as best I could-- which is what we must do for new editors who are moving too fast. That they did not hear with the non template approach required a stiffer message. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The DOB is comforting as it means man is still alive and woman can survive. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hang on... he comes from 2057.All may be well then, but I can tell you as a refugee from the terror of the 24th century that long before 2525 you'll all be doomed...wiped out forever... Oh the humanity Lemon martini (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2334 (UTC)

Liz, wait... is that young? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Too young? That depends. "For a mountain (it is) not even begun in years. For an apricot, (quite old). For a head of lettuce, even more so. However, for a man (it is) just right. "Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis needing a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

David Curits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock per redoing edits by recently blocked CU-confirmed socks of Evlekis, reverting recently made edits by me (which is typical for Evlekis), and this edit summary, with a "handcrafted" link to nonexisting User:Epsom Nutcracker, a clear reference to blocked Evlekis-socks User:EPSOMNUTCRACKER and User:Epsom's Nutcracker. 89.240.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems to be connected to this. Pinging Bbb23 for a CU-check since Evlekis usually operates multiple accounts simultaneously... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• And here's number two for today: One 2 three 4 5 six 7 8 nine ten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Capman Crunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of Rollback right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made this edit on 64th National Film Awards. Vivvt rollbacked my edit two times without explanation. The first time itself I had reminded him his obligation to provide an explanation. But the user rollbacked again, which I undid asking why he is not providing an explanation. Per WP:ROLLBACK: editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.

Vivvt started a discussion only AFTER the second rollback. I was not informed and found it by chance while looking for any previous discussions (as if it was the reason for his rollback) and reversed myself until a consensus is reached. The ideal thing was to begin a discussion first and revert my edit with an edit summary pointing towards the discussion. Rollback is for undoing "obvious vandalism", but Vivvt has misused it. Admin who granted him the right is now indeffed with a global ban, so couldn't inform him.--Let There Be Sunshine 16:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Vivvt: WP:ROLLBACK is for obvious vandalism only. In all other cases you are expected to provide an edit summary. Please keep in mind for future use. I don't think admin intervention is necessary at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I also note this invalid rollback. ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd give that one a pass: it's not an ideal rollback, but it's a sourced figure and number-change vandalism is rampant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, okay, the figure seems to be open to interpretation: the source given beside "ninth" is an Indian government source but not an ordinal list, while our List of Prime Ministers of India lists him sixth seemly due to counting Indira Gandhi's two separate ministries as one, and discounting both of Gulzarilal Nanda's ministries as "acting" PM. It's hard to say that was an inappropriate use of rollback, but there probably should have been some discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector that action isn't necessary at this time. Mistakes happen, and nobody is perfect; I'm not at the stage of being alarmed or overly concerned yet. However, if Vivvt continues to misuse rollback and to revert good faith edits without an appropriate edit summary, the user right will be revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBAN violation by Cristina neagu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cristina neagu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think that [78] is a violation of her TBAN from Romania and Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just that I put back my work (the Antiquity section) which was written before a TBAN. Moxy is somehow connected to you? Because first he provoked the scandal on Romania where I was banned, from that discussion you reported me. Now Moxy went to Arad, Romania to remove also my work not just to add back two words. Since when it's ok to remove my work? My work was not banned at all. That's the history of the town and must stay. I even informed the administrator who banned me that I did that. I had no intention to do anything than adding back my work (which was wrongly deleted). Regards, Christina Christina (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That's an admission of guilt, and Moxy is somehow connected to you? is an useless attack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of TBAN: [79]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I just hope it's your sock, because then you would manipulate things badly against me. I asked you kindly. And why are you so provocative? So much hatred? I am not editing anything against my harsh TBAN (1 admin found me no guilt, 1 user found me no guilt, 2 admins decided not in my favour; I received a TBAN based on weak evidences, now I am not going to violate anything but I had to put back my work), I had to put back a previous information on Arad. I hope you not writing again here romans... Christina (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Sandstein you were topic-banned for what looked like nationalist ranting. [80]. So you are the only one who is guilty for your TBAN. As I told you, I don't hate people. But I am not a moron, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks as arbitration enforcement--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: Wow. Please do read WP:NPA, WP:casting aspersions and WP:AGF. DlohCierekim (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor simply does not have the competency to edit English Wikipedia. --Moxy (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, she comes across as totally immature: she sees her bans and blocks as always being the fault of others, who use "psychological techniques of manipulation" against her ([81]). She comes across as totally immature. Maybe she's underage. If she is above 21 years old, there is nothing more to do about it: she just does not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. Although, I might add, accusations of manipulation from a minor are fairly unlikely. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now DS blocked for 2 weeks w/ TPA removed. I concur with the extension given the sheer ma, er, inappropriateness of the disruption on her talk. DlohCierekim (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of inappropriate behavior towards users, misuse of tools and power.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I first came across SummerPhDv2.0 via an article while editing, user disrupted my edit by modifying it and decided to created a new discussion on the article's talk page at which I felt they were taking ownership of my sourced material and reference "at the time". The only concern I had was the reasoning behind the modification, there was no citation left, and no type of communication between user and I to resolve the issue. Instead user decided to create a new discussion in the talk page without notifying me there was an issue with what I provided that warranted the modifications. I ended up finding this discussion "on my own" and decided to interact while trying to handle the disruptive edit to my own edits at the same time. It wasn't until "after" the discussion got heated, I was told the reasoning behind the edits.

User and I have had lengthy discussions on their personal talk page and also on the new talk page discussion they created on the article. Our talks have been about the issue at hand, past issues that have occurred with other users involving them, numerous flags on their account, and the misuse of tools and power. Instead of actually trying to iron out the issues and address them via communication, user wishes to make threats of banning my account, lie about certain situations while modifying talk pages trying to delete parts of the conversation to make themselves look better. The issue is toxic and has cost (from what they've told me) a lot of accounts banned maybe even innocent ones.

Before you rule, I would strongly suggest doing a thorough investigation on our situation and situations "we've" both had with other users in the past, whether it takes days or weeks before another innocent account gets falsely banned. In my honest opinion it seems as though high editing points, current account status, and time spent on the platform has gone over user's head to the point where there's no real human interaction with them. It seems as though the only thing they can do is ignore what you're telling them, reference this or reference that with their tools, instead of actually practicing what they're referencing.

Lastly I want to make it clear, "my issue" was never about my edit being questioned, that's every users' right to do so as they choose. My only issue is, how it went about and how the user has chosen "for years" to deal with certain situations they may not like. For an example, when this all got started user DID NOT delete sourced material I provided (clearly it was acceptable enough for them to slightly modify it and keep it), they also asked for me to provide a birthday month and day source (which I did), afterwards they accepted that as well while reapplying my original edit (I even hit the thanks button). I don't know what happened afterwards, but all I've received (since then to now) is constant lying, switch ups on what they've deemed earlier "reliable" then the next it's not "reliable" anymore after a heated debate. I've even tried to resolve the issue between us "myself" in the third to last message in our discussion, but the user didn't want to resolve things and continued with the behavior.

References: Their talk page, my talk page, and talk pages we've interacted with outside of this situation (past or present). Note: User does edit/hide certain things so check all pages history. VerifiedFixes (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VerifiedFixes, please don't waste the time of ANI by typing out rubbish (aka The issue is toxic and has cost (from what they've told me) a lot of accounts banned maybe even innocent ones.). Who is "they"? If you have specific diffs, please list each and every one of those diffs to build your case. Don't give broad and hollow statements (e.g. "whether it takes days or weeks before another innocent account gets falsely banned.") SummerPhDv2.0 is absolutely right in demanding sparklingly reliable sources and not silly Twitter claims of celebrities trying to peddle in their own lower age claims. Binksternet is an established editor who can smell silliness from far away; and his comment on the talk page article is as insightful as it can get. Also, leaving a note on the article's talk page (like Summperphd did) is the appropriate way to follow the WP:BRD cycle. It's not his job to leave a talk page comment for you on your personal talk page or to start a special conversation with you. Thanks, Lourdes 11:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I read through the first sentence of your complaint and then checked out the article talk page and stopped reading your complaint. Concerning the age/birthdate, I see one discussion on the talk page page in 2013 with some additional comments in 2015 and 2018 under a separate sub header and one additional comment in a completely separate header in 2017. These are old enough discussions that starting a new one is completely reasonable. There are no other discussions other than the one you complained about in the first line. If you didn't initiate a discussion and someone else does because they feel it is merited, this is not "taking ownership" of anything. This is doing what we are suppose to do namely using the article talk page to discuss issues over article content. If you don't want people to discuss article content on the article talk page (whoever added that content), then wikipedia is not the place for you. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia and discussing article content on the article talk page when necessary, such as when there is dispute or uncertainty, is precisely what we are supposed to do. Probably 75% of the complaints on ANI if not more arise because people fail to properly discuss content issues on the article talk page. If you don't want someone else initiating the discussion, then you could always start the discussion on the article talk page first. Depending on the change, it's often not necessary, but other times it's a good idea. In any case if you're going to get annoyed because someone else started a discussion, it's you're only solution other than simply leaving wikipedia. As I said, I didn't read the rest of what you said. If you want to me (and probably others) to take your complaint seriously, don't raise an issue which is fundamentally against how things are supposed to work on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• The OP wrote over SPhD's t/p:-Since you've insulted my English, I'm going to "indirectly" insult your upbringing by showcasing what a "proper" upbringing gets you. Can we just issue a boomerang NPA indef block? ∯WBG^converse 12:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I read a bit more of your complaint and looked at your history and guess you're probably new. (Well okay I partly did before finishing my first message hence why I emphasised article talk page.) I think you're very confused about how things are supposed to work on wikipedia. While I don't want to WP:BITE, you did leave a very strongly worded complaint on ANI about another editor so should expect a response. Lest a WP:boomerang I strongly suggest you drop this now and instead seek help somewhere like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk concentrating on understanding any part of the wikipedia editing process that confuse you and not what you feel what others have done wrong. For example, there is generally no requirement or expectation to notify people when you start a discussion on the article talk page or when you revert them. (Although if someone uses the undo, it will automatically notify if you have it enabled.) Sometimes it's useful for a variety of reasons, but other times not. And while sometimes discussing content issues on editor talk pages is okay, most of the time is far better to do so on the article talk page so that others can more easily participate and it can be found in the future. If you make an edit and it's reverted, your first port of call should normally be to the article talk page, whether it's to participate in the discussion initiated by whoever reverted you or to start one yourself. Actually as I said above, sometimes it's better to begin discussion before you make any edit. As we say all over the place e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content: "Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed". Also since you mentioned ownership, I feel it's worth pointing out that it's actually your behaviour which comes across much more as exhibiting WP:OWNnership, since you seem very annoyed that someone dared to make a change to your edits. Anyway as I said before, I'm sure there are others much better at explaining these things to you, they'll likely be able to help if you make a good faith attempt to seek it somewhere appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes The main reason I stated to thoroughly investigate "aka" review (as you put it) the situation before making a judgement because I knew this would exactly happen. It's always going to be a bigger account's word vs a smaller one. You've misread everything I've submitted, while trying to clown me at the same time for rules I followed when it comes to submitting issues.

Twitter tweets was only for the acknowledgement of artist's birthday month and day which is exactly what SummerPhDv2.0 asked for. So the "silly" comment was not needed when you didn't fully look at the situation. Twitter has nothing to do with it, never was mentioned at all when it comes to the year the artist was born. The dispute even after I referenced it was accepted first by SummerPhDv2.0 until things got out of hand. What I referenced was a magazine interview that stated her age at the time was 27 5 months after her alleged birthday which is March 4th. Wherever you got Twitter from after all the discussions that I linked that SummerPhDv2.0 and I've had (including the diffs you asked for about banned accounts is mentioned multiple times in that whole entire conversation combined) how you missed all of that is beyond me!

Addressing the Binksternet situation, I don't know where her or he fits in, other then them bumping the information I provided. I don't know this person, never had a conversation with them, and haven't spoke bad about them. So I don't understand why Binksternet being tagged when it comes to a situation SummerPhDv2.0 and myself are having. If memory serves me correct the only thing Binksternet spoke about was a yearbook and it wasn't directed towards me, they didn't mention my name, and I didn't create the discussion in the talk page SummerPhDv2.0 did so that's who Binksternet was talking to not me!

If this is how it's going to go down ("me" as the bad person), then I don't want any parts of it. No need to temporarily or indefinitely ban me. I will gladly delete my own account and contribute elsewhere on my days off. Thanks for your time.VerifiedFixes (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@VerifiedFixes: The problem is that you've just made a bunch of accusations without providing evidence. You use WP:DIFFs to provide evidence, which you already know how to do (as you linked to a diff of one of your edits). You can go to Special:Contributions/SummerPhDv2.0 and find diffs of SummerPhDv2.0 violating cite policies, bring them here, and then we can do something. We are not going to do your work for you. Otherwise, this opens the door to someone accusing you of reverting 87 times in a 24 hour period to claim that a famous celebrity raped a puppy -- not saying you did that, just demonstrating why we expect evidence for accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @VerifiedFixes:(edit conflict) I for one am very impressed with an editor who has less than 400 edits lecturing more experienced editors so vociferously. I also fail to see how this merits an ANI post. And of course, the navigational skills in finding ANI are very good. However, it would probably be better to follow other forms of WP:dispute resolution prior to posting a complaint to ANI. I left you a welcome on your talk page. While you catch up on your reading, please read the parts on no personal attacks as well as casting aspersions. As to, "before another innocent account gets falsely banned," do you have anyone in mind particularly? Why are you so set on casting anyone as a villain in an editorial dispute? Hmmm?Thanks, DlohCierekim (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• @VerifiedFixes: Why are you so desperate to see someone banned or blocked? We are nowhere near needing to ban or block anyone. And if your response to push back is to say, "i'm leaving," then you may not enjoy editing on a collaborative project like this one. Now who has WP:OWN issues? DlohCierekim (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @VerifiedFixes: again you seem to be showing that you don't really understand how things work here. We don't rule on content disputes at ANI, so we're never likely to spend much time investigating what source says what. And as I've said already, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to give us some reason to. When your complaint starts off with silliness i.e. basically complaining about someone opening a simple article talk page discussion, and with no reason why that discussion was inappropriate (such as because the editor is topic banned, or because the editor is hounding you or perhaps because that editor agrees with the edit and there was no reason to revert), expect short shrift. And frankly, if an editor with 100k edits who's been here for 15 years was the one doing this, I would be much less tolerant than I am with you. However I think you'll likely to find even some tolerance for new user mistakes wears thins when you refuse to listen to anyone and keep attacking other editors for silly reasons or without evidence. Also let me repeat one more time that collaborating with other editors, which includes participating in discussion in article talk pages, is a cornerstone part of what makes wikipedia. You can't ignore comments on article talk pages like those from Binksternet just because you think they're uninvolved or whatever. You should take onboard any good faith comments left by other editors in good standing in considering how to make the best article. (This doesn't mean you have to agree with them.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@VerifiedFixes:: re-ping. ——SerialNumber54129 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. VerifiedFixes came to the article to make some changes including adding a birthdate to the infobox despite a hidden comment advising everyone to "See Talk" because the issue is more complex than usual. The next edit changed the birth year from 1982 to 1986 based on one source.[82] (There are multiple conflicting sources for year.) After that, VerifiedFixes and SummerPhDv2.0 went back and forth a few times about the way the age would be displayed in the infobox, which is a trivial matter. The big problem is the age itself! K. Michelle graduated high school in 2000 (multiple sources) and she was reported by the college yearbook to be 18 in late 2000 as a freshman, which is not a surprising or unusual age, as the great majority of American high school graduates are 18. So in 2013 she would have been 31, but she said she was 27, probably for professional reasons – she's a performer, and likely feels the need to seem younger. Her claimed age is surprising and unusual, putting her at age 14 at her gradution from high school, which nobody claims. Nobody has described her as particularly brilliant, a child prodigy, a whiz at her studies. So the dispute between the above editors is unimportant, blown out of proportion by VerifiedFixes who arrived at the article with an I'm-never-wrong attitude, then turned around and accused another editor of ownership issues. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Meh. To people of my generation, it's a woman's prerogative to lie about her age. And since when is a tweet or series of tweets from a subject ever regarded as trustworthy? The tweets can support part of the age controversy section, but this feels awful tabloidesque. DlohCierekim (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Except that this is an encyclopedia ostensibly giving facts, not fabrications. In a perfect world, nobody would care about seeming younger, as maturing performers would continue to be marketable as long as they're relevant. I don't like kowtowing to ageism's norms, as they don't seem normal to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang - 72 hour block - This appears to be a time sink by an editor who is unhappy with SummerPhD2.0 and thought coming here would somehow get the result they wanted. Rather, I see a bunch of aspersions with no diffs, failure to understand basic Wikipedia policy like NPA/TPO, and a lot of rants on a talk page. Also obnoxious bolding. If there is any merit to this post, OP needs to provide diffs or retract this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More Evlekis-socks in need of a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today's socks (and yes, I'm sure they're Evlekis, based on edits and general behaviour, a perfect match for countless previous socks...), so far, are:

• Parsmaster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Benson Hedgecutter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

But there will no doubt be more of them within the coming hours. And, as always with Evlekis, TPA should always be revoked when they're blocked, or they'll start posting tonnes of crap on their talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My very best wishes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was going to post this under a new subheader in the above Smeagol 17 thread, but I believe this warrants special attention.

Quick context

My very best wishes (talk · contribs) restored a series of edits on Douma chemical attack that were made by the sockpuppet of a banned user who was also notorious for POV pushing. A pointless discussion involving Mvbw and myself ensued in the talk page, from which it has become clear that Mvbw has no intention to self-revert. Per WP:PROXYING, an editor is allowed to reinstate a banned user's edits if said editor agrees to take full responsibility for those edits. In his edit summary, Mvbw did say "under my responsibility" and made the same declaration later on on the talk page.

Sock edits in question

They involved replacing a perfectly fine, neutral and well-established term ("Syrian government") with a loaded and POV one ("Assad regime"). Another thing the sock did was replacing "funded by the German Foreign Office" with "supported by", which (while not really an issue) is not how the source (in German) describes it. WP:PROXYING states the following:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

While there is no technical evidence suggesting that Mvbw edited at the direction of this banned user (whom he happened to be friendly with back in the day), any reasonable editor would have realized by now that, in the spirit of WP:DENY, taking sides with a banned user (who happens to also be an occasional troll) against established editors is not only uncollegial, but also highly disrespectful. Mvbw's excuses for retaining "regime" in the article included "Syrian government redirects to a misleading page", "precise" and "frequently used in RS" but made no attempt to explain why it should be used instead of government. If this alone is not WP:TENDENTIOUS I don't know what is.

This should not go unpunished without a sanction IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I believe I comply fully with the policy. First of all, I did not do any edits at the direction of any banned user. Period. Secondly, according to the policy, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Yes, that is exactly what I did. I believe that was an improvement of content and explained this on article talk page [83]. Now, if I misunderstood something, please explain, and I am very much willing to abide all policies and rules. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Firstly, Fitzcarmalan, we don't do punishment, so you need to drop that line right away. Secondly, as My very best wishes has taken personal responsibility for those edits in line with policy, I see nothing more here than a content dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Call it whatever you like (now stricken). The fact that he "took personal responsibility" for such crap edits (and I already explained why they were crap) and repeatedly refused to back down is exactly why I'm reporting this here. The tendentious and POINTy editing alone is enough to get him blocked. This "content dispute" will certainly not go through an RfC on whether "government" or "regime" should be used, if that's what you're suggesting. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

What "POINTY editing to get me blocked"? Where did you explain that my edit was "crap"? Any diffs? My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The quality of the edit is a content issue, and not appropriate for this forum. The only issue here is whether there was proxying or not. MVBW flatly denies that he made any edits at the direction of a banned editor, and it's been pointed out that restoring an edit means that MVBW is now responsible for it. Is there any more concrete evidence of proxying? If not, this should probably be closed. If there is additinal evidence, can we please have it posted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

it's been pointed out that restoring an edit means that MVBW is now responsible for it - Then he is responsible for a gross POV violation. But you can all go ahead and disregard that of course and make this about something I said. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Fitzcarmalan, as people keep trying to explain to you, the quality of the edits is *not* an issue for admins to address, as we have no power to solve content disputes. If you disagree with the content, you need to start a discussion *on the article talk page* and seek consensus there. Now, Fitzcarmalan, do you have any actual evidence of any actual proxying, or can we close this? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So you're telling me that editors who violate one of our core policies in a sensitive topic are not subject to administrative decisions? That's news to me.

And no, I don't have evidence of proxying. Only that Mvbw was (and still is) the one and only editor who has constantly defended and encouraged a banned user who happens to share his POV[84][85]

So I'll make things easier for you and close this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I undid Fitzcarmalan's close. That doesn't mean the thread can't be closed, just that it shouldn't be the OP who does it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SWAGnificient

SWAGnificient (talk · contribs)

So I was/am involved in a small content dispute with this user at the Nigel Hasselbaink‎ article. I've reached out to them numerous times on their talk page (ignored) and have also raised the issue at a relevant WikiProject. They continue to edit war and breach MOS.

Upon digging further, I've found a serious history of edit warring on various articles; other users have warned them about this in September 2018, September 2018 (again), September 2018 (a third time), November 2018 and December 2018. Other users have also warned them about unsourced content and original research; their talk page is littered with warnings (and pretty much nothing else), and nothing has changed.

I am concerned that this user lacks competence to edit as part of a community. I welcome other user's review and comments. GiantSnowman 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

lol. as if you don't make any mistakes. besides, the source for the fact that he's also surinamer is in the page itself on the international section. dual nationalities exist. SWAGnificient (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the source says he played in an unofficial game for Suriname. I could play in an unofficial game for Suriname (if it wasn't for my dodgy knee) - doesn't make me a Surinamer. As I told you on your talk page, all other sources refer to him as Dutch.

My concern here is that you have a long history of edit warring. GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Borderline. They've never been blocked for edit-warring, so I have to assume they're heeding the warnings when they're given. In this case you're both discussing through reverts with edit summaries, and it's not one particular edit but a series of different content that you seem unable to agree on, so I don't know if I'd call this an edit war per se. But I agree that discussing on a talk page would be better, and so I've protected the page for a couple days, and I'll take a quick look through for BLP issues but otherwise I expect you're on your way to the talk page. If you've agreed on something on the talk page feel free to edit through, or ping me and I'll review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above prior to edit-conflicting with SWAGnificent's comment, which I find unimpressive. Anyway, to the talk page with you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I posted multiple times on the user's talk page (no response). GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, but I get the impression they were trying to communicate through their edit summaries, which isn't ideal, but let's say I'm assuming good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And SWAGnificent: please don't do that. When someone approaches you with a concern about content you're trying to add or change, you're expected to reply to their message, not just continue editing. That makes it look like you're ignoring them. Please see Wikipedia:Communication is required. If you keep not communicating you will find yourself blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the weekend now - but I've already made my point here and on the users and the article talk pages, so let's see what others have to say... GiantSnowman 16:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looking over Swag's talk page, I can see GS isn't the only editor to have their politely-raised concerns brushed off. The response to the report here could also be better. Leviv ich 03:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Quartertoten/Brian Desmond Hurst

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would request that administrators again look at the behaviour of Quartertoten on Brian Desmond Hurst, which was previously raised here as per IncidentArchive1002#Quartertoten. Quartertoten has insisted on reinstating substantially the same contentious material in this edit, despite previous multipe reverts, warnings, references to Wikipedia policy, and so on. These are covered in the Talk page sections Conflict on Film and "Conflict on film" genre. I am now disinclined to further involvement myself due to Quartertoten's intransigence, and I am now going to be offline until after the weekend after today, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Too rich for my blood. @Slatersteven and Oshwah: any insights? Prior discussion appears to have been archived without remedy or closure? NinjaRobotPirate's last recommendation was going up the WP:DR ladder. Perhaps that would be best? Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsure, it may well be this is a thing (given the existence of the book, but I cannot verify I do not have a copy). But the wording is odd, and may well be a degree of OR (as the wording is so odd). I am also dubious as to the fact the source...is the dust jacket of a book. This I think is just inexperience. Yes DR may be the best solution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The citation and quote was accepted in good faith, and in some versions of the page was included in the Books on Hurst section (e.g. that of 18 February ). The issue is more that Quartertoten insists that it needs to be in its own section, along with a non-standard list of applicable films (more recently with added explanatory text), even though this duplicates part of the existing Filmography. Originally Quartertoten framed the section more in terms of working through the question of who is the outstanding director in this supposed genre, with the citation at the end as confirmation (e.g. this version). Nick Cooper (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And y'all's not using dispute resolution over a content dispute requires action here? Gad. You're at loggerheads. Hold an RfC and post notices on relevant project pages. I see someone offered a third opinion and ran screaming from the page. Go up the dispute resolution ladder. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol is always a good idea - especially in this instance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Quatertoten for a week for continuing the edit warring today. FWIW, I'm not sure if further dispute resolution is needed here - enough editors seemed to have weighed in and while I've only skimmed over the discussions, there seems a near-unaminious consensus against Quartertoten, so what I'm seeing is a tendentious editor refusing to drop the stick and edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hello, I'm trying to access my account that was created with an email which I have no longer access to, can I possibly get help on that? thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.181.171 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but nobody is able to help you; we don't have the ability to reset passwords aside from our own, and nobody's able to change the email address associated with an account. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Recommend that you create new account, but make sure to note on your user page the account that you used to edit with, alongside a summary of why you can no longer edit with it (so as to avoid being blocked for improper use of multiple accounts). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mandruss (talk · contribs) and WP:HOUNDING

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've never (to my knowledge) interacted with Mandruss (talk · contribs) prior to our interaction at Aurora, Illinois shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he and a handful of other editors have engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior over following what is simply standard operating procedure for articles about mass shootings: naming the victims. I'll leave the larger debate out of this, except to say that I tried to engage in discussion on the talk page there, and immediately it turned into a straw poll about adding the victims (rather than an a, in my opinion, more productive discussion). Fine. So I start doing research on other articles, as in addition to my arguments there, another is that the vast majority (over 90%!) of articles about these subjects name the victims. While compiling data, I came across Daingerfield church shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In addition to reading each article to observe whether or not victims were listed in a bullet list or in prose, I was also researching whether articles had discussions over victim name inclusion (most don't), and where articles don't presently have a victim list, was there ever one. In the case of Daingerfield church shooting, it seems the article did have a victim list for the vast majority of its life (linked diff is from the first revision until the edit preceding the removal of the list). I restored the listing, and added the sources inline as that was one of the reasons given for their removal. Mandruss stalked me to that page, a page he has never edited, and reverted me. I'd like to see this nipped in the bud before it becomes a full blown case of WP:HOUNDING. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please wait until secondary sources have deemed it significant to name the victims. Primary sources, such as news reports, routinely name them, but your job is to write a tertiary source based on the secondaries, not a secondary sources based on the primaries, let alone a primary source. Mandruss is correctly removing primary-sourced data. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, since I'm already involved, perhaps you, who are not, can have a closer look--in particular, at Locke Cole's continued edit warring on the original Aurora article. They're still at it. As for "hounding"--meh. Locke Cole claims to have numbers on his side, and maybe this was just an effort to tilt them in his own favor. And no one is going to believe that one single edit makes someone into a hound. Or hounder. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my report, I'd prefer it didn't continue into hounding territory, as it's clear from his comments on your talk page he intends to do. And this is emphatically not an effort to tilt the numbers, I left that entry on my list showing the original data as I discovered it. And surely if that was my goal, it'd be fairly easy to spot my behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I viewed the primary sources as the sheriff's department/hospitals, and the news outlets as our reliable secondary sources. Your view on this is new to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

News reports are always primary sources for current events, because those events are current, not past. Please don't push the fringe theory that news reports are secondary for the events that they're reporting, because you'll never find a dissertation in which newspaper reports appear in the literature review. Really basic guides. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PETARD I was about to file at AN3 before I saw this. I don’t see how anyone can take this filing seriously. O3000 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how they can't take it seriously. From the moment anyone attempted to add victim names it turned into a battleground. When I tried to WP:AGF and discuss on the talk page, the involved editors immediately resorted to !voting as if I started a straw poll. Following me to another article they've never touched, then telling an administrator they intend to stalk my contributions to look for other edits they disagree with is the definition of WP:HOUNDING. They also falsely accused me (in that linked edit) of editing from an IP to circumvent 3RR. And I have no idea what you'd bring to AN3: I've reverted twice in 24 hours, and I'm done. I was fine leaving the article with the disputed tags, but here again, the battleground mentality kicked in with Mandruss (talk · contribs) and he decided to remove them unilaterally. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link added to suspicious website

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this edit 153.101.246.136 (talk · contribs) added a link to hXXps://scholarshipfellow.com/letter-of-intent-loi-letter-of-intent-for-job-letter-of-intent-for-scholarship-letter-of-intent-sample/ which behaved strangely when I followed it. It made mention of redirecting me to a different website, but just waited rather than actually doing so.

I have deliberately misspelled "https" as "hXXps" so no one will follow the link without careful consideration of the risks involved.

I find it inherently suspicious that an editor would create a link to a page that redirects the reader elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious here. This is just Cloudflare's DDoS protection; one's just redirected to the url above and the website works fine (and doesn't appear to be malicious, though it clearly it isn't an WP:RS). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incipient Move-War: Draft:Bhakharwadi and Bhakharwadi (TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an incipient move-war between Draft:Bhakharwadi and Bhakharwadi (TV series). The draft was recently submitted to Articles for Creation, where I declined it procedurally. There had previously been an article on the show, but it was then stubbed down to a redirect to SAB TV. In such a case, the preferred procedure is for the proponent of an article to discuss on the talk page of the parent article, Talk: SAB TV. User: Bhanwar singh vaish posted the following to Talk: SAB TV https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SAB_TV&type=revision&diff=884370985&oldid=843910765&diffmode=source, which is a request to accept back into mainspace, but not discussion. They then moved it to mainspace via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bhakharwadi&type=revision&diff=884652201&oldid=884648970&diffmode=source . User:Sid95Q then moved it back via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bhakharwadi&type=revision&diff=884660840&oldid=884653183&diffmode=source . There are various possible answers as to whether and how to decide whether to open the redirect back into an article, but move-warring is not one of them. I don’t care whether it is decided by a RFC on the talk page, by an AFD against the child article, or by an RFD against the redirect. All of those are consensus procedures. I know that move-warring is not the answer. Can an admin move-protect the page and allow pens (or keyboards) in place of swords (or whatever) to prevail? There may be a second-language issue, in that the proponent may need someone to explain what is meant by discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think my last edit to move the article was not a proper and right decision I am sorry if I caused any disruption. Regarding the matter The user is constantly trying to create the article here here and here, He created articles 3 times which were redirected because of the notability issues. Matter was explained to the user User talk:Bhanwar singh vaish#Your edits and The article was moved to draft where the user can work on it before moving it to main space User talk:Bhanwar singh vaish#Bhakharwadi (TV series) moved to draftspace but the user moved it back to main space even though the submission was declined. I tried to move it back to draft space I think I should have discussed the matter before doing it. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've applied extended-confirmed move protection for three months on the draft page so that additional moves aren't performed until an established or experienced editor performs the move. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is fairly typical of Bhanwar singh vaish. He is given advice,[86] says he will follow the advice[87] and then ignores it. He originally created this article at Bhakharwadi (no disambiguation is required) and it was redirected by another editor. He later recreated it at Bhakharwadi (Tv series) for some reason. There was subsequently a war over the article because he kept recreating it with poor and/or inappropriate referencing and other issues. I had initially moved it to Bhakharwadi (TV series) because Bhakharwadi wasn't available but eventually stepped in and moved it to Draft:Bhakharwadi and reminded him that "if" the article was created it should be done at Bhakharwadi. Then comes today's issues as outlined by Robert McClenon. Several versionsof the article have existed, none of which has really been mainspace material but it doesn't seem what Bhanwar singh vaish is told, he decides that whatever he thinks is right. Applying protection is all well and good but I fully expect to see the article recreated in mainspace, even if he has to do a cut and paste move. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AussieLegend - If that happens, then I'd surely be stepping in and taking administrative action against the user (and if it does, let me know). Moving for one reason or another is one thing, but circumventing process and actually cutting and pasting the content to "move it over" is another... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I suspect that's what will happen. From their edits, I believe this is a fairly young editor. They are great at paying lip service to advice and suggestions, but terrible and following through. Copy-pasting text, uploading copyright violation, poor understanding of reliable sources and terrible at notability - it's all there and been going on for a while. Bluntly, they aren't competent enough to edit here except in a very, very limited capacity that I don't think is worth the time or effort to implement. Ravensfire (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire - That's really too bad to hear... I think that the user could become a valuable contributor and a positive asset to the encyclopedia if effort was given in order to improve from these hurdles and disruptive edits and the user followed through with their apologies and responses. But, as pointed out by others here, repeated apologies and promises can only go so far until they become meaningless if you're not holding yourself to them... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

i think everyone is right on its own way.if i done any error good to inform me but it is responsibility of all of us to fix it,rather to move pages or giving complaint to administrator.if Bhakharwadi's draft page have any problem,just fix it and move it to mainspace,is responsibility of all too,not only mine.i hope all you can understand.if understand please fix problem and make it to mainspace,please give your view on my talk page now.thank you.Bhanwar singh vaish (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johnbod and The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently tried to sort out a report at WP:AN3 from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) against Johnbod (talk · contribs) on Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene and various other articles; essentially TRM likes web citations to use the full {{cite web}} template, while Johnbod prefers bare URLs manually formatted citations. I agree with TRM's point of view on this issue; however it's not an admin's job to take sides in a debate, so I had to close the report as "stale"; although Johnbod did violate 3RR, the last reported edit in the sequence was about 18 hours ago. Not to mention I need very solid policy-backed reasons to block a prolific mainspace contributor out of the blue.

As you might imagine, TRM is upset by my decision to mark the AN3 thread as stale, and both him and Johnbod have been trading mild insults towards each other on the talk page. So, could I request the wider community to have a look at the issue and see if there is a systemic problem with reverting well-formatted citations to bare URLs, whether this is a sanctionable issue (I know parts of the MOS are under discretionary sanctions but I'm too terrified to look at the specifics), and what action, if any, we should take. Thanks.

I really don't want to cause anguish and drama. I've met Johnbod at several London meetups and have had fruitful discussions with him, while TRM has been very helpful in conducting GA reviews when nobody else has stepped up to the plate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 "Not to mention I need very solid policy-backed reasons to block a prolific mainspace contributor out of the blue." - What kind of horseshit is that? - wolf 03:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not always, Thewolfchild: prolific mainspace contributors can also be blocked for reverting accusations of mental illness, only to be unblocked almost immediately with the rationale he was obviously removing an unacceptable personal attack :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie has met Johnbod in person and has indicated that he has a favourable relationship in person. So why he chose to create this shitstorm is beyond me, and highly questionable of his credentials, but meh, it is what it is. He refused to do anything about all the true and brightline violations, instead creating this timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

[indeed, …] Would you be willing, within the bounds of our guidance on politeness, to identify those users who you have personally (sensu lato) interacted with and presented their opinions here? cygnis insignis 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As stated a few lines above : "I really don't want to cause anguish and drama". I said the above as a way of saying "you are both good editors and I wish you'd get on". TRM, stop twisting my words, assuming bad faith and misunderstanding / misinterpreting what I say. If you can't do that, just ...... do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, you refused to do anything about clear NPAs, 3RR violations and rollback abuse, but you brought it here where you absolutely knew a shitstorm would brew up because "The Rambling Man" appeared in the title, which enabled and facilitated all the usual abuse to pour out. You caused nothing but anguish and drama. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any DS or other sanctionable action applies; TRM has a civility-driven editing restriction on them but I don't see this crossing that line. I agree with the close, that as long as a talk page discussion is going and Johnbod is not engaging in 3RR over the same issue elsewhere, its not really actionable, but it should be clear to Johnbod that this idea of revert full-formatting changes to citations is not really acceptable and that if they are continuing to do that repeated after this incident, that could be actionable. --Masem (t) 17:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The incivility was entirely from that user towards me. And please note the matter was closed without anyone even notifying that user that they had, indeed, contravened editing policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That why (to be clear) I don't believe yours (TRM's) editing restriction even comes into play, only noting it is one of those areas of concern raised by Ritchie to just make sure what DSes and other restrictions are identified and if they applied. --Masem (t) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about civility restrictions at all; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation is what I had in mind, though I don't think it's relevant in this case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(watching, and ec:) Johnbod doesn't prefer bare urls, but untemplated citations which is a big difference. - On the other hand, if someone improves my references (which happens often) I click "thank you", and don't use rollback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Put quite simply, my aim was to improve the look and utility of any article going onto the main page. This was just one. Yet I was confronted with revert after revert, including abuse of rollback, along with accusations of being a vandal and a troll, and plenty of other commentary on my editing preferences. This particular user had come grave-dancing to my talk page last June, so it's clear that there's more to this than simply just reverting and violation of 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking generally, this was a misuse of rollback; this edit-summary was needlessly patronising as well as containing a veiled hint at meat puppetry; and calling someone an idiot is generally unnecessary. FYI'all. ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And Johnbod's reward for the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks and the brightline 3RR violation? His personally preferred version remains in place, and he continues such behaviour on at least one other article. Excellent result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the closure of the AN3 report. If the edit warring seems to have stopped and the reported user is responding and participating in a relevant talk page discussion, blocking the user for edit warring wouldn't be the right action to take at this time. This of course would change once any edit warring continues - but as it stands, it would no longer prevent additional disruption to the project, but would instead prevent Johnbod from continuing to do the correct thing - which is to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, and come to a consensus. While I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth bickering between the two on the article's talk page, that's a different issue typically not handled at AN3. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocking at ANEW is a popularity contest. Some will be blocked for 2RR, some escape blocking for 4RR. We should be consistent on this. No-one is forced to 4RR edit-war, not even established editors with friendly admins. So if they choose to do so, then they should not be surprised (and have no excuse if they are then silenced in any talk: threads) as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, which is why I chose to block neither editor. The only other fair option, as EdJohnston has stated on AN3, is to block both editors for edit warring. It has to be both, or neither. And blocking both would probably result in us coming here anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On what possible grounds could you have blocked me? Did I break 3RR, violate the terms of use of rollback, resort to multiple NPAs etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the general principle, rather than this specific incident. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's not helpful then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear tendentious, unconstructive edit-warring from Johnbod, so let's impose some sort of huge block or ban for The Rambling Man. It's The Wikipedia Way. Now get those wagons circled and close down all debate before anyone starts to look rationally at any of this mess. 8-(

This is a right mess. Johnbod is demonstrating his perennial sense of OWNership on an article and its formatting, against all policy, practice or simply trying to make things better. But TRM is out of political favour. So close the ANEW report as "stale" (which is nonsense - Johnbod repeated the same changes just this morning) and instead find some excuse (for that's all it will be) as to why it's TRM's fault instead.

As an example of organisational failure, this looks about as effective as the Labour Party. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Let's look at why people think that way. Sure, TRM may be right about how this article could be cited, but he could have gone about this in any number of less tendentious, less-drama-inducing ways. And this is hardly the first time where TRM has done something like this. Even though he has a lot of good contributions, he has an inability to get along with other editors, which has been pointed out to him countless times, and he's ignored the criticism almost every time. TRM's style has driven editors away from making good edits, and that's a big problem. pbp 16:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Am I correct in understanding that Johnbod is reverting to an MOS violating version and that TRM is reverting back? That being the case, Johnbod needs to stop doing that. Now. He should then follow all the standard remedies it takes for an editing dispute and achieve a consensus for his changes before adding them back. And maybe Johnbod should avoid TRM interactions in the future. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  And as we are on a Civility kick of late,maybe a final warning to Johnbod on his rude, patronizing, incivil, uncollegeal edit summaries and comments as well. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Gad. I am a slow reader. We need to remove rollback if this is what he uses it for. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Without getting into the rest of this mess, I do think Johnbod needs to address their use of rollback in a content dispute; I have seen rollback flags removed for less. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: Johnbod wasn't using bare URLs but manually written citations, which shouldn't be changed to templates over objections. See WP:CITEVAR. After Johnbod's first revert, the issue should have gone to talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we all agree on that, but this does not excuse the various violations, including but not limited to 3RR, NPA, rollback abuse etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  What happened here is that Johnbod created an article about an area in which he has some expertise. You then arrived to make several changes, including changing his chosen citation style. When he reverted, you reverted back, and things got heated. The whole point of WP:CITEVAR is to prevent that. Therefore, you should either have checked on talk first and suggested the citation changes there, or you should have done so after the first revert. That applies to the other edits too, per WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds too close to ownership for my taste as noted by others. And what's the excuse for the 4RR after the discussion on the talk page? That's just fine and excusable is it? Along with the personal attacks and rollback abuse? What is also missing from this discussion is the fact that I wasn't simply "changing the style", I was making each and every reference correct and more comprehensive and less susceptible to linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's not about ownership but about respect for someone else's editing choices. I used to dislike citation templates, but then I started using them occasionally to teach myself how to do it, mostly for the benefit of linking short to long cites, but also for the benefit of avoiding linkrot, as you describe. Therefore, I do now sometimes add citation templates to articles with manual cites. But I do it only where it seems clear from the edit history that no one will mind. It would never occur to me to do it on an article recently created with manual cites by an experienced editor in his area of expertise. That would feel very provocative and doubly so to revert over his objections. That's why he got annoyed, and it all went downhill from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, by far the best way to improve such references is to add the citation templates and then include information (such as publisher, publication date, access date etc) that wasn't there to start with. Which is what I did. If someone gets so annoyed that they can resort to the various violations because I actively worked to improve the content and presentation of the templates, well that's a thing that seriously needs addressing. Trying to excuse the various violations because I kept trying to improve the references seems most peculiar to me. Seriously peculiar. Are you actually suggesting that to improve the verifiability of a source and reduce linkrot, we are stuck to existing formats, no matter what??? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:CITEVAR states emphatically that "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates" is "To be avoided". TRM was therefore wrong to do so and Johnbod was entitled to revert this action. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • He wasn't entitled to use rollback, call me a troll and violate 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not 4RR he wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the version that Johnbod was reverted back to was a "consistent", given that the books were in an appropriate form, while the named external link "references" lacked the same features that should be common to the book (date of publication, title of work, publication), and most importantly for an online reference, accessdate. TRMs version to make those named piped ELs into templates to match the books is bringing that inline with a consistent format. --Masem (t) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Masem, the very point of CITEVAR, linked above, is that there is no one citation style that is "appropriate" and another that is not. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Why is this even an issue? .... As far as I know filled out cites are better than bare URLs and IMHO are far more helpful to everyone, I don't quite understand why the need to revert and more specifically (like I said above) I don't quite understand why this is even an issue .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having just read CITEVAR apparently I've been violating it for well over 4 years although I've never once had any crap for it.... Maybe this should be updated to say Bare URLs should be filled in .... I don't see how Bare URLs can be better than it all being filled out?.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• • WP:OWN is enough. 8-( Just try disagreeing with Johnbod some time and see the abuse you receive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's rather disappointing tbh, I could understand if this was a ENGVAR thing or DMY vs MDY but Bare URL V filled out ? .... really ? .... I like both editors both do great work here but I feel this really is a silly edit war over something that isn't a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • As an aside this is the state of the article before TRMs edits - there are no bare URLs. There are some plain external links in the notes section, but no bare urls (which is something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Sebastian_Tended_by_Saint_Irene&oldid=882241816) It helps things if folks use correct terminology. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and I'll reiterate, I wasn't changing the refs purely and simply to my preferred format, I was enhancing just about each and every one of them to include either corrected titles (for linkrot) or additional parameters (such as access dates) for the purposes of verifiability. To ensure consistent outputs after such edits, it is much simpler to use templates rather than try to hand-craft text into existing refs. I think it's very convenient to overlook the fact that I'm actively improving these articles for our readers, to mistakenly focus on some claim I'm violating CITEVAR (which isn't even a policy) and thus ignore the various violations committed by Johnbod, many of which were policy violations, even after discussion on the article's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Just wanted to clarify I was saying The Rambling Mans edits were fine and that he shouldn't of been reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

        Ealdgyth, sorry, you're wrong. Why do you feel that your example is the only one that qualifies as a bare URL?

        The entire concept is devoted to maintaining accessibility in case of future link-rots. And, any URL inserted in whatever manner/form that does not give any minimal bibliographic info qualifies under it.

        Suppose the website mentioned over <ref>[https://www.seattleartmuseum.org/Exhibitions/Details?EventId=16674 Seattle Art Museum]</ref> goes for an entire remake (this's not a hypothetical; many major newspapers et al have undergone these changes) and the location of the contents are radically altered (incl. URLs, obviously). The current URL thus becomes non-useful and a layman can't parse much of any useful info from the URL in the above reference. So, as one proceeds to do a generic Gsearch using the name of the painting and the museum brings, he/she is greeted with this particular webpage as well as this page.

        Tell me; about how I can be certain about which one was actually used by the article creator, without expending undue efforts (might be irrelevant over this part. case, since either suffices)?

        See WP:LINKROT and WP:BAREURLS ∯WBG^converse 16:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Andy Dingley, I think you really need to stop trolling Johnbod. It's pretty bloody obvious that you are trying to hit him below the belt at every possible point, and it's irritating and makes me want to take his side--even though I believe Johnbod was also in the wrong, just like his opponent. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think you really need to stop making excuses for why some editors get a free pass on 4RR (let alone Johnbod's complete disregard of CIVIL too). Also laying off the patronising attitude towards Davey, a 'newbie' of only 110 thousand edits, would be a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring any fallout post the ANEW discussion, looking at the state of the article prior to TRM's edit, I do not think WP:CITEVAR is sufficient to protect Johnbod's edits. Specifically, I would not be able to reproduce those citations to those URLs with the information in the page there should the pages go offline in some way, which is a requirement of the whole rest of the PAG in which CITEVAR is placed. It is sufficient to protect his choice to use manual rather than template citations, but I do not think it is sufficient to stop either a) corrections to add information to the citations or b) anyone from re-formatting the references to use a recognizable manual citation style (e.g. MLA/APA/Chicago, etc.). The more-appropriate action for both TRM and Johnbod to have taken would thus have been to add the information for each URL to the page in some sort of manual citation method and/or start a discussion on the talk page to change the page to use template citations. As a result, I think the decision that it would either be a block of none or both, rather than one or the other, was probably correct. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely, wrong; I have gone into more detail at the article talk page. In particular you are ignoring that the key information to find the page when the museum changes all its addresses was already in the text. Eg "One of the earliest paintings of Sebastian being nursed is by Josse Lieferinxe in about 1497, part of a cycle from an altarpiece in Marseilles (now Philadelphia Museum of Art)" - that is what one would base a search on. In two cases TRM reverted several times to remove the key information (clearly because he did not realize that it was. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, I warned Johnbod he was about to hit 3RR so he just waited a few hours and went past it anyway. And that was after the personal attacks and rollback abuse. That's an overt brightline violation. I did not pass 3RR, nor engage in personal attacks, nor use rollback abusively. I'm not sure what you think I could possibly be blocked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As you'll note, I did not comment on personal attacks, rollback, or other items. "His behavior was worse" does not absolve your behavior, nor the fact that you had alternative paths to adding the information that WP:V/WP:Citing sources requires for the citations in question. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  I was using standard citation templates which enable us to present to our readers a consistent and professional approach, and adding more comprehensive detail to each rather than simply changing the format. It's remarkable to see how many people are here defending the bright line violation of 3RR, amongst other things. And no, I was doing what was in the best interests of our readers (and our project, see WP:LINKROT), not focusing on the needs of an individual user. My "behavior" was simply that, to promote excellence and verifiability on the main page, but apparently the bureaucracy now is such that the main point of Wikipedia appears to have been lost in defending the indefensible. But in summary, thanks for your neither/both conclusion. I'm not sure how it helps now we're much further down the line. As you yourself acknowledge, there are many other issues now, with regard to the brightline 3RR failure, the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a sorry mess. TRM is often seen on this board as a troublemaker, but Johnbod's abuse of rollback (which is for vandals and vandals only) in a content dispute is a big red flag. Support a sanction of Johnbod for rollback abuse and violating WP:OWN. Miniapolis 22:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Johnbod has been a rollbacker since 2008. It would be a pity if he were to lose it because of one use during this dispute; it's normally removed for persistent misuse. Perhaps instead he could be reminded to follow WP:ROLLBACK, and The Rambling Man could be reminded to respect WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis and SlimVirgin: I have asked Johnbod above to explain his use of rollback. I think the decision about whether to sanction him is very much contingent on his response; that it was a mis-step is certain, but the real question is whether there's danger of a repeat. Also, if the problem is rollback abuse, I wouldn't support any sanction other than pulling the rollback flag, because that's the most obvious preventative measure. Again, whether that's necessary depends upon his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) Duly pinged :-). Under the circumstances, I agree that Johnbod shouldn't lose the rollback flag solely on the basis of this. However, I've been around long enough to know that WP is a house of alliances and there's often a rush to judgement in any dispute involving TRM. The sorry mess is when two experienced editors square off over what should be a non-issue. Miniapolis 02:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• We have WP:CITEVAR for a number of good reasons, and changing someone's established citation style (which according to everyone was NOT bare URLs, but a citation style preferred by MANY of us) amounts to just being plain stubborn and intrusive about something not worth being pig-headed about. SlimVirgin is right, Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR and how irritating it is to write an article to a certain standard and then have someone arbitrarily change it, and will we ever see the day when TRM stops behaving like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia "Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR" - You make it sound like I'm new here .... I've been here 5-6 years although granted I don't know every policy on the project, I know what CITEVAR is ... I've just never bothered following it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything about how long you've been here. I did point out that SlimVirgin has experience with CITEVAR and producing top content, as does Johnbod, and there are a whole lotta people weighing in here who know nothing about either. Ealdgyth, who has weighed in, was one of maybe three of the top people for evaluating sources and citations at FAC a few years ago, and I doubt that anyone has risen to her level of knowledge in my absence from FAC. And it is quite apparent that a bunch of people weighing in here are probably used to citing articles from google using websites, and have never encountered a correctly written short-form citation for a real library source, which is what the link to Ealdgyth's version of Johnbod's article shows. Pure case of capricious CITEVAR breach by TRM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, sorry, but SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin are absolutely correct. It is understandable that you haven't learned about CITEVAR even in 5 or 6 years, but if, like those two editors and myself, you get around in odd places and hang out with editors who are old hands, you will discover a thing or two. CITEVAR was new to me too a couple of years ago, and I didn't like it at the time cause I'm always right (just like you are, just like Johnbod is, just like TRM is), but it is what it is--and its purpose is to prevent edit wars over citation styles. And I also believe TRM was well aware of it--and that Johnbod was wrong to use rollback in that way, and should not have used personal insults in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia & Drmies - fair dos, I've never written an article in my life so maybe I don't know CITEVAR as well as a thought I did .... –Davey2010^Talk 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Drmies, I don't think SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin are right here. CITEVAR protects referencing styles, that's true, but it doesn't justify removing citation information meant to protect from linkrot. If Johnbod had removed the templates that TRM added but kept the additional citation information then CITEVAR would protect his edits as restoring the original style. If TRM had then tried to re-insert templates, Sandy's description of a "capricious CITEVAR breach" would likely be accurate... but that's not what happened. After Johnbod's first revert, TRM should have re-added the information in a non-templated style, but then Johnbod shouldn't have removed that information. There is certainly blame on both sides here, but Johnbod's actions are not wholly protected by CITEVAR as he removed useful citation information in reverting / ROLLBACKing and edit warring to keep these details out of the referencing. As you said, CITEVAR is meant to "prevent edit wars over citation styles", and in that regard TRM is in the wrong, but Johnbod was also edit warring over citation content, and in that area is not protected at all by CITEVAR. EdChem (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. If TRM wants to add something to an existing style, he can discuss on talk how he might do that without altering the style. Unlike Davey2010 (thanks for the acknowledgement, much appreciated), TRM does know about CITEVAR, should know how to use a talk page, and should know by now that he needs to stop these kinds of behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you--I don't think think you're wikilawyering, and you have a point, but what you're suggesting places the onus completely on the person whose style was changed: the other editor added something, possibly something of value, but against our rules of engagement, and then the burden is on the person reverting to the original style to not remove anything that was added... I'm reminded of the occasions when you run into a disruptive editor (I did so yesterday) who makes a bunch of changes, in this case BLP violations, and when you roll them back they point at the one little thing that was helpful. Again, I don't think those considerations are much help here, but nevertheless they are there. If this had been just about undoing anti-CITEVAR changes this could have been relatively simple. BTW I note that this is the second time in recent history that a senior editor is questioned about rollback. Many a time have I warned new editors about it (and Twinkle, etc.); it behooves us all to be more careful. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I appreciate you recognising the issue I was raising and accepting my comment in good faith. I, in turn, recognise that retaining the positive aspects of a change can be difficult, especially when dealing with disruption and vandalism, etc... but I don't think it was difficult for Johnbod to retain the original style while incorporating TRM's additions / improvements. I also recognise that it was not difficult for TRM to make his changes without altering the citation style once Johnbod's objection was clear. The onus was on both of them to behave as adults and colleagues and work together. Neither did so. Had either one acted as I suggest, this would not have ended up where it has. I have taken the initiative and removed all citation templates (per CITEVAR) while retaining the information that was added. It is disappointing that neither did so and both have acted poorly in my view. SandyGeorgia, I do not appreciate your labelling me a wikilawyer as I see it as both inaccurate and perjorative. I have no problem with TRM adding information to citations nor changing the style, but I do 100% agree that once Johnbod had objected to the style change, CITEVAR meant returning to the non-template form was not only justified, but arguably required. TRM was wrong to debate the style... but Johnbod was wrong to object to additional useful information being provided. Either could have solved the dispute by changing to non-template citations with all available information retained. Neither did. Johnbod used rollback and inappropriate language, TRM refused to back down on CITEVAR even though policy was against him, and here we are. Your comments below show a disappointing lack of good faith in the contributions of others, and read to me as partisan. Both Johnbod and TRM make valuable contributions. Both have made mistakes here, and both have escalated what should have been a minor disagreement. I am hoping this can blow over because any other outcome would be excessive, but I'm not going to waste more time on it. May I ask that you reflect on whether this is really worth devoting a lot of time and effort to? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

'I see a way to read your countering point as partisan, I am there therefore impartial in my judgemnt'; 'I'm saying you may lack AGF, therefore you are wasting people's time and being disruptive.'; 'I see a way that a guideline supports TRMs edit, therefore this is a minor content dispute and there is nothing to see here'; 'I will not be commenting further, so neither should you'; 'Faults on both sides, so guy I'm defending cannot be held accountable for their faults'. I read these defences of TRM and can only suppose that users are either completely unaware of the arbitrated resolutions or think they should not exist. Or they are mates. Or tickled by his feisty manner, an avatar for their frustration in being disagreed with, the guy who just states how it must be and the user disengages (or leaves the site, "fuck them anyway, they disagreed on trivial concern Y that I invested a month in drumming about".). Or he is their client, therefore I can say of them … cygnis insignis 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC) modified, should be toned down, but JB is the only party who has shown contrition for their actions, 'the rollback, what about the rollback' (buttery males?) cygnis insignis 05:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, I am disappointed to read what I see as a highly distorted version of my comments, and also that no one else has challenged them. I did not suggest, nor do I believe, that SandyGeorgia was being disruptive or wasting people's time. She made, in my view, valid points about the applicability of CITEVAR and TRM's edits were inconsistent with that, for which he is, of course, accountable. As is Johnbod accountable for his calling TRM a vandal, using ROLLBACK, and posting snarky edit summaries. Neither handled the situation appropriately: Johnbod should not have removed information that was useful and appropriate to avoiding linkrot in references; TRM should not have insisted on template formatting of those references as the way to retain the information. And yes, I do think this should have been resolved on the article talk page with some adult behaviour and discussion. The fact that Johnbod has acknowledged the misuse of rollback is a significant factor in how to resolve this situation, and I would welcome TRM recognising that he should not have kept pushing for his template citation version. I do believe that this dispute is one calling for trouts as I don't see anything that heinous in either case, and I strongly believe that it should have never reached ANI. You can accuse me of failing to recognise that I have opinions and biases, but that is really for others to consider in reflecting on my words. You can see me as a partisan whose only interest is defending TRM, but I believe that my track record shows otherwise. I have no control over what happens next, and am not going to argue for / against sanctions as I don't see it as a productive use of my time – rather, I have posted with thoughts on ending this dispute, which will either be a useful addition to the thread, or not. You, and Sandy, and everyone else are free to argue as you wish. EdChem (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

EdChem there are many things I wanted to contribute to this conversation, typed and not saved. Exasperation at this incident, and not a little astonishment, means contributing anything is likely to fuel something. I was aware that my response above carried all the frustration at the hopelessly partisan support that is facilitating TRMs undesirable activities, you got in the way of that, I will consider my actions and add to my apology later. Have a good one cygnis insignis 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the citations in the pre-dispute version linked by Ealdgyth, this was not an adequate citation “style” to begin with. Shorthand references and abbreviations are not proper citations, and I am astonished that anyone is questioning filling in the complete cites. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  You are completely incorrect. Short form citations most certainly are correct and acceptable when the long-form citation is given elsewhere, as in a separate section. Please take the time to find the page on Wikipedia that explains that, as I am not going to do it for you, or alternately, look at the GOBS of Featured Articles that do exactly that form, rather than repeat ad nauseum every long-form citation in articles densely packed with real citations to real books. Again, the people who are making this claim have probably never used real books to write articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the citations? For many of these the long-form citations were not given. For instance, there were cites reading "LACMA page" with a link; "Image" with a link and nothing else; "MFA, Boston page," etc. These are incomplete and in no way acceptable, per WP:CITE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I shudder with despair every time I see a heading "X and The Rambling Man". Regardless, the precedent here seems clear: in reference style disputes the status quo ante bellum always prevails. (If there's sufficient appetite otherwise, ask on my talk page about starting an RFC.) Neither of them should be commended for their behavior here, but likewise neither should be sanctioned, and Johnbod's version of content should prevail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not what CITEVAR (which is being parroted here as policy gospel) says at all. And the fact that I wasn't simply changing the style, but actually improving and adding additional information to aid verifiability means that mandating the preservation of extant style is even more ludicrous. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Johnbod response I'm sure we don't need to prolong this, so I'll just thank many people for the sensible comments above. No my citations (most to single museum website pages on paintings) were not bare URLs, & part of my complaint was that TRM several times removed the key bibliographic info from one citation (& has refused to grasp this). Really TRM's topic ban for DYK should cover things like this also (irf it already doesn't). Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Several users above have questioned your use of rollback, yet you have not addressed that at all. Let me ask you directly, again: why did you use rollback in a content dispute? Can you commit to not doing it again? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

With respect Vanamonde, your questions reeks of uniformed jumping in; given the established sequence of TRM following JB about here. Its important not to confuse run of the mill instances of justified and correct uses of roll back with encounters where the antagonist is clearly hounding. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ceoil: I can perhaps see why you think that, but you're quite wrong. I'm not ignoringblind to TRM's infractions: I'm leaving those to people who are uninvolved, and to whom TRM has a less allergic reaction. Explore the last couple of ARCA requests related to TRM if you wish to understand why. Regardless, the fact is that editors with the rollback flag are required to keep their cool and not use that button even in heated content disputes. An one-off slip-up is not something to lose the flag over, but Johnbod needs to convince us that it was, indeed, one-off. Ignoring requests for explanation from neutral administrators, and generally avoiding the issue altogether, isn't helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Point taken Vanamonde. My POV is that Johnbod is a highly productive editor of some odd 14 years experience, who is a content expert on the article subject TRM is now foraging upon with MOS niceties. Johnbod has never been particularly litigious, as opposed to TRM, who lets be honest, is a loose cannon and so pumped up on hubris he is like a man in a late night carpark looking for a fight. Poke the bear often enough and you will get a response, seeminglythe basis for which you now (it seems) are grasping at to strip JB of editor rights. To put it another way, "the last couple of ARCA requests", which you brough up, are TRM'S baggage, and nobody else's. Some projection and false equivalency might be at play here. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment. His misuse of rollback should be evaluated, and he should answer the questions about how he will use it it in the future and explain that he actually understands what it should be used for. If he doesn't respond, then he should lose the bit until he does. Nihlus 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is clearly getting off-topic and going nowhere fast. Please stop, and keep the discussion focused on the matters at-hand. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nihlus, you comment here is almost, in fact the very, classic use case of why ANI is broken - uniformed, drive by comments urging the harshest penalties as the easiest option. For shame. ps, I await you detailed rebuttal, detailing why you think a highly regarded and storied writer of some 14 experience should be stripped of rights for reasons you didn't bother to mention the first time. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC) I've actually been following this all day, so do not try to tell me that my comments are uninformed when you clearly have issues with one user and are trying to protect the other. I never said it should be removed for this one incident, but users are required to answer for their actions and how they use the tools. Ignoring these calls is obvious grounds for removal until the concerns are addressed. Nihlus 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC) If you honestly think that, having as you say, considering the circumstances, then in my opinion you should be blocked as more interested in policing, and NOT HERE. Ceoil (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC) So anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and should be blocked for violating WP:NOTHERE? You should have just told me I shouldn't have taken your comments seriously and saved me some time from even bothering. Nihlus 04:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC) And Ceoil has jumped on the bandwagon now claiming that the reuse of identical references should be reverted per DENY. This has now gone beyond absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) (Oh, FFS, dial it back a little, folks) @Ceoil: I'm not analyzing TRM's behavior for the reasons described above. I'm not seeking to strip Johnbod of his rights: if I wanted to, I'd be justified in doing so right away. I'm asking Johnbod to reassure us that rollback removal is unnecessary, something which he is refusing to do, for reasons best known to himself, though it's as simple as saying "I screwed up, won't happen next time". Again, everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, and they're often quite excusable. What's not excusable is doubling down on the mistake even after things have cooled off (or, as in this case, behaving like the child who, when chastised, goes around with their fingers in their ears saying "la la la I can't hear you"). I'm counting at least three different admins here (Dlohcierekim, Miniapolis, and myself), none of whom are exactly TRM's best friends, who are asking Johnbod about his use of rollback, and he has pointedly ignored at least three pings from us. Why? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think this should be closed. People are sniping at each other and things are escalating. My guess is that Johnbod is trying to keep his responses to a minimum; perhaps he feels baited because TRM has gone to another article Johnbod created and tried to change the citation style there too. Something to bear in mind: you implied above that you're involved in relation to TRM. If I understood that correctly, it means you're involved in relation to Johnbod too, for this dispute. Otherwise it would mean you could sanction one but not the other, which would be very unfair. Does anyone object to this being closed? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree: TRM and I have been in conflict before, but my ability to judge Johnbod's behavior isn't impaired in the least. Were I the only admin contemplating action here, that may be unfair, but I'm not. As for this conversation degenerating: Ceoil and I have made our peace. Hatting the back-and-forth between Ceoil and Nihlus wouldn't hurt, I suppose: but Johnbod needs to address his use of rollback somewhere, and I don't think he's going to find a more sympathetic audience. I'm willing to follow that up on his talk page if necessary, but I despise parallel conversations, so for that reason, too, I think this needs to remain open. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having had my own disagreements with TRM on CITEVAR (specifically over whether it is ok to change one allowed date format to another) I can see why Johnbod might have been annoyed. I think no action is required here, perhaps beyond reminding TRM that CITEVAR is there for a reason (to head off this kind of stupid dispute). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that TRM is far more interested in Johnbod than Johnbod is in TRM, and the pursuit is one sided. Tonight I got into this nonsense on an article Johnbod wrote, without realising the broader harassment campaign had reached an an/i complaint. In context, this is textbook following and baiting behavior on behalf of TRM. For the first time in my 14 odd years here, I see a need for a block of an established user acting prob in good faith but who is intent is misguided; enough blind hubris already, if allowed to continue unabated the potential to damage productive editors is great. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• There is a lot here that is unimpressive. Johnbod might object to the stylistic (template v. no template) aspect of TRM's changes on CITEVAR grounds, but would have a lot more basis had he undone TRM's changes but retained the extra information that TRM had provided to address linkrot concerns. Instead, he did complete reverts, and worse, did them with rollback and thereby classified TRM's work as vandalism. The information about Caxton, which Johnbod insisted must remain, could easily have been incorporated with TRM's work (I know as I've made the changes now). That this could not be sorted out on the article talk page is poor, that it degenerated into insults from Johnbod is worse, and that time is being lost now here is wasteful. Johnbod, you should immediately explain what you were thinking by ROLLBACKing in violation of policy, and undertake to follow policy in future... because the only one at risk of a sanction here is you. You should also recognise that CITEVAR may protect a style but it does not justify removing information that helps address linkrot. The Rambling Man, you need to accept that CITEVAR does protect referencing styles, as much as that might irritate you (and me and others) but does not prevent you from adding appropriate additional information. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There was only one rollback, at the 2nd reversion by me, with my first reversion, TRM's reversion of that & my re-reversion by rollback all occuring within 10 minutes. Obviously I appreciate this wasn't in accordance with the rules, & is not how I normally act, but my previous edit summary still applied, & TRM was clearly well aware what was going on, which the main reason rollback is so restricted. Clearly it was a mistake, which I regret, not least because it has given him an excuse to turn the self-righteousness up to 11. really can't see that access dates, the only extra information TRM added, are at all useful in addressing linkrot in reaching stuff that will always be on the web somewhere, but where the address may change over time. What you need is the details that will enable you to find a new page, some of which TRM removed, as he has never admitted. Frankly the extra details you added aren't really much help for that, I'd imagine. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a quick look at your edit history sees various misuses of rollback in the last month alone. This is not a one-off. And as for the use of personal attacks, perhaps we can deal with that too? And imagine what you will, the addition of correctly titled references with access dates is helpful indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
      • • Details please. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
          • You'll have to do that research yourself, but there's a good reason we have all the parameters in reference templates and a good reason why we even have tools which add them. Inappropriate rollback use? Here's, a few. But that's just from last week or so. I'm catching my flight to Australia now, but I'm happy to find more as and when I can (it's easy enough to do, just search "Tag: Rollback" and check that the edit was appropriate use of the tool). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
            • When in Australia, swim between the flags, there is a serious hazard in straying beyond them. In a similar vein, don't speak to strangers in the way you do online. Have a safe journey. cygnis insignis 09:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
            • The "there's a good reason we have all the parameters in reference templates" is that some techies who rarely write articles at all want them, for reasons not always logical or helpful, and that's why many FA writers don't use these templates at all. Hence, CITEVAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
              • No, it's nothing to do with "techies" and your continued suggestion that this is content vs. technical is unhelpful and disingenuous, I'd ask you to stop. I have crafted multiple featured articles and hundreds of good articles, so attempting to assert that the improvement of content of citations is related to some techies who rarely write articles at all want them, for reasons not always logical or helpful is actually deeply insulting, completely inaccurate and needs addressing. A retraction would be a good start, but further, an acknowledgement that some editors can create featured articles and be aware and implement technically good content would be a great addition. If CITEVAR is just here to protect those who aren't able to fill in relevant and helpful and linkrot-proof details, we need to re-examine it. CITEVAR should not be about "I had it first" (that's exactly what my five-year-old says), it should be about "preserve yet improve". And if improvement comes with additional markup, tough luck. If that's too difficult to handle, just ask for help, many of us are more than happy to help with technical issues such as {{cite web}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So as I said above, CITEVAR notes that references can be improved, and additional information added, which is what I did. In order to do that in an orderly fashion, it's just appropriate to use templates, so all references have a common look-and-feel. CITEVAR is not there to just protect the "I got here first" mentality, especially not when all the modifications being made actively improved the article for our readers. Nothing that Johnbod claims "went missing" couldn't be simply added to those improved refs. Instead, we get 3RR violation, NPAs and rollback abuse. And then a pile-on from his mates, who now claim that even reusing references is covered by CITEVAR. What a terrible state of affairs. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "... it's just appropriate to use templates, so all references have a common look-and-feel" is no different from ... it's just appropriate to use infoboxes, so all articles have a common look-and-feel. You are as wrong as that was. So perhaps we need an infobox wars style restriction on your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Johnbod is indeed a creator of quality content, and I for one know I can learn much from him; to such an extent that I booked myself into a Wikimedia UK event he was speaking at on the very topic last year.
  However, the rollback tool is probably the most powerful tool non-admins possess, as there is surely no surer a guarantee of driving off a noob with potential that undoing their edit without so much a by-you-leave. It’s something I tend to notice and point out for that reason. But, tbh, although Johnbod asked TRM for details as to previous examples of misusing the tool—which I see were provided—Johnbod doesn’t ‘’really’’ need to ask, as he has two messages from a couple of days ago still sitting on his talk page regarding the very issue.
  The context for these was that I had reverted an LTA trolling User:Legacypac’s talk. This was rolled back by JB, who left me what could be read as a slightly snarky message. To which I gave my reasons. It’s probably worth noting that another editor also asked JB about his restoring the LTA; I don’t think, to date, that he has had the courtesy of a reply.
  TL;DR—rollback is a powerful tool which, when misused and combined with less than optimal communication is guaranteed to lead to a rapid deterioration in the editing atmosphere. As I said, I have the greatest respect as JB as a content creator, and I equally agree that TRM needs, sometimes, to tone the fuck down. But, considering that only recently an admin came unusually close to losing their bit over the misuse of rollback, I’m mildly surprised that this is not being addressed slightly more—vigorously, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 12:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Has the user misused the tool in many other situations, or generally put it to good use as others have suggested above. I strongly agree that misuse of rollback, especially the thousands who are permanently discouraged from contributing, but I am inclined to overlook its use in this incident. Being on the receiving end is a repeated concern by TRM, an apology is appropriate to any user, and the user should be unsurprised that fuelled a fractious conversation. That aside, I wanted to clarify I am not aware of JBs history beyond the content I notice they created, I'm guessing because they are not usually engaging with other creators in the midst of creating content or looking with satisfaction in that they have wrought. I am aware of TRMs other activities because that was how I became aware of his forthright opinion of me. This is largely a product of a cultural structures in our community, unfortunately resembling the boyish domineering so prevalent in our respective societies, and it is annoying AF. cygnis insignis 15:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Something needs to be done to stop TRM from following engaging Johnbod articles.( Updated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)) Johnbod has and has always had very clear areas of editing interests and his knowledge in those areas is valuable. Stop bickering about the little stuff when the bigger problem is TRM needs to leave Johnbod alone. Please figure out a way to make that happen. I have been watching TRM harass other editors (usually writers who contribute top content) for more than a decade now. Rather than dorking around about citations and styles (where most people weighing in here are filling space with specious opinions), this board should be addressing the broader problem, which has been in evidence for years. Either TRM needs to be reminded of something like the infobox wars (don't change what was established there) or he needs to stay away from Johnbod period or his long-standing behaviors need to be dealt with in whatever way that can be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Further to what I just said above, agree with the sentiments expressed above wholeheartedly. cygnis insignis 15:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Clarify that I went a few rounds with the TRM recently, and should probably be admonished meself for my reaction to what I perceive as thuggery, I have a COI here. cygnis insignis 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Also, this carries a lot of my general grievance with edit warring. cygnis insignis 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this edit is genuinely brilliant. I'm really tired of all this, but I had to laugh. You just created an exemplar, so thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing what I have long known about the very clear areas of editing interest of the two of them, and it appears still correct to say that TRM largely edits in the areas of sports, sports figures and lists, while Johnbod edits arts and medical areas. There is no reason for TRM to be showing up in Johnbod's areas of interest when TRM focuses on sports. The information I put together in my sandbox for a separate matter related to all medical articles is a year old, but still relevant to show Johnbod's clear editing area, and TRM doesn't belong there. Stop the stalking and baiting.

Aside: those who are weighing in about citation styles without having written top content may appreciate the conclusion section in my sandbox summary about where medical editors stood on the topic we were discussing them.

I would also say that, given that TRM's generalization above about citation style is so reminiscent of the same faulty logic and entrenched attitude applied during the infobox wars, a general restriction might be placed on TRM about whether he should ever alter any article citations. I am not familiar with the exact wording, but I know some editors who couldn't help themselves when it came to infoboxes needed to have that help imposed upon them with specific wording.

My suggestion then is two-fold: restriction on TRM relating to Johnbod's editing area and infobox wars style restriction on TRM changing citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to retract the false accusation of stalking, it's been proven that I do not stalk Johnbod. To make such an assertion is a personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. In your case "harass" is more apt than "stalk". Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. As noted already, Johnbod's article is just one of 15,000+ that I've edited before it went to the main page. No-one is being harassed here, except for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"except for me". Boo hoo. You have a significant blind spot as to the effects of you behavior. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Very unpleasant indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not my best moment. I'm a bit upset about that whole thing. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are aware that another of TRM’s editing interests is reviewing content that is about to be linked to the Main Page? TRM didn’t follow Johnbod to this article; it came up as part of his review of the DYK noms at WP:ERRORS2. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So I need to be more clear on how exactly to apply a restriction. Given the clear long-standing problems with TRM's editing behaviors, and how entrenched his views are, akin to the Infobox wars, broaden the restriction already in place for TRM. He should not be changing anyone else's work for DYK, ITN, GA, FAC, FAR or anything anywhere. His stances are too entrenched, and he seems unable to help himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I checked and one of my interactions with TRM was an article I wrote and someone put in the DYK queue, and that is why he enforced the compulsory display of the reflist (rightly or wrongly, but it's bloody wrong). This is one of the reasons I avoid promoting articles about something more broadly interesting, flora and fauna, toward the front page, or other venues where trivial options are promoted from 'can be done' to 'must be done' or I'm going to be dragged here (AN/I I don't mind, I kinda like this page). Even a courteous "nice content, that must have taken a while" before telling me that an option is compulsory, and the impoliteness of those enforcing preferences is proportional to the relative importance of the same. This is especially true if all you do here is manufacture 'consensus' for some gee-whiz bit of superfluous code, and there is no time for politeness when life on the planet depends on it (I feel the same way, about different things). cygnis insignis 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Infoxbox war? Glad I missed that one, what were the restrictions and can they be linked? cygnis insignis 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain where to find wording for individual restrictions, but you can search the ArbCom archives for the never-ending Infobox wars, sanctions, requests for enforcement and so on. You are likely to find that some of the very same editors who support TRM in this discussion had similar views during the Infobox wars, which is basically a division along the lines of top content contributors versus more technical editors. If I knew how to word this restriction, I would have proposed it, but I am happily a content contributor, and do not know how to word these things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin with how incorrect your assumptions and assertions are, but suffice to say, all of my edits to every page I edit every single day is to improve the experience of our readers. It's really sad that you think otherwise, and really depressing that you think we have "topics" that we know about and can edit on. This is the beginnings of a misguided "experts only" schism that might as well send Wikipedia to the dogs. I didn't change the facts, I improved the citations. For the love of God, that's all I did. You're talking like I vandalised every art page on the encyclopedia. Perspective would be appreciated, as would my ongoing efforts to ensure the main page of Wikipedia features well-produced articles. And if you're making some kind of allusion that I don't contribute content, I'd like you to retract that. The statistics speak for themselves. Unbelievable fake news. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• probable support I expect I will support the formulation if it corresponds with the proposal above. cygnis insignis 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Infobox Wars? Sounds like a title for a Charles Stross story. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  They were similar to this-- protracted and surreal edit warring over something on the one hand trivial, but on the other hand, of great significance to content creators, who know their sources and their topics well, who take pride in their work, and who dislike having nuanced and marginally correct to blatantly incorrect information forced into an infobox format. This is the same deal. When you have spent months developing an article, it is exceedingly disruptive and time-consuming for someone to come along and alter citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, this is something I should know when expressing a similar view, that would seem to be perpetuating a discussion people were avoiding. They were always a bad idea, not encyclopedic, and create an invitation for contentious contributions by those passing by [for whatever reason]; I know that discussion hasn't stopped the numerous edit wars where they appear. cygnis insignis 17:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I won't comment on this for now, but TRM's current personal Arbcom DYK-related editing restrictions can be found here. As of an amendment in December, he is apparently now not restricted from insulting and belittling other editors! Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I know it's out of fashion, but I hold myself to 1RR for the most part. It might be better to, instead of reverting, discuss the matter and offer to help with any perceived problems, and to simply stop trying to force a change or revert someone else is not happy with. A polite note and sincere offer of help, I might add. Oh, great, we're back to that pesky cracked pillar again. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t follow any user anywhere. In case you lot didn’t realise, I edit and improve all articles in the DYK queues and OTD stack every day. I don’t care whose articles they are. What I do is clearly within the sanction as defined by Arbcom. I improved the two articles in question, and there’s not one single one of you who could claim otherwise. Thanks to Ritchie for the inevitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

oh and just for interest, I’ve done this to about 15000 articles in the past couple of years, and how many problems like this? ONE. When I’m improving articles, yet another user can call me a troll, a vandal, infringe 3RR yet I’m the one looking down the barrel, it’s clear this is a broken system. You people are unreal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, plenty more than that - I pointed out two other (trivial) ones earlier that day, which no doubt unleashed all this. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And for the final time, I didn’t just alter citations, I added value to them, gave them proper titles, accessdates etc. Please stop asserting all I do is change citation styles. That’s complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, you also removed important information. But of course you still refuse to recognise this, just as you do for other articles. Because your "improvements" are never, ever, wrong, and anybody who so much as hints otherwise knows what treatment to expect. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose seems a little too much in a number of ways. It would though be better for TRM to suggest and offer to help rather than just revert warring. If one's offer of assistance is spurned, there are still millions of articles in need. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  What might be missed here is that, when you are trying to develop new content (as is usually the case at the DYK level), and someone comes along with a non-policy-based personal preference and attempts to force that into the article as you are working, it stops work towards developing the article. To continue adding content, when you have to go back and deal with the citations, is one of the most exasperating things. This is what infobox warriors did, and now we see it with citation style. Those who cannot resist insisting on their personal preferences should not be in positions where they are reviewing the work of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  hypothetically if TRM did something that was banned by the unanimous decision of arbitrators, would you be converting to support? cygnis insignis 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support at very least and clearly an interaction ban is needed given TRM is patently targeting JB, per evidence above, some of which is ongoing. There is a larger issue which the community has to face wrt TRM, as this solution is a short term band aid. Yes I know, DYK is broken and all, but his behavior is increasingly making the whole main page less attractive and something of a poisoned well; Fram and Nikki do the same job with considerably more tact and grace. I know we have been over this many times before, and its is a car rash, but my opinion, considering the TRMs utility over his grossly off putting behavior: Indef block. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as effectively a content dispute for which WP:DR /3O was designed for. If a pattern had been established that TRM regularly and consistently stalked JB's contributions to extent constituting harassment, then that would be very much the kind of behaviour this board was intended for. But, since it has been established that he came across it as a recently promoted DYK hook, and the interaction analyser shows no such pattern of stalking—indeed, in many cases JB posts after TRM, but I wouldn't call that stalking either!—there's clearly no case to answer. Frankly, if TRM agrees to lessen the belligerency, JB to think before rollbacking, and everyone readies themselves to go the talk page as a first recourse rather than a last, we could probably all go and do something more productive. ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually there are few articles where I edited after TRM, & I think analyse would show we edited completely different bits. I certainly haven't edited any articles he has mainly written for years. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• The whole reason I started this thread in the first place is that I refused to take any admin action against Johnbod and TRM would not take "no" for an answer. So at least an interaction ban would reduce the opportunity for TRM to sound like a broken record. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, to be clear, you took no action whatsoever, despite the personal attacks and 3RR violation. Claiming "stale" in a case with such violations involving someone you know personally is not appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I can see Ritchie's point of view, but I think this doesn't get at the meat of the matter: in the last month alone TRM has edit-warred with two other editors over citation formatting: see this, and this nonsense (which took me a few seconds to find by searching his contributions for "mw-undo"; there's probably others further back). I think we should be warning TRM to take his concerns to the talk page a little earlier. If that seems too lenient to some folks, a 1RR restriction would still make more sense than an IBAN, I think, though I'm not convinced yet that it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your first example wasn't related to citations at all, it was a general issue with the misuse of semi-autonated tools to make generic edits against consensus. The second example relates to a user who insisted on a single column format despite consensus that allowing references to span across the page is just fine. It's not clear what the problem here is in either case. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  The problem, in both cases, is that you were reverting rather than discussing, which is exactly what happened here with Johnbod. You seem to believe that being correct makes it unnecessary for you to initiate a discussion, which simply isn't true. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  And yet, even after I'd managed to initiate discussion, the reverting continued, and worse, was sanctioned and allowed to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support the general idea. In order to understand what is happening at Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene, a good idea is to look at [this] and [that]. One editor has done quite all the editorial work. And then comes someone else with a series of 23 cosmetic edits in two days.
  (1) One source says Marseilles. The article says Marseilles. But TRM says Marseille. He knows better, and when reverted and directed to ENGVAR, he reiterates again and again, since he knows better.
  (2) Then comes {{Cite web| url=https://www.mfa.org/collections/object/saint-sebastian-tended-by-saint-irene-and-her-maid-34145|title=Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene and Her Maid|date=14 July 2018|publisher=[[Museum of Fine Arts, Boston]]| accessdate = 21 February 2019}}. When reverted and directed to CITEVAR, TRM reiterates again and again, because he knows better. When speaking of Boston's Museum of Fine Art, expanding mfa into Museum of Fine Art is a vital information, isn't it ? And adding this 14 Juillet 2018 from nowhere, another vital information ?
  (3) Then we have {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2019}}. When reverted TRM reiterates again and again, because he knows better, with "plat de résistance" as edit summary.
  And now comes the worst. After such a flooding, User:The Rambling Man tries to burden User:Johnbod with the task of sorting all this mess and selecting what could, marginally, be useful. This is not the way to proceed. The burden is on TRM to sort what he is doing, with honest edit summaries. Using repetitively further improvement as edit summary is only gaming the system. Pldx1 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, honest edit summaries like "various" on the 4RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:CITEVAR? From the very end of the guideline: If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. What was TRM was doing to those citations? Um... adding a title, a website, a publisher, an access date, and occasionally a publication date. And what about prior to that? Hmm... They had nothing other than a url and a name flanked by ref tags. These changes are explicitly excluded from CITEVAR because The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it. Which is not possible to do when all I have to go on is "LACMA page", whatever that means, but easy enough to do when I'm told that it's the "Los Angeles County Museum of Art". How about "Golden Legend text, in the Caxton translation"? Well sounds fancy, but can't really tell its providence and who is "Caxton"? "Medieval Sourcebook: The Golden Legend: Volume II". Fordham University." Ah, yes I see, it's a primary source that has been republished by a presumably reputable institution. Unfortunately "Caxton" is lost here, and I assume Caxton is the translator's name (indeed I know it is: William Caxton). That should be re-added. The same goes for some of the other citations. "Seattle Art Museum" for example, is barely enough for me to evaluate it. In other words, nothing needs to be done here. Some poor incomplete citations turned into adequate citations is not a problem. The aggression from Johnbod in retaliation for these improvements, for me, is a problem. No idea on what actions to take with regard to that though. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dude, though it has been pointed out several times already, you are overlooking that all or most of the relevant information is contained in the text being referenced. This is like the people who complain when something is just referenced to ""Foo: 1", OED". The article had a link to LACMA, though there should really have been another where the ref was. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod - I am familiar with those sorts of citations, and they appear in most of the works that I refer to when writing articles in the ancient Egypt topic area. For example, I know what SAK and BIFAO are on sight, but they are illegible to the average reader. This is also why books have a bibliography which you can search to find the cited source... well unless they do something like put a footnote that reads "BIFAO, 1977" and you're left wondering "which article from BIFAO 1977? why are you less verifiable than Wikipedia!?" TRM's changes might be unnecessary to you, but they are more accessible to the reader and, to my reading of the guideline, are within the bounds of the explicit exception written into CITEVAR. Oh, btw, if you're still willing to edit Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene, citation 7 (Slive p. 22) isn't following your other book format citations. I don't know if that was intentional, or if someone else added it in later. I'd rather not set-off a new dispute, so won't touch it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in accord with Mr rnddude above, who explains in greater detail what I was arguing above. A citation that does not provide the basic information required by WP:CITE is not subject to CITEVAR and improving that cite should not be subject to sanction. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been following this for a while and it's admittedly difficult to get a bearing on the situation given the drastically different versions of events that have been presented. One thing that is clear to me is that both Johnbod and TRM have needlessly escalated this situation. This should have been handled on the talk page in a calm, cool, and collected manner, but that became all but impossible once Johnbod began insulting TRM via edit summary. And TRM is refusing to drop the stick, as he often does when another editor is mean to him. As for the actual content dispute, I'm admittedly not a star content creator like some of the above editors, so I won't claim expertise on citation formatting, but I really don't see how TRM's citation format changes were unhelpful. I certainly don't see how they warrant a topic ban. It is also unfortunate that this proposal alleges that TRM was following Johnbod around when it is fairly common knowledge that TRM frequently seeks to improve content that is about to hit the main page, as was the case here. This proposal is a severe overreach based on a very one-sided interpretation of this editing dispute. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. This has escalated quite unnecessarily. As has already been pointed out it is not s violation of CITEVAR if additional information is being added, and I’m more concerned about the ownership being displayed by Johnbod. Both were wrong to edit war but at least they are now using the talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment so now we have a concept of "Johnbod articles" being proposed? Really? If anyone can prove that the edits I made weren't in the best interests of our readers and the longevity of the verifiability of our articles, I'm all ears. As I noted, I've edited at least 15,000 articles over the past two years (whose "owners" I know not, nor do I know how find, nor do I care) and this is the one that's blown up through me improving citations and making multiple other improvements for our readers. I've never followed Johnbod, in fact he's the one who gravedanced when I took some time out. He's the one who came to my personal errors record and started complaining. Not the other way around. So get the facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am surprised how many time TRM gets away with this type of stuff. They would have been indefinitely blocked long before, hadn't they been "close friends" with admins. Repetitive disruptive editing is disruptive editing nonetheless, regardless of how much of an "asset" they are and arejust "keep making mistakes" and "probably learn", even though being highly experienced and already been reported several times. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: A welcome opportunity for: WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER. Any chance you could provide a diff to back every single one of those claims? ——SerialNumber54129 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Look at his track record here. I am not quoting directly, those were just in general. TRM has failed multiple times to keep promises of not being disruptive and being civil. If it were any other editor, they would have indefinitely blocked long before. Wonder why TRM isn't blocked permanently considering his bans are regular? We need to be vocal about this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SN, This has escalated unnecessarily and is now becoming a pointless timesink. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – needless escalation for the reasons already well-stated by multiple editors above. Leviv ich 19:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the core premise of this proposal is wrong. TRM is not followimg anyone around they are working on front page errors, which they are well known for. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose editor was simply following what we recommend at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights linkrot;.--Moxy (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. To reiterate, I am (a) not stalking anyone (b) not harassing anyone (who came to gravedance?) (c) not violating CITEVAR (even though it's nothing more than a suggestion in any case) (d) not prepared to accept continued personal attacks (e) not prepared to accept 3RR violations (e) not satisfied that an involved admin closed the report (f) not satisfied that the closing admin didn't even offer a suggestion to Johnbod to avoid violating 3RR, NPA, rollback abuse (g) disappointed but not surprised that so many people have jumped on this bandwagon of "all TRM does is change citation styles" - bollocks, I have improved every article I touch for the benefit of our readers. There are many personal attacks even here on this very page levelled at me, none of which have any substance, but of course no-one will do anything about any of it. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal-- use of rollback by Johnbod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hope this wasn't addressed earlier. Both Johnbod and TheRamblingMan are valued contributors who are immiscible. I would ask Johnbod to reserve rollback for reverting vandals and to refrain from using it in a conflict with other immiscible contributors. Instead, it would be best to stop and fully address the other editors concerns and if needed, use the dispute resolution process. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, I normally do this; in fact I don't use rollback all that often. I've commented above on my regrettable use of it here. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think this quite beside the point of the overall discussion at this stage. I mean - what was the root cause? Sandy's proposal is more on target. ps Dloh, its "Johnbod", rather than "Johblod". Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Given his acknowledgement above, I suggest a warning to Johnbod, along the lines of "if you ever do that again ... ", will suffice. On the other hand, TRM's behaviors are long-term, entrenched, have been addressed in the past by ArbCom, and need to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I meant to post something like this following my previous conversations with SlimVirgin and Ceoil. Johnbod has acknowledged his error. I don't think we need to do more than warn him not to use rollback for things not explicitly covered by WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Indeed such a warning doesn't really require lengthy discussion, because nobody (least of all Johnbod himself) has really argued that the rollback use was justified. If someone thinks a stronger sanction is necessary, they're welcome to propose it, but I for one am no longer willing to yank Johnbod's rollback access. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with that, Vanamonde. ——SerialNumber54129 18:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How merciful of you. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• We should all attempt to be more miscible, if that needs to said I felt it did, and now have used that word at least once in a sentence. I was somewhat saddened that my spell-checker knows a word that I did not, but cheered to have learned a term from medieval alchemy. cygnis insignis 19:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Ceoil: Since you wish to continue your feud with me—what happened to avoiding me, I wonder—then I suggest you take your snide elsewhere, particularly as Vanamonde93 has already closed this discussion. Although I'm glad to see your language has improved. As to why I made the above remark: since my previous post focussed solely on JB's use of Rollback, I considered it only proper to point out that my position was neither unequivocal nor unchangeable. It's quite well known. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial, what you dont seem to realise is that (1) nobody actually cares what you think, and (2) you called me a troll yesterday, so AGF?? My patience for want to be admins is low these days. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Ceoil (3) at some point you'll realise that nobody cares what we think, whatever you think, and (4) you suggested I was insane yesterday, so AGF??

Since you're unable to keep away from me, how able a WP:Iban? ——SerialNumber54129 00:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: quiet word in the ear

Now this should have happened when the clear 3RR violation occurred. The admin closing the EW noticeboard should have left a message with both me and Johnbod saying that we could do better, and that Johnbod should not have resorted to violation of 3RR and personal attacks (as far as I know, calling people "vandal" and "troll" when it's apparent that they are doing their best to improve articles is a personal attack). Instead, the closing admin (who knows Johnbod personally) closed the situation as "stale" (after the fourth reversion) and did nothing more, not even a quiet word in the ear to suggest that calling someone a troll or a vandal was inappropriate. While that's "an approach", it's hardly satisfactory. However, if we could just move on with the "guys, let's just agree to disagree but please don't overstep fundamental pillars of Wikipedia" approach, such as avoiding personal attacks, then I imagine things would have been brought to a close much sooner. I accept that per BRD (not policy) I should have discussed this after the first revert, but at least I tried before the fourth revert. I still find it hard to understand why improving references for our readers has resulted in this shitstorm. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with The Rambling Man. Closing admin should have resolved much better. That being said, the issue shouldn't be ignored here and a warning should be given to both of them at the very least, let alone a topic ban of maybe referencing. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that the closing admin didn't actually close anything; they merely moved the problem elsewhere and in doing so made it far worse. A "topic ban of maybe referencing" isn't possible (or desirable) though—WP:V (which is policy) demands some kind of referencing, and so such a TB would effectively be a ban on article creation! Not exactly, in sure we'd all agree, the perfect outcome for WP:TEACE ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My use of reference ban was unfortunate. But any other specific topic ban will work. Also, both of their past reports should also be taken into account. I think both of them should feel the consequences by now. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I used "vandal" at all. As various people have pointed out many times above, it is entirely TRM who insisted on pursuing it. Reading the above will probably give newcomers an idea of how far attempting to discuss anything contentious with TRM gets anybody. Personally, I'd be happy to let TRM enjoy the rest of his holiday in the homeland of WP:BOOMERANG, though I expect issues like this will continue to recur between him & other editors. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It's not my homeland. I strongly suspect the issues raised above about your ownership of "your" articles, backed up by many editors, will continue to be a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Both of you continuing to still arguing and attacking each other here is itself disruptive. Please calm down. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're both calm, and don't need you to tell us to calm down, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a trout for TRM and Johnbod was the right closure at AN3 this seems clearly to be the right closure of this thread here at ANI. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

General citation query

So we have "Refill (2)" on our toolbox now, and it does things like this. Is this prohibited by WP:CITEVAR? If so, should the tool come with a grave warning that trips to ANI and proposals for topic bans etc are inevitable? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To quote CITEVAR:--If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data.......then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that answered the question about a tool which does what I demonstrated. The tool did exactly the same thing which I did to "Johnbod's articles", only not quite as well. I assume given this furore, we need to now remove the tool from the "tools" section because it does exactly what I did: improved the content, made the content consistent in appearance, and gave the readers more bibliographic data. Since there seems to be some support for removing all of the information I added (manually), should we therefore remove the tool? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and Johnbod I neither support nor oppose using the tool or editing manually. However, it could have been easily solved had there been proper discussion with consensus and more third party opinions as dispute solutions, rather then reverting back and forth and exchanging comments. It is wrong to blame and say that Refill (2) "does things", since it still is dependent on the user using it. In most cases, the default format should be decided by the original author, if they are heavily active. If others have issues, the most fundamental procedure is to reach for consensus with civility and proper arguments. If it doesn't go well, there outside editors would be asked to get involved and apply formal closure. I hope this helps both of you. I am also assuming you were not familiar with this? (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

My reply was intended to reply Is this (edit) prohibited by WP:CITEVAR?

As to the general tool; I guess that it ought to come with a warning that the users must read CITEVAR i.e. be careful that they are not just replacing citation-styles; which (at a glance) may look like adding more but actually redundant citation-info. At the same time, to fight linkrot, bare URLs are actively discouraged and moreover, bare URLs (with no accompanying data) are never a part of any citation style. So, I've not much clue about the above folks who claims that you violated CITEVAR. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I did open a discussion at CITEVAR, and it does appear that what TRM was doing, changing the simple "url + page name" to ones with complete biographical information is allowed under CITEVAR. --Masem (t) 17:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that’s interesting! Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But it isn't correct. WP:CITEVAR: "To be avoided ... adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates". If there was information missing, you could have added it manually, or gone to talk and proposed the changes there. The whole point of CITEVAR is to avoid this kind of dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, by now, it's pretty obvious to all that CITEVAR (not even a policy, incidentally) means different things to different editors, and as such, any claims that CITEVAR has been categorically violated are false. That I improved these references in a consistent way and to the benefit of our readers is all that's really important. And you failed to address the point of this section, namely that our toolkit provides scripts which do exactly what I did. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Are "external link" -formatted citations valid citations?; I think most people are saying it should be discussed on the talk page, as the primary purpose of the guidance is to stop edit warring. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

After the first few edits by the original editor, Storye book (talk · contribs), there is no consistent citation style that I can discern. Thus, changing to a consistent style is allowed, although, since the article is new and the original editor is likely to still be active, it would have been better to discuss it on the talk page and ping the original editor. But the fact that the edit could have been within the guideline indicates the tool serves a legitimate purpose, and should continue to be mentioned in the guideline. Virtually all useful tools can be misused (as demonstrated by the guy who put air in my tires when I last went in for an oil change). Jc3s5h (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, CITEVAR specifically states that citations that "fail to provide needed bibliographic data" do "not count as a 'consistent citation style' and can be changed freely to insert such data." Citations such as "LACMA page" and "Image" do not constitute a citation style. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Image" is to a convenience Commons image. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How would you judge that in relation to Frog Service? Repeated duplicate, and unlinked, citations of no more than 'GT', 'BM' etc.? These could easily be much clearer, as per our usual standard for most articles, but apparently this article is already beyond reproach and it's a blocking offence to edit any such. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

btw, "BM" is a link to a page titled "Plate" in the BM's usual down-to-earth style, as the ref says. As a special treat, Andy, now I've finished writing the article, if you (or anyone else) want to do named refs to combine all the single BMs & GTs I won't object. But please use sensible names for the refs & leave bundled ones alone. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, when I applied named references, I was reverted ("per DENY" according to Ceoil). How odd. Perhaps only certain editors are allowed to use named references. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• "As a special treat" – and there we have the crux of the problem here. No Johnbod, it is not "a special treat" for other editors to be allowed to edit your articles. This is a collegial project, remember WP:5P3? "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited"?

Our default position is that TRM is allowed to edit 'your articles'. Even if you hate what they're doing with them. It's your burden to make some case as to why they shouldn't, or why particular changes ought to be reverted. We have a few regular issues where we've agreed a default answer (MOS:DATE, WP:MOS) and we don't vary from that without that then being the default position and the editor looking to change from it being the one who makes the case for it. In other cases (WP:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR) we accept both options as equally valid and we avoid change to them, just because we want to avoid circular or reciprocating cycles of changes. But what we do not do is to start WP:OWNing articles. You, even if you're the creator and sole author of an article do not get to act as gatekeeper to it. This is an absolute here. Yes, we have a lot of behaviours (documented or not) to avoid stepping on the toes of other editors, and even to avoid WP:RANDY. But still, you can't start claiming OWNership, even if you call it stewardship against an imagined barbarian horde.

I'm sure you know this, but I do not believe that you accept it. I have seen many examples of you clearly refusing to. If the other editor is easily cowed, then they disappear, perhaps permanently. If they have a high profile, like TRM, it ends up here. But in both cases you are in the wrong. CITEVAR is a minor guideline (and like ENGVAR, it's behavioural rather than based on absolute benefits to librarianship or linguistics) but OWN is policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but both he and you have to respect the rules, especially (here) CITEVAR. Many editors still don't, and of course can often get away with this on neglected articles, building up a sense of entitlement. Then they get upset when challenged. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CITEVAR is not "the rules" nor was any edit I made actually an infringement of such. It's been adequately demonstrated to you that improving your version of citations by adding masses of relevant data is a good thing for our readers. It's time to realise that the work being done is not for our own benefit, but for that of our readers and the future generations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Named references? (that is <ref name="bm">ref defined here</ref> <ref name="bm"/> Thre's also a valid use of "ibid" if you are 100% certain the citation order won't change. --Masem (t) 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no "ibid" there - I never use that. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, here's my approach to CITEVAR, which I haven't re-read in a long time. It's goal of preventing revert wars between citation styles is desirable, but it can also be an impediment to improving the encyclopaedia. I have changed citation styles from a mix of templated and untemplated to all templated in the past, adding missing information, and feel justified in so doing. If an article has only non-templated citations but with significant information missing, I have added information in templated format. IF another editor then objects, I would respect CITEVAR and either encourage him / her to convert my citations to non-templated form or offer to do it myself. I would not find a simple revert of my additions acceptable if the additional information were not re-added. In the disputed case, I don't have a problem with TRM's additions or change of citation, but I do think not accepting Johnbod's right to non-templated styles as originating author was unwise per CITEVAR. I recognise that Johnbod's references were inadequate in places, such as when a simple url was linked to a description that was not the page's title and that did it clearly identify the source. This creates an arguable case under CITEVAR for retaining the templated forms, but at the cost of upsetting the editor who wrote the article over a matter that was trivial. Note, it is the form of the citation that I say is trivial, not its content. TRM and Johnbod failed to communicate as adults and find a reference form that was acceptable to Johnbod and which contained the relevant information added by TRM. Things degenerated from there, with unacceptable behaviour from Johnbod ("vandalism", ROLLBACK-misuse, etc) and stubborn refusal to compromise from TRM, made worse by the escalating conflict. We then end up with an ANI that was guaranteed to be hostile over a matter that should never have left the article talk page. TRM, you may not like CITEVAR, but I strongly advise you to respect it when your change of citation style prompts objections. That's what I would advise on the Abby Franquemont case – if someone objects, let them change back to untemplated refs or make the change yourself, and move on (so long as the extra information is retained). If no one objects, great. I have changed the citations on the article that started all this conflict to remove templates and tried to keep the resulting referencing style consistent. I hope Johnbod has noticed this and recognises it as a change made in the hope of ending the article part of the conflict, consistent with CITEVAR and the work he has put into the page. Compromise can be a great way to reduce conflict, and so long as it does not harm the information provided to our readers, need not cost anything but a little time. Johnbod, I'm glad that you recognised the problematic use of ROLLBACK. Perhaps you could both also offer some reflection on your words and actions and this thread can be ended? Ritchie333, perhaps you might comment on whether you still see starting this ANI as the best choice when TRM was clearly aggrieved and when there were behavioural questions still open? EdChem (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, I certainly think the matter needed to come here. I just had a quick look at what's been going on, and the first thing I find is TRM getting close to edit warring with Atlantic306 on Hurricane (2018 film). So there's definitely a deeper problem here than what a simple AN3 report can handle. Also, since TRM is obviously upset with how I handled the report, it makes sense to come here even if it's just to discuss my admin conduct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, lack of admin conduct I suppose. But frankly, if you honestly didn't foresee this Marne of a thread, then it's not your conduct so much as your judgement that's arguably called into question. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I was more concerned with TRM's removal of important referencing information, and I'll admit, especially annoyed by the change to Marseilles, which the edit summary "I presume this means Marseille" showed to be clearly ignorance-driven. The immediate context of all this has not been mentioned much - this all happened a few hours before the article went on the main page as a DYK. TRM always waits until the last minute before he hits a prospective main page article, although this one had been nominated for DYK over 2 months previously. This fuels a fake sense of La patrie en danger urgency, and means that those putting stuff on the main page have to watch carefully a number of different pages in the hours leading up to the main page change for upcoming "improvements" that often aren't, and which they won't be notified about. TRM wears his heart on his sleeve, and the psychology of all this is very well known to anyone who has kept any sort of eye on his edits - which before the topic ban was anyone follwing DYK talk at all. As is the way he reacts to any disagreement about his "improvements" (which I don't deny, often are). I never reverted all his changes this for example is my first reversion, only those creating problems. For the moment, with the article off the main page & several editors piling in, I've given up following changes to in detail. I'll come back in a few days & pick up the beer cans. Only one of these editors has wanted to changed the actual text, which is WP-typical these days. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You could have replaced the few bytes of information that you deemed so important. What I added was considerably more and made the references usable for our readers and linkrot-proof to a degree. I was chased away from ERRORS and DYK, so I have nothing left to give other than a review 24 hours in advance of things going to the main page. I do that in good faith because I want our readers to believe in Wikipedia, to see it as a professional resource, to actually use it as an encyclopedia. Picking up crappy referencing, or easy-to-fix MOS violations is just part of what I do, I'm also trying to validate the hooks, the blurbs etc, so we don't get embarrassed. It's fascinating to me that OTD has had around the same number of issues over the past nine months as DYK, yet Howcheng is miraculously calm and considerate, and gives a fair crack at each report. On the other hand, once I dare touch one of "Johnbod's articles", the universe collapses, people accuse me of stalking, harassment, want an indef block etc. And on another article, Johnbod's friend Ceoil reverts me for editing to reuse citations, claiming "WP:DENY", yet Johnbod himself says that's just fine. This place is fucking nuts. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please! Most of your edits to my DYK noms are fine, & I think I may have thanked you for them in the past. Your editing restrictions (obviously) don't affect DYK articles, which you could pick up in good time from the approved page, but don't. You are the one who pursued this strongly. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who was on the receiving end of your multiple personal attacks and clear violation of 3RR and abuse of rollback. It's really got nothing at all to do with the article, rather your behaviour after I dared improve one of your articles. It's entirely down to me to decide as and when I "pick up" the reviews of the DYK hooks, and I do that once people have stopped tinkering with them, in the queue. This is usually at least 24 hours before they go to the main page. There's no problem with that at all. Especially given that in most cases I improve each article I find. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that any claim of "CITEVAR violation" is utterly incorrect, and under considerable debate. Ed, your post is great, but reading it twice (or three times) really seems to back up the idea of ownership of articles. And that's not what this project is about. I improved citations, I don't need to ask permission from anyone to do that, and to remove the improvements should be considered disruptive, not to add them. But to the point: Ritchie, you didn't do anything, and that was a serious failure of your responsibilities. Forget the 3RR, forget the CITEVAR (which is very much open to debate), forget even the overt abuse of rollback, but you allowed another user to use personal attacks against me a number of times. And whether that was part of the initial report or not is irrelevant. You failed in your duty. I don't know why you got engaged when you later said that you'd met Johnbod in person a few times, that's highly inappropriate, some might say biased, even if it just looks that way. Incidentally, your claim of "edit warring with Atlantic306" is utter bullshit. I stated clearly that I didn't need to add a "reactions" section to a draft article, and my edit was undone by Atlantic. I simply restored my edit and suggested that things should move on when it was abundantly clear that the article was of sufficient quality for the main page. To claim that as as some kind of "close to edit warring" is utterly disingenuous and needs to stop. It appears that my trust in you has absolutely and completely evaporated, and that's a real shame, because I thought you were one of the decent ones. I think you should continue to be an admin but for me, this is terminal. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want to fall out with you over this; as I said at the top of the thread you have been very helpful with GA reviews and WP:ERRORS2, by and large, does a lot of good work for the encyclopedia. I'm unsure as to what you exactly wanted me to do with Johnbod; perhaps a more trigger-happy admin would have blocked him and that would have been alright? It would have probably resulted in a heated discussion anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already told you, several times, that allowing Johnbod to call me a vandal, a troll, to violate 3RR after I (eventually) initiated discussion, to violate the use of rollback, did not equate to a "closed:stale" result. That's complete bullshit. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, but play the fucking game. Johnbod is now aware that CITEVAR was not violated in any sense, that I was improving the citation style for our readers, that abusive use of rollback is unacceptable. But your biased intransigence is too much, and I'm really really gutted about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I could sit here and pick apart the various points over what I did and why I disagree with them, but everyone else would be bored to tears over it, so may I suggest a) Can we just agree to disagree over this? b) Blind Faith needs a GA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[ec] The Rambling Man, "but play the fucking game". He may not be not interested in your boyish game, is that also compulsory? Take OWNership of the 5 seconds you took to insert yourself into a page that someone else has invested their OWN time in creating and well know they do not OWN, that is more deeply insulting and wrong-headed than what you seek to suffer. cygnis insignis 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure Ritchie, it's "boring". Good response. You did nothing, and it was tragically disappointing. Good luck, and goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[88] ...if a bunch of us get together, disagree on stuff, make alternative suggestions, and then (and this is the important bit) constructively work out a compromise, we can do brilliant work. It certainly beats sulking round ANI. How's that looking now? ——SerialNumber54129 13:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal:Two months block for The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am sure most of the admins are familiar with the number of warnings and blocksagainst TRM. He has been reported at ArbCom several times. If it were a newcomer or less known editor, they would have been indefinitely blocked long before for this continuous disruptive editing over the years. He promises to change but still makes the same Wikipedia's fundamental mistakes. I propose a two month block at minimum. We should be open about this and have proper justice. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose TRM was following what CITEVAR says (which is open to some debate but there's definitely a honest way to read it to support TRM's actions), and only the back and forth editing between him and Johnbod caused the problem. TRM is under a specific civility restriction, but nothing they have said in this discussion approaches that restriction). --Masem (t) 17:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but, hey, how about: propose TBan from AN/I for User:ImmortalWizard, who seems to think that this is the OK Corral and that they are Wyatt Earp ("hav[ing] proper justice"?!). You do not go around just randomly propsing blocks for productive editors in the middle of a discussion which has has pretty clearly established faults on noth sides. Further, block logs are actually slightly more nuanced things than they seem to realise: a list of blocks and warnings on it's own means nothing without context, and IWiz was not, IIRC, involved in any of TRM's cases (indeed, their paths have almost never crossed before). In anycase, the specific claims I asked them to support with diffs, above, have not been; and I would also ask them how this proposal fits in with WP:NOTPUNITIVE? I suggest that IWiz—with 56 edits to WP:ANI in their career, and about half of them over the lastcouple of days—might want to slow down a little with the commentary and proposals, much as they clearly mean well. ——SerialNumber54129 17:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (edit conflict) - Don't be daft. How about we close this and allow both editors to discuss this on the talkpage accordingly ? .... Now that sounds like a much better proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking TRM. Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this ludicrous proposal. TRM’s civility restriction and block log are irrelevant to this discussion which is essentially a content dispute. I agree that Immortal Wizard needs to take a break from ANI and go work on some articles - someone with so little experience telling two veteran content creators with over 400,000 edits between them to “calm down” is not helping anyone. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: 3-month interaction ban Johnbod and The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can somebody give any evidence that interaction between the two is likely to be productive in that time? As for discussing the current matter, I don't believe additional discussion between the two of them is necessary, as both have gone far beyond laying out their positions. pbp 20:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose not productive or warrented. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per LP; not sure what issue this is intended to address as they seem to interact infrequently. ——SerialNumber54129 21:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In spite of warnings, the IP user is continuously blanking (e.g. [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]) or disrupting ([95], [96], [97], [98]) the sourced content. In fact, all of their edits are of the aforementioned nature. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

'Tis true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. For future reference, this kind of thing can go to WP:AIV, where it will often get a faster response. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(user:AHastings53 nee) User:Andrewnheckman reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

General disruptive editing; stating that KNHL had switched to NBC when it hasn't yet. I even fell for his lies. [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Whether or not User:Andrewnheckman is right about this edit, they've attempted to discuss this issue (at User talk:Csworldwide1) and you haven't bothered. Edit summaries are never an appropriate place to carry on a discussion because once there's a dispute, everyone is supposed to stop editing and head for a talk page. Why haven't you done that? And if you think this user is perpetrating "disruptive editing" (maybe) and telling "lies" (unlikely), why are you reporting them to this messageboard? Why aren't you at WP:AIV? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewnheckman: Hey. Saw you seemed to be making edits based on what you saw on TV or whatever. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking, and I've seen nothing like that, though I could be wrong. Please respond here or on your talk page before adding the challenged content again. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I'm glad you read my message because you just entered that discussion. You're casting the sort of nasty aspersions that should get you blocked for a bit but I still view this as a tiny bit of progress. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D: AIV will either block or decline based on inadequate warnings. We can discuss the sourcing issue as long as we are all here. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note. If anyone feels lost, TonyBallioni renamed the user "Andrewnheckman" to "AHastings53 (talk · contribs)" DlohCierekim (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and am still trying to figure out how everything works, I was unaware you had to cite all your edits from a reliable source. Could someone please post instructions on how to cite an edit correctly so I dont have more issues when editing in the future. I did not mean harm when editing, I am trying to help but am not really sure how everything on wikipedia works yet. --AHastings53 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone knows a citation tool or script, that would be helpful. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@AHastings53: See this guide I wrote for how to identify and cite sources, as well as a variety of other issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the guide, I will read through it and make sure in the future i make edits correcly cited and accurate.

Removal of Spoken articles files

I am not sure what to do ....we have an editor User:Walk Like an Egyptian removing Wikipedia:Spoken articles articles because they are older versions of the pages. I'm gravely concerned we're taking away an accessibility point for people with disabilities. Hearing an older spoken version of an article is not so egregious that they should be removed. I believe access to an older version is better than no access at all. What should be taking places in update not deletion. Was going to simply revert but see this has been done on a few pages and would like to get more input from the community. Should the work of hundreds of editor's be removed because they depict an older version of an article? Should these be reinstated? I agree many are outdated but they should be updated and the project expanded with more support..... just not sure how deletion helps our readers with disabilities in this case.--Moxy (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did this because other editors have removed outdated recordings from various articles as seen here, here and here. None of these articles have gotten an updated recording since then. Plus, I think some of my removals like this one are justified. Not only did this recording have far less information, it also had quite a bit of unsourced information. If you really want to listen to an article that doesn't have a recording, you could copy and paste the information into a text-to-speech website. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy paste. ...... why would we go out of your way to make it hard for our readers? Text to speech software problems is one of the reasons the projects exists Pls review why we make these....Always think of those with disabilities when editing. Again old version of articles are better then no articles. Files should not orphaned they should be deleted if there's a problem with verifiability.--Moxy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the broader issues about what to do about outdated spoken versions of articles/content will need to be decided by community discussion, probably WP:VPP. I can see some argument on both sides but I doubt very much the solution endorsed by the community will be uniformly "keep them all" or "dump them all after X amount of time"; I suspect the solutions will need to be quite a bit more nuanced than that. In the meantime, until such an inquiry is undertaken, I'd like to request of Walk Like an Egyptian that they temporarily forestall their clean-up activities in this area--I take it as granted that your efforts are entirely good-faith, but Moxy is correct, this is a clear issue of WP:Accessibility, which policy was created specifically to conform our approach to the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which is a priority that cannot be obviated. Given the importance the WMF and this community put on accessibility, I think we have a duty to at least discuss this matter in a central community space before we begin a wholesale removal of content which vision impaired and other users may rely upon, even if there are arguments for removing at least some of it. If you don't want the burden of opening such a discussion, I can spearhead the process, provided you are willing to wait a couple of weeks. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not all text-to-speech systems have problems. I was able to use a free and very intelligent text-to-speech system to make 35 recordings, but I'll just leave the list of spoken articles as is and let you handle this process. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC); edited 06:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There's something ironic about putting "Spoken Wikipedia Benefits" in a raster image that's illegible for screen readers and hard to read for people who need high-contrast etc. text... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep old recordings – they are better than nothing. Hopefully, the last update date is part of the recording. The user still has the option of using text-to-speech on the current article if they want. BTW, it would seem useful to make individual section recordings so as to facilitate updating just an edited section or two without having to re-dictate the whole article. Tools to manage the sections into auto-playlists, suggest stale section recordings needing update, etc. would all be good. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It does seem useful to record a specific section instead of everything at once. I uploaded my first recording a couple months ago and the corresponding article has gone through drastic changes already. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Two things. 1) yeah keep the old recordings. Better than nothing. 2) My eyes! Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I had not run across Wikipedia:Spoken articles before but it seems a valuable idea - perhaps the bigger problem is that there are 1,378 spoken articles in English. So its pretty clear this project isn't working. If it is valuable as a project it should get more support and attention, (for example - an idea off the top of my head would be making a spoken version a requirement to pass WP:FAC) - but if it is just going ot be a cul-de-sac of outdated (possibly COI or Copyright problem containing or otherwise violating our pillars) versions for a very few articles then a better solution should be developed to more seriously respect WP:Accessibility.AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say that there's actually less than 1,378 spoken articles in English. A bunch of subcategories, audio files, and a user page were using Category:Spoken articles, so it messed up the spoken article count. I edited these pages, but if there are other pages that still use the category manually, they should also be removed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I seem to recall we nuked a spoken version of one article that was made by a fringe proponent after editing the article, which was subsequently restored to a less fringe version. Was it cold fusion? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Personally, I question the value of spoken versions of articles if they are years out of date. It is a much more obvious option to use Microsoft Narrator or similar text to speech tools. The chances of having up to date spoken versions of millions of Wikipedia articles are practically zero.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be really cool to implement an open source speech renderer though, so you could have the live version read out to you. If such a thing existed. It would be useful for much more than just the visually impaired. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There's two issues that are raised there: 1) Not everyone who uses our platform has access to such software, and 2) even for those who do, text-to-speech software is drastically inferior in terms of pronunciation and elocution: with our articles covering a larger number of topics than any other reference work in the world, there are an astronomical number of terms (especially in STEM areas) which no renderer has dictionary references for and thus will attempt its "best guess" solution to, often with highly problematic results; the same is true of parsing the complex variances in our syntax. If you have not had need to make use of this software or have familiarity with the engineering behind it, you can be forgiven for assuming it's probably a generally practical option, but the reality is that in most instances the viable utility between a recorded natural speech version and machine effort is going to be night and day. Again, for those who even have the option, which is nowhere near all of our users.

In any event, its a decision regarding formulating new policy, and this is definitely not the venue for that; the issue needs to be put before the wider community for any kind of legitimate consensus to result. I plan on broaching it at WP:VPP next week when I have more time, but if anyone is feeling industrious and wants to do so themselves, that would be great: drop me note on my talk page if you do, please! Snow ^{let's rap} 20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal pasting rambling screed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Somebody using 107.77 IPs keeps jumping around to various articles to post paragraphs of obnoxious text, a rambling jumble of political issues. The person often puts four tildes in the edit summary. A list of involved IPs is below. Earlier today Edgar181 set a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/107.77.195.0/24, and last September Ivanvector blocked one of the IPs for year,[105] but the disruption continues. Can more be done to stop this character? It seems that a larger rangeblock would have collateral damage, but perhaps it's warranted. Or multiple rangeblocks tailored to fit the pattern. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Feb 24, US. 107.77.194.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 24, Michigan. 107.77.195.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 23, Kentucky. 107.77.194.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Michigan. 107.77.195.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Ohio. 107.77.195.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Michigan. 107.77.195.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 21, Ohio. 107.77.195.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 21, US. 107.77.193.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 20, Missouri. 107.77.192.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, Michigan. 107.77.195.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, US. 107.77.193.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, Pennsylvania. 107.77.192.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 18, Pennsylvania. 107.77.192.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, US. 107.77.193.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, Tennessee. 107.77.194.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, US. 107.77.194.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 24, 2018, Maryland. 107.77.203.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Prolog already blocked 107.77.192.0/22. That might be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It won't be enough. The person has been doing the same thing for years. The week long rangeblock will help for a week, then it will resume. Perhaps an edit filter would help? -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a filter here, but the vandal tends to learn quick. There's also a third active rangeblock on 166.216.159.0/24. Prolog (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The past few weeks he's been pretty consistent about the core delusions. Perhaps updating the filter? He does travel and we'll end up with his garbage in various articles. I periodically search using some of his more recent terms to find them, but if a filter gets even 50%, that's helpful. His home spot is Pennsylvania, but I've seen some posts from DC ip addresses. Ravensfire (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire, Filter updated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban violation by Sotuman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sotuman has violated his AE topic ban ([106]) at [107]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no record of a ban in the log, to which Sotuman was referred by Bishonen, or at Bishonen, other than the notice on Sotuman's talk page, there was nothing. If there is a ban, the notice indicates that it applies to editing the flood geology article. It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page. Sotuman (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AS an uninvolved admin, I hereby advice you that the article content on your user talk is not acceptable and needs to be removed at once. You are skating on very thin ice. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, please allow me a reasonable amount of time to do so...

To answer your question, Sotuman is a name I made up a long time ago but I don't identify with it to the extent that I only use first person. It also helps me to be professional and objective in my responses. It means I don't take things too personally. Sotuman (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is dif of the notice on Sotuman 's talk page. However, such need to be appropriately logged. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Okay, I cleaned up the talk page, please advise whether further action is required. Sotuman (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I missed logging Sotuman's topic ban from Flood geology and related pages (now rectified). I apologize. But is this an excuse for him to violate a clearly described ban?[108] No. Please note that my ban notice contains the sentence "Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is". WP:TBAN is a brief, pedagogical explanation of what a topic ban is, which makes it perfectly clear that the ban applies to the article's talk page (if "Flood geology and related pages" didn't do it). Ignoring my information and then claiming that "It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page" is a poor show. The ban applies to discussion of flood geology on all pages on Wikipedia, including talkpages, including Sotuman's own talkpage. Sotuman, go read WP:TBAN now, please. I for my part will excuse any topic violations so far, with only a warning; I usually do, since experience shows that many or even most users start off by violating them. Any further violations will be met with escalating blocks. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, please respond to this comment relocated from your talk page:

Recently you placed a notice of a topic ban on Sotuman's talk page, and directed Sotuman (this writer) to the log. However, upon searching, nothing was found about a ban applying to Sotuman there. Even so, Sotuman was careful to not speak on the topic, not only on the article itself, but also on the article talk page, even though the discussion was not entirely concluded. Sotuman did respond to some user input on his user talk page that had accumulated while he was away, including to your notice. In the response to you, Sotuman explained why it seemed to him that there was concensus for the type of improvement he had wanted to make to the article: adding an about template at the top so that people confused by similar terms would be able to quickly and easily go to those pages. But it seems that someone had blanked part of his talk page before he had finished making his responses, and when he finished the edit, the previously written content on the topic was restored from being blanked. This incidental restoration, which was part of a the larger edit, is now being used as grounds for accusing Sotuman of violating the apparently undocumented topic ban. Could you please answer and explain what is going on? Thanks so much. Sotuman (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In brief, no, I can't. I just wrote up a full reply to the above, explaining what was going on, only to be met by an edit conflict when I went to post, because by then you had moved it to ANI. Please stop yanking people around. I'm not inclined to recreate my longish reply, since I have already answered above, but I will say this: don't you think it's a little inconsiderate to expect me to dig out your edits from the history of your talkpage, which you have now archived, in order to deal with them in detail? It's the middle of the night here (I'm not saying that's your fault). Maybe I'll have the time and energy to deal with the finer points buried in your page history tomorrow. BTW, do you realise just how irritating that referring to yourself in the third person is? There's nothing "professional and objective" about the impression it makes. Your way of writing may help you, even if I don't understand how, but it does a disservice to your reader. Please remember the aim of writing is communication. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

It's okay, take your time, no worries. Sorry I don't have a lawyer, so I have to represent myself. Sorry for relocating the comment here. Maybe it was a mistake for me to put it on your talk page in the first place. I just want everything to be ordered and in the same place before the proceedings begin. Thanks so much for your patience, and I hope you have a good night. Sotuman (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking these are proceedings, or that a lawyer would be of use. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (another link in my ban notice which you may or may not have consulted). Sanctions such as these are called discretionary because they are placed at an administrator's discretion. The idea of that is to avoid the full pomp of arbitration cases and/or ANI discussions every time an editor disrupts "our most contentious and strife-torn articles". For the basics, it's really enough to read the "nutshell" at the DS page. I acted within my discretion when placing the topic ban; you, in turn, have the right of appeal. Is that what you're doing now, here — appealing? I don't know if you read the last sentence in my ban notice, or read it with any interest); it says "If you wish to appeal against the ban, please check out the process described here, or ask on my talk page and I will explain how to do it." You didn't ask on my page, and you haven't used any of the recommended venues, which are WP:ARCA, WP:AE, and WP:AN. But you have written a good deal here, on ANI, in a thread started by someone else. If you'd like to consider this thread your appeal, that's fine, we needn't be bureaucratic about it. Or would you rather start over with one of the recommended boards, so that you can shape your appeal from the beginning? I'll leave that to you. Here at ANI, as at WP:AN, the community will review your appeal; at WP:AE, uninvolved admins will; and at WP:ARCA, the arbitrators will. (I don't recommend you start at ARCA; the arbs are glacially slow, for one thing.) Whichever one you choose, you have already made it pretty inconvenient for people to review, since you have removed everything you want to refer to from your page. I'd advise you to put it back, if you expect people to take the time for a review of your appeal. Remember everybody's a volunteer here. Please let me know if this thread or something else is your appeal, and whether or not you intend to take my advice about putting back the relevant stuff on your page, such as my ban notice and whatever else people will need to consult. (Only the relevant stuff, please, as that would be in everybody's best interest.) Then I'll reply to your questions. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Sotuman: Please refer to yourself as "I". The third person stuff makes it too hard to follow a conversation. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sotuman's appeal of his topic ban from Flood geology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I, Sotuman, do hereby appeal the AE topic ban.

However, before restoring any material which I archived on what I took to be the advice of Dlohcierekim, I require a guarantee that this action will not be construed as a further violation of the topic ban. I also need to know all of what you consider relevant so that I may respond accordingly. Sincerely, Sotuman (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen, In the interest of expediency, perhaps it will be good to ask the following if the sum total of my interaction with them was to waste their time, Yes or No: @Mikenorton:, @PaleoNeonate:, @Dave souza:, @Theroadislong:, @Sjö:, @McSly:,@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:,@Hob Gadling:, @Johnuniq:, @Doug Weller:, @Tgeorgescu:.

If the concensus is in the affirmative, then I will definitely consider withdrawing my appeal, and if in the negative, then please will you reconsider the topic ban? Sotuman (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither, nor. I generally want to give editors the chance to fully know what they could do in order to avoid blocks or bans. So, yes, if the editors are reasonable, they will mind the advice and avoid sanctions. I do not consider that a wasted effort, though the option to mind my advice is not in my own hands. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you wasted my time, and has no bearing on your topic ban. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Sotuman, dealing with you has been a complete waste of time due to your repeated refusal to comply with policies and insistence on promoting your original research. You'd do best to learn to edit constructively in accordance with policy in a topic area where you don't have these preconceived opinions. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Ouch, that hurts. Is my pain to be classified as original research, or a preconceived opinion too? FYI, if you check the page history of the article, you will see that I did make several constructive edits. I also spent more time than everyone else put together to explain my actions on the talk page. I was the one who bothered to participate meaningfully in the discussion, and now I am the one penalized for it. What bitter irony is this? The audacity, to accuse me of wasting your little time, when I have been so generous with mine. It's not good resort to accusing editors you disagree with, as they are at least as vested as you are. Sotuman (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sotuman. I'm not sure myself what's relevant, because your post here is obscure to me. Please just restore anything that you wish to refer to in your appeal to your talkpage. Or, even better, forget about your talkpage and instead give diffs for any posts you refer to. A diff is a code that uniquely identifies a post, and what worries me is that you may not yet have learned to create them. The process is described in the help page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Please read that, and let me know if you think you can follow the instructions there and create the diffs you need. (I created that help page myself, and did my best to accommodate new users, so I hope you'll find it helpful.) Let me know if you find diff-creation problematic, and we'll figure out something else. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. I thank you very much for the diff guide, which I fully intend to use. Before the appeal proper, I wanted to do a preliminary hearing to determine whether the involved people thought I was wasting their time on the article from which you banned me. This criterion is important because it formed the concluding statement of the rationale for your ban notice that was posted to my talk page. The people who I tagged in my previous edit already know their own involvement and will be able to support the ban or not based on your criterion. If the answer is yes, it was a waste of time, then I will probably not continue my appeal of the ban, as the community will have already spoken against me. So not including you and me, but including this user who I have just brought up to speed on the situation, there are twelve votes to count. This is the count so far:

Tgeorgescu: No, Theroadislong: Yes,dave souza: Yes,Johnuniq:Maybe yes,Doug Weller Perhaps

No Not a waste of time = 1

Yes Waste of time = 2

Maybe yes or Perhaps = 2

This leaves 7 more people left to vote. Sotuman (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't twist things, I said "It's irrelevant whether you wasted my time" you did waste it, but I fail to see the relevance regarding your topic ban. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant because the question of whether or not I wasted people's time formed the criterion for the topic ban. I've changed the tally to reflect your now-clarified answer, thank-you. The ban notice is here: [109].Sotuman (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When you appeal your topic ban, you do not get to frame the question that people must consider. Each of us can consider it in our own way, and decide whether your topic ban should continue based on our own individual considerations, and your appeal is not judged on a vote on a specific question as framed by you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Boing!, you seem to simply be re-stating what you put below four minutes prior to this post. Please see my response there. Sotuman (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Searching Talk:Flood geology for "Sotuman" shows that the topic ban is needed to avoid repetitive argumentation and inability to accept consensus. In principle, disagreements are fine but WP:FRINGE topics can never satisfy all editors and an enthusiast can easily outlast editors concerned with maintaining articles in accordance with policies. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please answer the question of whether or not you think I was a waste of your time. This is important because in the topic ban notice, Bishonen specifically stated that, "[Sotuman has] been wasting other people's time at Flood geology long enough." This idea of what I wrote there being a waste of time to other people appears to be the main rationale for applying the ban, but is it actually true? This is why I'd like to know. Sotuman (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. The topic ban looks valid to me, and having read the indicated user talk page content and the appeal here (which does not really address the reasons for the ban), I see no justification in ending it or modifying it. (But what I do see is a failure to understand Wikipedia's approach to balance, NPOV, verifiability, etc - eg "there should be equal weight given to different but complementary views regardless of how many people hold to one view or the other, especially since Wikipedia has no way to accurately assess such quantities" is fundamentally misunderstanding how evidence works.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks for taking an interest in this situation. Allow me to bring you up to speed, after which you are also welcome to answer the question of whether or not I am a waste of your time: That section on the talk page was examining the limits of science. Geologists are very often much like forensic investigators, able only to interpret the aftermath of an event. On a long-cold case such as the formation of the majority of the earth's surface geology, it seems that the mainstream scientific effort is less about following the clues than fitting them by decree into the preferred uniformitarian-biased model. This action reduces the scientific method to the level of squabbles about which type of pizza is the best. How many people hold to a specific view becomes totally irrelevant, because the focus has shifted from the objective evidence of sedimentary deposits to the preferrence of the investigator. The answers to the questions we ask about the origins of this part of the earth's geology are given the form of highly-detailed artistic renditions that each carry about as much weight as the next person's. An article with a certain title should be about floods, geology, sedimentary geology, or surface-water hydrology, but it looks to me like an ugly art installation, an elephantine straw-man whose effect is to hinder those who wish to learn something about how moving water affects the earth. Despite all this, I am prepared to accept the article as-is. My final effort was to add an about template at the top, and now it seems I'm topic-banned. How is this supposed to promote discussion? Sotuman (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion here is not to continue with your personal views on science in general, or geology specifically. That is not the purpose of your talk page either - or, in fact, the purpose of Wikipedia at all. And this reply does not change my opinion that the topic ban should remain. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you then recusing yourself from the question of whether or not the effect of my efforts at discussion on the forbidden topic talk page were or were not a waste of time? Please find the ban notice [110].Sotuman (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When your topic ban is up for review, you do not get to dictate the way I must review it or what specific questions I must consider. I have reviewed it in my way, and I support the upholding of the ban. That is all. My advice to you at this point would be to drop this subject, and go do something constructive somewhere on the rest of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Boing!, I won't be quote mined and allow you to dictate the style of my appeal. If you view my input on the banned topic as a waste of time, just say so. No one is forcing you to continue commenting here except yourself. The reason it is important is because the question of whether or not I was wasting people's time formed the rationale for the ban in the first place. So it's really not me who's dictating what must be reviewed, it's in the notice itself. Sotuman (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Decline Sotuman may mean well, but as he's asked, I found him a time sink. Boing! has said it well - there's no suggestion in Sotuman's appeal that he understands why he was banned or our policies and guidelines, despite editors trying to explain them to him. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for your input. I do mean well, so thank-you very much for this good-faith acknowlegement. Also thank-you for taking the time and effort to patiently explain some of the policies and guidelines to the many different people here on Wikipedia who may not be as seasoned as you. I can't say it enough, Wikipedia needs people like you. Sotuman (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Please clarify whether a "time sink" is the same as a "waste of time". You appear to sink a lot of time into Wikipedia in general, but I suspect that this is your choice and that you enjoy it. Otherwise, why would you do it? Therefore I re-interpret your answer as only Perhaps, and this is noted above. Sotuman (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sea lion in its native, non-encyclopdia, environment. DlohCierekim (talk)

• Decline. Sotuman's TBan is a reflection of refusal to drop the stick. So is this appeal. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Is there a Wikipedia essay or guidline or policy to elucidate that remark?? Obviously I am interested in fighting for my unhindered ability to contribute to Wikipedia. Who reading this wouldn't make some attempt at the same, were they facing a topic ban? Wikipedia is not so big that the right of any individual editor to participate in a discussion directly concerning them should be treated so flippantly. Sotuman (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:STICK. See also WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I am not the one who beat the horse to death. I am the one who was trying to convince people that it is a rotting dead horse and that it should probably be cleaned up, or have some sort of warning sign posted so passers by don't end up wasting their time there or worse, getting some sort of deadly disease. Sotuman (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sotuman, do you realize I gave you a very narrow topic ban — from one quite limited subject only — and that you can edit the entire rest of Wikipedia? Your ability to edit 99.9999% of Wikipedia is completely unhindered. Your question "Who reading this wouldn't make some attempt at the same, were they facing a topic ban?" is rhetorical, no doubt, but honestly, I think the answer would be "most people reading this wouldn't make such a song and dance about such a tiny topic ban". Do you really have no interest at all in the other 99.9999%? Also, you should realize that the people you have pinged aren't obliged to answer you, though quite a few of them have had the kindness to do so. They're volunteers. Please read WP:SEALION and think about it. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

I'm a volunteer too, and for the most part, exercise a lot of kindness in my replies. At least, I haven't been blocked by the founder, yet. Yet I am referred to as being a civil POV pusher, as if this isn't exactly what everyone else is too who participates in the talk pages. Why does this feel like a case of me vs everyone else? The topic ban is unnecessary and unjust. Please can you take it off? Have you ever been topic banned, even for a short time to see what it felt like? Or maybe you have experienced a tiny pebble in the bottom of your shoe and tried walking any distance. This is not a life or death situation, but still serious enough to warrant stopping what you're doing, taking the shoe off, and shaking it upside down until the pebble is gotten rid of, possibly even while doing a little song and dance. That is how I feel about this topic ban. It doesn't stop me from doing most of what I want to, but that doesn't mean it belongs in my shoe either. Sotuman (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"At least, I haven't been blocked by the founder, yet". I see you've done some opposition research, Sotuman, and come up with my block at the hands of Jimbo Wales in 2009. Your broad hint misfired a bit, as I'm rather proud of Jimbo's block (see the circumstances at WP:BLOCKABDICATE). But I can see what you were trying to do, and it disinclines me from taking any further part here, explaining stuff to you, etc. This community discussion will lift your topic ban or not (at the moment it's looking like "not) — not me — I'm done. Bishonen | talk 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

I know you're proud of it, otherwise why would you showcase it on your user page? Who else can say they've been blocked by Jimbo, and for calling someone a little shit? I think it's hilarious and pretty awesome. It wasn't an ad hominem, it was an acknowlegement of your credibility. Thank-you for your commitment to letting the community discussion lift the ban in due time. I agree that it seems that the time is not yet, hence the "indefinite" part of the ban. But one thing I need to know is, since the topic of how moving water deposits sediment is fascinating to me, I need guaranties that unless I mention the exact term of the forbidden topic in my future discussions, I will not be considered as having violated the ban. I am not at all interested in the pseudoscience, and it is most unfortunate that the title of the forbidden article is so confusing. Sotuman (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not at all interested in the pseudoscience - are you sure? —PaleoNeonate – 03:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested in the study of floods and geology, and have a huge problem with an article that combines these terms in its title but is a mockery because it doesn't explain either. That much is clear in the archive you linked to. Sotuman (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• decline per above. Sotuman's arguments are most convincing of the need to maintain the TBAN. Sotuman's tenacity is just plain disruptive. The need to "fight" is quite troubling in that the user cannot see how disruptive they are. This is not a legal proceeding, though you would not realize it reading the cross examination that Sotuman makes of other editors. Please, Sotuman, do find some other way to improve Wikipedia. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not a friggin sea lion! If this was a legal proceeding, it would have been thrown out of court by now. I'm not the one who started this post, I didn't force anyone to comment here. We're all here by our own volition and have unique and valuable contributions to make. Sotuman (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right about it being thrown out, but wrong in your assumption of the result. Wikipedia's administrator community has the authority to ban people form specific topics if their input is a net negative. The total number of such people who have ever realised - at least at the time - that their contributions are a net negative, is approximately the square root of fuck all. Which is, in pretty much every case, exactly why the ban was put in place: the egregious idiots we simply block. You are now in violation of one of the laws that definitely does apply on Wikipedia, the law of holes. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to jump in anywhere, Guy. When something is thrown out of court, it's because the prosecution didn't have a case, FYI. There it is again, everybody, the inexplicable use of the undefined "we" pronoun. Do you have multiple personality disorder or something? People get annoyed when I refer to myself in the third person, but at least it is clear who is included and who is being referring to. Sotuman (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

hole problem DlohCierekim (talk)

As a point of fact, I never said anyone was a sea lion. I just added a picture of one. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never been blocked by Mr Wales. I did block myself once. That was embarrassing. I fear this hole problem may run deeper than anyone thought. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

<misleading header removed>

This topic ban is an insult to the spirit of Wikipedia. Those who have declined my emotional and logical appeal have done so without proper consideration or empathy. The ban itself remains arbitrary and unjustifiable. A couple have stated unequivocally that I am guilty of wasting their time, and I can make no apology for that. I guess you had better get back to doing whatever it was you were doing before that's so much more important than the abuse of a single tenacious Wikipedian. Sotuman (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to use wildly misleding headers here, sorry, Sotuman. "Current conclusion" sounds like it would be followed by the community's conclusion at the moment — not like it would be followed by an outburst from you, as it was. I've removed it. People, aren't we done with this discussion, which has devolved into upset and anger and accusations of "abuse"? How about somebody uninvolved figuring out the actual conclusion and closing? Just a suggestion. Bishonen | talk 06:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

It would certainly appear so. In any event, Sotuman, the admins who declined your appeal are under no onus to satisfy you; obviously you don't like their decision, but that doesn't make their decision cruel or poorly-reasoned. Topic bans are not "insults" to the "spirit" of Wikipedia. Acting in such a fashion to provoke a topic ban is. Ravenswing 06:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-close comments

@Bishonen: It actually wasn't a bad idea to remove the current conclusion heading, because the matter is not yet concluded. However, this discussion shall be temporarilly suspended for a period of 3-6 months. The template for marking it as closed was wrongly applied. Someone needs to make a new template for suspended discussions.

@Ravenswing: When "such a fashion" refers to an editor adding an about template to the top of an article with ample explanation of why that action is desirable, the placement of a topic ban on the editor is against the spirit of Wikipedia because it demonstrates that rationale is less important than concensus, when in fact legitimate concensus can only arise when there has been adequate explanation of rationale. Similarly for this appeal, which I have not even properly gotten to by applying the diff guide that Bishonen kindly made, how can a person say "I have reviewed it in my way, and I support the upholding of the ban. That is all." and expect that to be accepted as an explanation? There is no articulated reasoning whatsoever. That you call it poorly-reasoned is an overstatement. Sure, I am disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm from other users. They have no problem banning people arbitrarily, tattle-taling, or sending template notices of edit-warring or other alleged policy violations, or even sending mildly conciliatory messages after an appeal fails, but where is all the accompanying rationale? I'd like to see a little more gusto as far as reasoning is concerned before indefinite topic bans are allowed to stand, and few less patronizing conciliatory messages on my talk page.

This may even be labelled as in violation of some policy, or just another outburst of upset or anger, when in fact I'm not angry or upset, just disappointed with the inability of my acusers to reason their own actions out. It's like a kangaroo court. Dlohcierekim put "...do find some other way to improve Wikipedia.", and made noble attempts at comic relief, while Boing reiterated "...go do something constructive somewhere on the rest of Wikipedia." Maybe, the best thing anyone can do for Wikipedia at the moment is to encourage those editors who think of their time as "...Wikipedia's most precious resource [that] must not be recklessly squandered." to stop their pursuit of frivolous bans in the first place, especially when it's against editors like me who were actually trying to improve the article space. Sotuman (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Closer's post-close comments

The original close of this thread was edited, and additional comments were added (diff, diff, diff). The original closing statement has now been restored by another editor (thank you). I've added the "Post-close comments" header above. Leviv ich 21:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef block of Sotuman

After the shenanigans with editing the above closed discussion, Sotuman's next edit was a violation of the topic ban. I have blocked indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• move to close the whole section Appeal of TBAN was declined above. Sotuman then violated said TBAN and has been blocked indefinitely. I endorse said indef. DlohCierekim (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD started by now confirmed sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NickBubbleBuddy was blocked by Zzuuzz as a confirmed sockpuppet of Simulation12 several hours ago. To be honest, I've actually asked Zzuuzz the question but he doesn't appear to be online so I thought I'd ask it here. Simulation12 is a long term puppetmaster with numerous socks and in his short time here as NickBubbleBuddy started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Man Standing (season 7). What happens with the AfD now? Should it be procedurally closed as the creation of a sock? If all of the sock's edits, including the deletion tag that he added to the article, are removed that really screws up the AfD anyway, but they shouldn't be there in any case. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained reverts on Balhae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an on-going content dispute between me and Anchuhu on Balhae and its related articles. I try my best to explain my edits in edit summaries, providing my reasoning for those edits. I also attempted discussion at the talk page.[111] Anchuhu however is irresponsive to this attempt at discussion and hardly provides any reason for his reverts. I would follow the WP:Dispute resolution protocol, but he is not even attempting to explain and discuss his edits, so I can't proceed to any dispute resolution efforts on the article content. I'd like administrative intervention to encourage Anchuhu into engaging in discussion, and hopefully proceed to dispute resolution on the article content at Balhae and its related articles. Koraskadi (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you notify anyone you report here on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~. I have gone ahead and notified Anchuhu on your behalf. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And I have fully protected the page; some more eyes on this might prove conducive. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block request for SpeedRunnerOfPersia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• SpeedRunnerOfPersia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SpeedRunnerOfPersia is, at the least, WP:NOTHERE. They have engaged in disruptive editing, including the insertion of false information which constitutes vandalism. I am requesting a block for this user. Note, this edit came after a final warning on the user's talk page.

This user appears to be particularly interested in far-right, libertarian, and Nazi topics. However, they are editing in ways to subtly change information to false or incorrect statements. Sometimes this means reversing terms (e.g., classless to class-based, capitalism to communism, this edit, taxation is theft to property is theft, right-wing to libertarian, anti to pro, and right-wing to democratic).

This user also likes to mess with the See Also lists ([112], [113], [114], [115]). This user also likes to remove capitalism from articles without any stated reason ([116], [117], [118], [119]). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's dcontributions are often problematic. When I have a little more time I'll post some examples. Also -- although there is nothing against policy about this -- SROP is one of those editors who almost immediately deletes everything from their talk page, so it's almost impossible to get a sense of what comments and warnings they've received from other editors. One has to look at the tlak page history and check each version before the comments were deleted to see that they are the recipient of fairly constant warnings and complaints. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. User talk page purges: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indef until they start talking to the other humans. Communication is not optional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor attempting to game AfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Rugile.za5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been attempting to add an article about a Lithuanian ice-cream company (DIONE) to the project for two months; however, the manner in which they are doing so leads me to think they should be blocked. Their various drafts (Draft:Dione (ice cream), Draft:DIONE) have all been either deleted via G11 or have been rejected multiple times, and a COI inquest (they have been able to upload professionally-shot photographs of Dinoe products as their "own work" that are not obvious copyvios) on their talkpage has been ignored twice at User_talk:Rugile.za5#Editing_with_a_possible_conflict_of_interest. Their most extensive draft, Draft:DIONE, was recently rejected by an AfC reviewer after being declined three times. Now, they have moved on to copy-paste creating new drafts (Draft:DIONE Ice Cream, Draft:DIONE (ice cream)) to avoid this rejection; this is fairly clearly a WP:GAMING of the AfC process. Requesting an admin take a look. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase SamHolt6's last sentence: requesting an admin to block an obvious spammer, with an equally clear cut conflict of interest, and by whose contribs—those not deleted, anyway—is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing against the terms of use. Etc. ——SerialNumber54129 15:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear promotialism, block and salt.Slatersteven (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Clivemasters's edits to Lance Percival

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over several months User:Clivemasters has made repeated edits to Lance Percival, reintroducing unsourced and non-neutral content, and removing well-sourced content. He has not properly engaged in talk page discussions and has been repeated asked not to introduce this content without discussion.

The issues are:

• The unsourced claim that Percival was racing another car on a public road before a fatal accident.[128]
• Removal of the inflation-adjusted equivalent figure for the damages paid by Percival for the accident.[link as above]
• Addition of 'only' to the amount of damages paid (PoV edit).[129]

I and User:Martinevans123 have repeatedly tried to discuss this with Clivemasters at Talk:Lance Percival and at User talk:Clivemasters, but he has responded only once, here. Since then he has reintroduced the disputed material four times without contributing to the talk page discussions.

• 2 August 2018: Deleted the amount of damages converted to its value today, clearly an attempt to make the paltry sum paid sound much more than it is [130]
• 22 October 2018: After seeing a documentary about how wikipaedia represents the establishment, I decided to re-edit this page and will continue to do so unless someone gives me a very good reason, other than that the 'powers that be' say it must be so.[131]
• 17 February 2019:[132]
• 26 February 2019:[133]

The edit summary on 22 October indicates that Clivemasters intends to continue to restore this content. This has become disruptive, and I think that administrative action is now needed. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Summoned by link. I tend to agree. I seem to recall he may have some connection with an amateur video posted on YouTube by "hopethisworks1212" which is critical of Percival. The account is easily found if people want to search for it. It's only my suspicion, of course, but it seems to follow the same peculiar agenda. He seems to be largely a WP:SPA: [134] -- Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account indefinitely, to force them to join the discussion on the talk page before making the same edit again. The edit summary from 10/22/18 linked above is a deal-breaker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raresterling legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Raresterling was blocked by JJMC89 on 19th Feb, and they now appear to be making legal threats on their talk page [135], I think they need talk page access removed. Thank you. Agent00x (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated Personal Attacks with disgracing insults by Future Perfect at Sunrise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a discussion in Talk:North_Macedonia I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed Prespa agreement between North Macedonia and Greece in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia". Admin User User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as:

you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282

And: you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841

Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206

I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635

I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. .

His response had no regret or apology: You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558 - Stevepeterson (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add here, that my proposal (bad grammar or not) is the recommended adjective by the UN and North Macedonia's MFA. There is an ongoing RFC to decide on the matter this proposal is one of the options (Option A). Futur.Perf supports a different option (C: Macedonian) [[136]] which might hint that his motivation behind the attack is not purely linguistic. - Stevepeterson (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Stevepeterson, you need to notify the person of this ANI thread. You can copy and use the red notice at the top of this page and paste it on their talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise, I recommend striking your personal attacks (the ones noted by the OP), and making your points going forward without personal attacks (indeed, without referring to editors, only to edits/content), and this can all be put to bed unless it is part of a broader pattern. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Having read the full thread at Talk:North Macedonia#Prespa agreement, I find FPAS' comments to you unsurprising, but a bit overboard nonetheless. Your English is perfectly adequate to write, but it is absolutely inadequate to lecture any native speaker as to how English is supposed to work. You simply do not have that competence. This fact was iterated to you nearly a dozen times by everyone explaining, thoroughly, the problems with your sentence constructions. I am afraid you and some editors here ... have chosen war over peace and the right of self determination of the Macedonian people <- This is a jerk comment, while I'm here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr rnddude! Now, I am a jerk too.. so, you are just trying to justify that because I have made such a comment, I am a jerk who deserves to be bullied and labelled as incompetent to contribute to a discussion - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you clearly don't know as much about English sentence construction as you think you do, nor indeed about Wikilink syntax. If you don't use this as a learning moment, you're going to dig yourself into a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion below, Stevepeterson edited their reply after the above reply by BMK [137] Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Stevepeterson - 1) I'm not saying you are a jerk, I said that that was a "jerk comment". Good people can say jerk-ish things. I don't know you personally, and thus have no opinion as to your general character. 2) I am not using it to justify your being bullied, in fact, I do not think you have been bullied in the first place. I maintain that FPAS went overboard, but that's not the same as bullying. 3) I also have not "labelled [you] as incompetent to contribute to a discussion", I have identified that you are "inadequate[ly competent] to lecture" someone on English. For one, you are still continuing to assert (refer below) that possessive nouns are actually possessive adjectives. "North Macedonia" is a name (noun), not a description (adjective). So it's possessive form is a noun as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Stevepeterson: I checked each of the diffs given above. They start with a comment at 23 February 2019 and a couple after. The comment is less than ideal but look at all the blather on that talk page (and an RfC). I do not see an issue of long-term incivility. Wikipedia is pretty tolerant of the fact that most editors are human and will get a bit worked up from time to time. I do not know why you consider the comment to be so intolerable that you need redress here. After all, the issue was a claim that "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" should be used in an article. No it shouldn't—it's just bad English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you [[User:Mr rnddude|Johnuniq]], the discussion was about Prespa agreement and the related "MEDIA GUIDELINES by North Macedonia's MFA" which indicate that correct adjectives for the State of North Macedonia ( official organs and other public entities etc) are "President of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia’s Defense Minister", while adjectives such as North Macedonian, Macedonian should not be used. Hence my jerk comment about respecting peace agreements and the will of Macedonian people - Stevepeterson (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This response was actually meant for Mr rnddude above not for Johnuniq.

That source you link to says: "•Official language: “Macedonian language”? The "advice" given in adjectival forms seems to depend wholly on the context. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the Prespa agreement makes some rather subtle distinctions, allowing the adjective "Macedonian" in some contexts but not in others. That much is uncontroversial in principle. The discussion was how to deal with those contexts where the official prescriptive rule allows only the possessive construction. My point was that there are certain situations where it would be unnatural or cumbersome for English not to use adjectives, and Stevepeterson's contention was that that isn't a problem because the possessive (and in particular, the -s genitive) can simply be inserted anywhere an adjective could otherwise be used too (he actually insists that it is in fact an adjective), leading to that absurd example of "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime minister". Which, last time he posted on the article talk page, he was still defending as perfectly grammatical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is perfectly clear. That example is indeed quite absurd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that it was the guidelines that suggested that correct adjectives for the State are "of North Macedonia" "North Macedonia's". Based on this, they are also called possessive adjectives. So why suddenly I am the most incompetent editor even for a discussion page? I suspect that it is plainly because my proposal implied that Macedonian would not be used as an adjective for the state of North Macedonia, as user future.perfect has voted for in the RFC. - Stevepeterson (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

1) No, the guideline does not say that "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia's" are adjectives, it mentions them as adjectival reference, which is not quite the same.

2) No, the Possessive determiner article does not say that constructions like "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia's" are called adjectives. It says that possessive determiners (like "my", "your", "her") also can be called possessive adjectives, and it says that the term "possessive determiner" also may be used to include possessive forms made from nouns, but doing both at the same time is your synthesis. --T*U (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that WP should adhere to Prespa and to the adjective that North Macedonia's MFA recommends. It was Future.perf (not a native speaker) who brought the example of "the Greek and North Macedonia's Prime Ministers) to prove how this adjective would lead to poor grammar. I responded that although it is indeed not common or elegant, it is not incorrect to use two adjectives of different types (one possessive one not). But despite what the adjective to the State would be, the sentence Greek and Macedonian PMs would also be acceptable because they are adjectives to citizenship not to the States. I am surprised that you believe Future.perf behaviour should be tolerated. - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You see, that comment was almost entirely incomprehensible. You simply don't know enough to be editing articles in English Wikipedia if it involves any kind of extensive writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion below, Stevepeterson edited their reply after the above reply by BMK [138] Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just as an aside, "Macedonian" is permitted by the agreement as a valid adjective for the people and nation of North Macedonia, but even if it wasn't, Wikipedia linguistic usage is governed by WP:COMMONNAME, not by the agencies and ministries of either Greece or North Macedonia. FPAS's advocacy of the term is not remotely a casus belli worthy of mention at ANI. Ravenswing 05:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, in the thread, I also agreed that Macedonian should be used as an adjective to the PM of North Macedonia. Our discussion was about finding an adjective to the state of North Macedonia and, following UN and MFA's recommendations I suggested North Macedonia's - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reminder: ANI, and this ANI thread, is not the place to discuss or re-litigate content issues; the place for that is the talkpage of the article. This ANI thread is for discussing personal attacks and WP:ADMINCOND, and other behavioral issues of anyone involved. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• FPAS may have expressed it too strongly, but it's perfectly true that the OP's command of English is not as good as he appears to believe it is. I'd recommend that they drop this, take onboard that evaluation of their English skills, and refrain from lecturing other editors about English grammar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent, but unfortunately it's sometimes necessary to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect. Stevepeterson's command of English is so poor he can't even begin to realize how poor it is, and he is convinced that just because he himself can't feel anything wrong with an ungrammatical construction, it must in fact be perfectly acceptable. Of course, that in itself wouldn't justify discussion in normal circumstances, but Stevepeterson is participating in a large, complex RfC about just these matters of English usage. He has been filling it with huge amounts of text over the last days, trying his hardest to push it into a direction that would not only encourage but even require the use of grossly ungrammatical constructions across potentially hundreds of articles. This is disruptive and it has to stop. So yes, Stevepeterson needs to shut up about that grammar issue, and since he lacks the self-awareness, he needs to be told. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reading through this discussion, I did not quite understand BMK's comment here until I saw this edit made two hours after the comment from BMK. As late as yesterday I advised Stevepeterson about changes old posting. In that situation it was rather innocent, but in the present thread the refactoring, without marking what they have changed, is either in CIR territory or plain disruptive. --T*U (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you T*U, I have only improved a bit the word styling to make my text more readable and mentioned the change. the content is exactly identical and there was certainly no other intention but to help new readers understand better Stevepeterson (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When you "improved abit the word styling", you made BMKs comment look very pedantic to people who just read the discussion and not the edit summaries. That is exactly why WP:REDACT demands that you mark your changes clearly. You either have not read it as I asked you to do, or you have chosen to ignore it. --T*U (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC didn't notice so submitting late) I wasn't intending to comment in this thread until I read this latest reply. Whatever you intended to do, or thought you were doing, it's quite concerning you don't seem to understand even after it was pointed out to you, that it was highly problematic for you to change your comment without making it clear you had changed it and after it had been replied to with that reply founded in part on what you were changing. For this reason, I'm very close to supporting a WP:CIR block. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• So if I skimmed this thread correctly, FPS has not really done anything actionable? I cannot think of a really polite way to tell someone their knowledge of English isn't quite what it could/should be. I can't quite get a rip on it myself-- I would never even try to edit in any language but English. @Stevepeterson: Sometimes less is more. Perhaps write less and pay closer attention to the sense it makes? Avoid complex structures? Oh. The worder of the above 1st sentence I get because of my (limited) German. Not sure how well it parses to non German speakers. DlohCierekim (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well as someone who is a native speaker (but a bad writer) of English I have to say I would have found some of the above comments hardly polite (and yes you can say "your standard of English is not very good" without being unnecessarily rude). But by the same token it's clear this user does not have the standard of English that even I have, and I can see why frustration would set in if they (as they seem to have done) refused to accept that their English is not as good as they clearly think it is. I would close this, with maybe a mild boomerang in the sense of mentoring and an agreement to not make any changes to articles without first running them past people whose standard of English is of a higher order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to closing this until Stevepeterson has indicated some understanding of the problem highlighted above. I.E. that they need to make it clear in the thread that they've modified their comments, when said modification comes after the comments were replied to and where their changes are likely to significantly affect at least one reply. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I maybe should clarify. If Stevepeterson really doesn't understand why it's a problem when someone comments on their English, and they modify the English that was commented on (even without a meaning change) and don't tell anyone, that's concerning. But not something that I feel needs a block. The editor can handle this simply by making sure they follow WP:REDACT or at least make some effort to indicate modification in the thread itself, even in cases where they think it doesn't matter. If they don't indicate that they will do so and still don't understand why they were wrong to think their modifications made no different to the reply, I'm willing to support a block. (Or whatever other remedy e.g. a topic ban on modifying comments after reply.) Editors are entitled to have their comments seen in proper context. Also I don't think it matters whether BMK's comment had merit before the modification, or they still had merit after. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nil Einne, I came here because I felt disrespected and insulted and I ended up receiving even more personal attacks and threats. This is shocking and I doubt that it is in line with wikipedia's guidelines. The comments about my English and my intellectual capacity here were so harsh, that I felt the need to make some minor linguistic improvements. I understand that it was a bad decision because someone had already responded at least once. My only intention was to help people understand better my comments and as you can see I made sure that the original meaning remained intact. If you feel that I deserve a block, a boomerang etc then please go ahead. - Stevepeterson (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well if you understand it was a bad decision, then I guess we can close this. That said, it sounds to me like you're still confused about the problem. If you felt your comment needed corrections, there are various ways you could have done that. The least contentious way would have been to follow the procedure outlined in WP:REDACT. As an alternative, you could have posted your corrected version as a follow up, keeping the original version completely intact or maybe striking it out (and saying in your followup you struck it out). Frankly although others may disagree, I would have personally been okay even if you had edited you response without marking it but left a note straight afterwards saying you modified it after BMK responded with a diff, as is now the case with my diff. In other words, you wanting to make corrections to your comment isn't really a problem.

The problem is when you edit your response after someone has replied to it, and leave no indication other than in the edit history this happened. It's particularly bad when by your own admission now, you editing was partly in response to comments contained in the reply. This is something which most definitely not in line with wikipedia guidelines, or really any common sense of decency.

As for the other stuff, I echo what others have said. Perhaps the responses sometimes went too far and could have been worded better, but it is true that your English capability suggests your judgement of what is and isn't good English is questionable, and so your ability to participate in discussions surrounding that is questionable. Worse then that, you seem to have great problems either understanding or accepting this, which I think has understandably annoyed people. From what I've seen your English capability it's sufficient to participate in many areas of wikipedia, so it would be better for you to do so, rather than to try and participate in areas where you are specifically arguing over what is good English.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but am I right one reason for your apparently poorer than native English capability is because it is indeed not your native language and you also understand at least one other language? If I'm right, then you could be a great asset in finding and verifying sourced material, and helping people who don't understand or poorly understand the languages you speak well with translations etc. If this doesn't interest you, there are plenty of other areas you could find which don't involve you arguing over what's good English.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia follows its own manual of style on written English and not that of the Pespra agreement, I don't see why it's even an issue or in question. And since the OP now seems to agree that this can be closed (nearly 12 hours ago), shall we do so? Unless anyone's suggesting a TBan from all things North Macedonian, broadly construed? ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Discussing about grammar before discussing about meaning is more than often a method used to discard the peasants who dare to discuss the opinion of some 'we happy few' player. If you want to convey the meaning of "Downing Street and Macedonian PM", you have to use "North Macedonia's PM" unless you want to discuss the nationality or ethnicity of both ministers. And then you have to adapt how you describe the Downing Street part to obtain a politically correct and well-balanced sentence. If you perceive that clearly, it shouldn't be to difficult to explain that clearly, and politely. Exercise: write down the contrapositive, the inverse and the converse of the former assertion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that " you have to use "North Macedonia's PM" unless you want to discuss the nationality or ethnicity of both ministers" is incorrect as "North Macedonian PM" is quite simply the PM of the country known as North Macedonia, regardless of the ethnicity of the holder of that office. --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I genuinely found this report to be concerning, along with the pile on against the OP. Calling editors “incompetent” and telling them to “shut up” and that they are an “embarrassment” is incredibly concerning coming from an admin. Then, I read the actual discussion. When you’re quite straightforwardly in the wrong about something, and are forcing an extended debate about a grammatical issue that you’re objectively wrong about, people are going to get frustrated. You were being incompetent and obtuse. Listen to criticism, and admit when you are wrong. ~Swarm~ {talk} 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• So it looks User:Stevepeterson made a lot of errors and erroneous arguments to the extent that FPS telling them that they were wrong was warranted. IMO FPS, on several occasions did that in an overly nasty way. IMO both problems should be recognized and both editors told to "stop doing that". North8000 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• And now I wonder why Stevepeterson, under the guise of unsigned postings made logged-out as an IP, and writing in deliberately obfuscated Greek in order to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand, has been going to other editors' talkpages trying to canvas for support [139]. Translation: "'Future perfect' attacked another Greek, and T-Star-U [i.e. T*U) is supporting him at ANI. Since you are experienced about the relation between those two, go and help.". Does that strike anybody else as rather poor style and an expression of quite a pronounced battleground mentality? It's quite clear from earlier edits that the IP is Stevepeterson [140]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see my response below - Stevepeterson (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wow that is not good. If that can all be shown to be true, I think that is deserving of a block. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Good catch! I rather like my crypto-Greek name "tiasterikosgiou". Maybe I'll start using it, unless Stevepeterson claims copyright, that is. What I do not quite understand, is why that specific editor was summoned. I cannot recall any controverses with them, and certainly not where also FPaS was involved. --T*U (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is descending from tragedy into farce. Propose a block as a means of emphasising to this editor how seriously their actions are taken, that they have had a lot of rope here—which they have already squandered with obfuscation^{good word  :)}, and that the sheer number of editors whose time and energy has also been squandered with trying to hammer home something that apparently they refuse to hear...OK, I suggest a short block as a method of forcibly obtaining their full attention; but, frankly, with such a litany as WP:CANVAS, WP:SOCK, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS, and almost certainly WP:CIR, then, frankly, if someone wants to propose indef instead, I'm in no-one's way. ——SerialNumber54129 18:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Okay this is nuts. I support a block given the ridiculous canvassing above. I'd also support an appropriate topic ban if they were to come back. Of course both of these could be handled via simple administrative action (at least I think so for the topic ban given [141]). Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Have I understood this right? Is this a Greek person fighting to try to stop the demonym "North Macedonian" being used in relation to North Macedonia, and thus trying to carry on the nationalist fight? I think we need at least a topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, its actually the opposite. Nationalists from Greece propose the State's adjective North Macedonian and nationalists from North Macedonia: Macedonian. Since the UN and North Macedonia's MFA released their guidelines recommending the terms of North Macedonia or North Macedonia's I have been supporting those official guidelines. I have been attacked as "incompetent to participate in a discussion" from people who claim that this proposal is poor grammar. I suspect that their intention is not to preserve the linguistic dignity of wikipedia but to shut up a voice who expresses different opinion to what they voted [[142]]. And there is no doubt that I am alone here so if there was a battlefield it would be me against a number of users with history of acting as a group against people with different opinion and/or ethnicity. You want to ban me and block me because I protested against an unfair personal attack? Please consider what kind of behaviours this would promote. - Stevepeterson (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, they wanted to say "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" rather than "the Greek and Macedonian", purportedly for semantic/technical reasons, and were being completely obtuse when people were pointing out that that terminology didn't even begin to make sense. It makes so much sense that that they're just a Greek still caught up on the naming dispute, and in hindsight, it seems obvious, coming from an editor trying to reject the validity of the term "Macedonian", but they were being deceptive, repeatedly using the term on the talk page, and waxing poetic about embracing peace and conflict resolution. All while making these twisted, bludgeoning arguments that "Macedonian" can't be used to describe the state of North Macedonia. A TBAN is a bare minimum, though I'd prefer to see a block. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In the thread and also in the RFC I support the term "Macedonian" for the ethnic group, culture , language etc, inline with the UN and Prespa resolution. The question here is about the adjective for the state of North Macedonia and all guidelines suggest North Macedonia's is the correct one (based not North Macedonia's MFA) which I also support Stevepeterson (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A demonym is what you're looking for, I believe. "North Macedonia's" is not a demonym, and "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" is grammatically incorrect English - but you have already been told that multiple times. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and as has also been explained to you multiple times, the English Wikipedia will use whatever terminology is commonly adopted in the English speaking world, not what one specific document says. It's all explained at WP:COMMONNAME. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Response from Stevepeterson (moved to here)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several users who support Fut.Perf. have a history of acting as a group to conduct topic-specific personal attacks. This is done to such extend that they have been investigated for sockpuppetry. A background check of these users would reveal that this is not the first case of personally attacking editors and acting as a group. This is taken from C*T's talk page from 2018:

I suspect you are also using wiki accounts in names Dolescum and Future Perfect at Sunrise, and a couple more at least, so as to sabotage pages on Greece and Greek related subjects. Chip on the shoulder or just another mindless vandal who resents other peoples' constructive contributions? A Gounaris

   May I verify that T*U is a "back-up" to protect a pro-albanian and anti-hellenic POV in articles related to Albanian national myths. Here is assisting in naming Ivan Castrioti "Gjon" and only "Gjon", although he is known with other names in non-albanian secondary and tertiary sources (there are no primary albanian sources). This doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is the same physical persons with FP and the others who patrol the same group articles.--User:Skylax30 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

       Skylax30 Personal attacks like the one above will not be tolerated. Consider this a warning. Although I suppose getting mistaken for editors as different as Fut Perf, a "pro-Albanian", Alexikoua and Dr.K. by different users is a sort of unintended compliment. ---- User:Calthinus (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As you can see I invited User:Calthinus to share his experience in regards to the relationship between some users here. And I even chose one who apparently had supported them in that instance not one who has protested against them eg User:Skylax30. There is no doubt that since the beginning I am acting alone here and haven't received any support whatsoever. And my history , unlike many users here includes no personal attacks - Stevepeterson (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, apart from the personal attack contained in this posting. I suspect we are done here, and there's only one response to this nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am very confused about what this is supposed to be. I don't know of any ... "relationship" and to be honest I'm not sure what users are being referred to here... ?--Calthinus (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Calthinus: You have my sympathy. This is hard enough to follow even for those of us that have seen it developing over some days... --T*U (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, don't worry, Calthinus, somebody tried to canvas you over an issue you had nothing to do with, but everybody here realizes you had no role in it at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to let you know that there is a parallel arbitration case for this. I thank you all for your time and regret any wrong doing. -Stevepeterson (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No there are three, and this is taking the right royal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: the only reasonable response to Stevepeterson's nonsense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stevepeterson is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

• Support as proposer - Clearly, the OP has not listened to anything they've been told by multiple editors, instead they've doubled down and made totally ridiculous sockpuppetry claims without evidence. They need to be indef blocked per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block/ban - While I could and would simply indef myself, I'd prefer to make this formal and final. This appears to be a long-term POV-pushing SPA who has been doing this for years, and has somehow managed to fly under the radar, due in part to deceptive efforts to portray themselves as a neutral commentator without any opinion on the matter. They're a toxic CIR/NOTHERE case who seems fundamentally incapable of any semblance of reasonable conduct, and our volunteers do not deserve to waste any more of their time trying to deal with them in good faith. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• A siteban works for me as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• TBAN I'd support a TBAN on this user mentioning the word "Macedonia" (or a ban from all of Eastern Europe / Balkans - note recent change to DS). Probably for 3 months - the Wikipedia RFC should be over by then. If they want to edit on some other topic, they should be able to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Indef block they don't appear to have any interest in letting this go. We can hear an appeal after the naming RFC is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support either TBAN or Block needs a cooling off period Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support CBAN upgrade my vote given continued disruption. The 31 hr block is a good temporary solution while we complete the CBAN Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And Stevenpeterson just thanked me for voting to Block him. That's a first Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Same. More bizarre, unhinged conduct at best, petty harassment at worst. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It was genuine politeness and inline with my style and manners throughout my editing history in Wikipedia. No sarcasm involved. Stevepeterson (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

While it is true that it is something you have done repeatedly, thanking someone for doing/saying something negative to or about you is indeed sarcastic. And please don't thank me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remember, cool down blocks are bad; cool down bocks are good. DlohCierekim (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Strange though it might seem to a certain party, it's entirely possible to support FPAS's actions without being a member of some sinister cabal, or having motives beyond upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ravenswing 06:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block (not a ban). Look out, here comes the Bishonen grammophone record: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource and must not be recklessly squandered. Bishonen | talk 06:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Just to be clear, there is no distinction between a community-imposed indef and a "ban" under policy. The only reason I invoked the word "ban" was to intentionally preempt any confusion on this subject. One cannot support the former while opposing the latter, because, according to policy, they are the same thing. This was implemented by community consensus, back in 2017. So, if you're advocating for a unilateral discretionary block to which normal blocking/unblocking procedures apply, you may quite simply impose it yourself. However, even if you were to do so, and a formal consensus endorsed the action, the user would be "banned" under policy anyway. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: my thinking was that a block can be lifted by a single admin, iff the user manages to convince them with a good unblock request, whereas a community ban must be appealed at AN/ANI. I don't see much practical difference in this case, because I have difficulty imagining a persuasive block appeal from this user; my point was rather that we don't want the trouble of another AN/ANI discussion whenever the user appeals. (As you say, our volunteers do not deserve to waste any more of their time.) But I realise you framed your support as favouring a community ban ("formal and final"). Not to doubt what you say, but do you have a link for the 2017 decision about it? Bishonen | talk 12:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: You're right, of course, on the distinction between a block and a ban, but that distinction ceases to exist with community-imposed (or endorsed) indefs. Here's the link to the relevant discussion, sorry for not providing it initially. I do follow your line of thinking in that any appeals to a ban would have to get dragged though AN again whereas regular block appeals could be dealt with with less drama. But, it's a bit of a moot point, if the community imposes an indef, regardless of whether you term it to be a "block" or "ban", it needs to go back to the community on appeal. I don't think it will be a major issue, any frivolous appeals will quickly result in a loss of TP access. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Community-imposed sanctions have to be lifted by the community, and not a single admin, unless the terms of the sanction states otherwise. There really wasn't any distinction between a community indefinite block and a ban before the change made in 2017. All that did was explicitly list "indefinite block" as a possible editing restriction that the community can impose, so it introduced the terminology while at the same time putting it under the same community review process.) isaacl (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• I suspect Bish is supporting indef over a topic ban, as those seem to be the two options on the table. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's a thought, Boing!, but no, I didn't mean that. Like you, I'll favour a t-ban in case there's an influx of opinions for it. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC).

• Support indef Despite my nest attempts to understand the user and see both sides (and yes I would say both sides are at fault (to varying degrees)) I have been left no choice by their utter unwillingness to see that what they are doing is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Note I have changed my vote, I see shenanigans.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block or site ban, also a topic ban on anything to do with Macedonia. Frankly giving what was said in the canvassing, I'd also support a topic ban on anything to do with Greece. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block (which is effectively a community ban). On the outside chance that does not pass, I would support a topic ban on all things Macedonian (or "Macedonia's" or whatever bizarre constructions you prefer). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per previous, of course, but many thanks to BMK for taking over as tricoteuse  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, "tricoteuse". I learn something new every day here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support for a WP:CBAN We all have problems, to greater or lesser extent, with admitting we are wrong. That this users stubbornness in that regard turned into this drama fest, I can accept. But canvassing (in a non English language in a manner to obfuscate that they are canvassing?) in order to rally support when they are clearly being told they are in the wrong by several users is not acceptable. As they are apparently quite fluent in Greek but not so much in English, perhaps that is where they will be of most use. ( I learned a new word last night-- sealion. Perhaps that fits. ) DlohCierekim (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  And this bit of Sturm und Drang, which includes a description of the community as a pack of hyenas, is most unsettling for someone working in a collaborative environment. And no, Stevepeterson all you had to do anywhere along this road to CBAN was turn around and say, "I was wrong and most sincerely apologize. DlohCierekim (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Can I just say that the emotional blackmail in that post (and earlier in the thread) about suicide is particularly disgusting. --Khajidha (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since that was posted by an IP while SP was blocked, I guess I should add "Block evasion" to the list above. What kind of "professional man" doesn't pay any attention when their colleagues tell them they're doing something wrong? Not a very professional one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• To be fair, if I read the timestamps correctly, he wasn't blocked yet when he made that IP edit. I don't think he's been block-evading so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: point of order-- It is neither tragedy nor farce. it is melodrama. 😏

  Now as to the TBAN, it would be a distant second choice to a CBAN as user has ridden beyond the Pale. DlohCierekim (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  Hyenas? I'd always thought more of dingos... as in that old saying (similar to the famous army slang), "wherever Wikipedia goes, the din goes too". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban/indef block. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can somebody just block this guy for disuption? They've now got three [143] [144] [145] RFARs open: Frankly, if anyone's harassed by now, it's the whole bloody project! ——SerialNumber54129 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy for our 31-hour respite  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban/indef block. Stevepeterson was the first in violation of WP:NPA at Talk:North Macedonia: You and some editors here (from both sides of the Greek-Macedonian border have chosen war to peace and the right of self determination of the Macedonian people. Before, Future Perfect at Sunrise had calmly explained why phrases like "the Greek and [$Whatever]ian prime ministers" are a "crime against English grammar". Only afterwards, Future Perfect at Sunrise responded in some sharp manner ("then you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English") but not without justification. Stevepeterson did not listen and opened in the meantime three threads at WP:ARC ([146], [147], [148]) and this thread including a proposal for a topic ban for Future Perfect at Sunrise. All this is disrupting and no understanding is forthcoming that Future Perfect at Sunrise and others are right in defending English grammar and that it is time to drop the stick. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Show them Kuzka's mother – Support any sanction my fellow editors think will be effective in stopping the timesink, and support closing this with a weather report. Leviv ich 04:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Topic ban for Future.perf.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Future.Perfect receives a topic ban for conducting personal attacks in order to influence an RFC.

• Support as proposer -

For the reasons mentioned above. Future.perf. is an administrator and should be an example of mannerism. Everything here points to the opposite. I am not flawless but I have done nothing that deserves to be banned, apart from proposing an adjective recommended by the UN (poor grammar on not) at a discussion and defending myself here from personal attacks that have continued in this very board ( by users with past accusations of acting as a group with Future.perf. in similar personal attacks. ) - Stevepeterson (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Cohen (lawyer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The inevitable is here, can someone act on this request. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Lectonar ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:AZSH

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AZSH (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has been blocked twice here and here for edit warring on the same article. They disappeared for a while and now they're back doing the exact same thing (wholesale revert to their favourite version), while claiming that the consensus that took ages and a third opinion to finally achieve is a lie. Their refusal to get the point is becoming very disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

They are back again, doing the exact same thing with complete disregard to the consensus and the ANI. I will ping the Admin who blocked them before and those who were involved in the consensus building. @CambridgeBayWeather, Wikaviani, and ReconditeRodent:. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now, they are reverting an admin (C.Fred}). What else is there to say? M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And to compound it, they have started making personal attacks toward the editor who filed the report.[149] —C.Fred (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked then. If they agree to stop edit warring or make a solid explanation why they should be unblocked then go ahead without waiting for me to comment again. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Yunshui: declined their first unblock request, I have declined their second. Posting here in case you think I/we have been unduly harsh. (interested users: @Levivich, M.Bitton, and CambridgeBayWeather:). GiantSnowman 14:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Good blocks, good declines, all around, in my opinion. Let's note for posterity that this block is the editor's third block for edit warring in about a month. The editor immediately resumed edit warring after the expiration of the first (24hr) block and second (48hr) block. Also, in the two unblock requests for this third block, the editor has simply continued arguing the content dispute. Even in response to the decline of the second unblock request today, the editor continues to argue the content dispute–it's all they're focused on. I don't think this situation deserves additional time being spent by other admin going forward. As has already been pointed out to the editor, the standard offer applies, and hopefully things will improve in 6 months. It's not up to me, but I would suggest if a third frivolous unblock request was made, restricting TPA may be in order. Leviv ich 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerns of editing NHL Canadian Teams

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have concerns of how Yowashi and I edit hockey teams. We are frequently making incorrect information because of where we are getting the stats from and how I put the numbers in. There are times where I misplace the numbers because of the numbers I add in from the team stats. Yowashi's source of the stats information comes from the regular season stats on website and sometimes, its not immediately up to date. Yowashi keeps complaining to me of how I add incorrect information when this user helps me with my editing with player stats. But Yowashi has to realize that he too has added incorrect information since the stats from hockey.com can be misleading. Also, I had corrected a handful of times of incorrect stats before if I am really suspicious of Yowashi's edits. There is one more thing that does not seem to be necessary for Yowashi to say is reordering stats to most points to least should always happen after I add in the team stats from the recap game. Their is no such difference if I did not reorganize the stats to most points to least. It can be done anytime. NicholasHui (talk) 11:04am, 22 February 2019 (PT)

These are the teams I edit with Yowashi are the 2018-19 season pages for Vancouver Canucks, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Winnipeg Jets, Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens.

NicholasHui Its not quite clear what the problem is. Can you provide diffs of the specific problem? If this is a problem involving Yowashi, you must notify them on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ Edit: I have notified Yowashi, but in the future you MUST notify users. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators has been clearly overlooked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are they a NHL team yet? Who knew? Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page by Yowashi Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC) : "Hello CaptainEek. This is just a response to the message that you had left me on my talk page. I am a regular contributor to the National Hockey League's teams season pages. Since October, NicholasHui has been persistently adding inaccurate information in regards to a player's point total located in the player statistics section. I will refer to this page 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, as one of the examples. I had informed NicholasHui about them not adding accurate information in regards to the player statistics. I find that their information is often incorrect, which leads to me having to correct the information that they have provided. I have told them to stop adding incorrect information on their talk page and also within the page's history log. However, they continue to add information from either no source, or poor sources. I told them to use this website, (Statistics), as it includes all of the player statistics from every National Hockey League team, and is also the most reliable source. This is only the first issue. A second issue that this user is also involved in, is that they are unable to reorganize the player statistics section, which is supposed to be organized from a player's point total (most points to least points, or in other words, top to bottom) system. This user occasionally refuses to reorganize the statistics section based on most points to least. For example, in the player statistics section, under "Pts", one player will have a total of ten points, while another would have eleven points. The player with eleven points would be positioned underneath the player with ten points. This is supposed to be vice versa. The editor refuses to reposition the players based on which player has more points. I had also discussed this situation to the editor, but they still occasionally refuse to do as I have told them. Another user like Sabbatino also discussed this issue with NicholasHui when he was using his former account Portmannfire. I honestly don't know why he is complaining about me when I am the one that is trying to fix his persistent errors. Please visit the Edmonton Oilers page that I had provided you with earlier in this message, so that you will have an understanding of what I am talking about. If any clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me. Just a reminder, I do correct the errors that NicholasHui makes. So if you don't see any physical evidence, just know that I correct the errors. Yowashi (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)"

As a reminder, I am not an admin, and my role on this board is merely to help with uncontroversial and routine tasks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We may have a WP:Competent problem, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not very often someone reports themselves. Why the rush? Wait until complete info is published in RS. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So, is there anything that can be done about this situation? I'm only trying to update these pages because they barely get updated by others. In addition to that, I also want these pages to have accurate information from reliable sources, so that when these pages are visited, people are not mislead from the incorrect information that has been continuously added on these pages. Yowashi (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The individual should be blocked, if that's the only way to get through to him/her. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me but which editor are you claiming needs to be blocked? Being blocked is usually reserved for vandals or editors making disruptive edits, not good faith disagreement. If we can resolve problems by talking them out, that is preferred to blocking editors. I may not sense the nuances of this dispute but it seems like this is an issue that needs discussion to be resolved, not a problem that is resolved by blocking editors from making productive edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Been around the 'pedia for going on 14 years & I'm quite keen on spotting intentional and (in this case) non-intentional troublesome editors, such as NicholasHui. But, by all means, try it your suggested way. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The point here is that there is an editor making disruptive and unproductive edits, and such editors are blocked all the time if they refuse to stop doing so, the purity of their motives notwithstanding. (May I also humbly ask upon which basis you believe that the dispute is resolvable, if you don't understand it?) Ravenswing 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

More than one user wrote to NicholasHui (aka Portmannfire) making suggestions. I am not particularly involved with him, because I just started ignoring him as I have better things to edit. However, I am some times watching the conflict between these two users. The problem is that NicholasHui updates the statistics by making the calculations himself when he was advised to wait for the NHL to update them in their website. In addition, statistics are usually updated once a week so that just creates unneeded conflicts (this applies to both users involved). – Sabbatino (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This is another example of why Wikipedia should stop trying to have sports statistics in articles. For every sport, there are one or more websites that have the "official" or best statistics. We could just link to those websites in our articles. But no, we insist on copying this ever-changing information, by hand, resulting in endless battles, for no good reason at all. We ought to be writing an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. In an article about an athelete, we don't need to know how many points they scored last week. Leviv ich 17:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• While I'm sure this advice is lost on those editors who insist on doing things their way, the rest of the world be damned, we are not in a race here. The Cabal does not hand out gold stars for your forehead for being the first to make an edit, nor are parades organized for those who scoop the world. If, as it appears, NicholasHui is editing these articles in near-to-real time based on personal observations, that's just as illegitimate as if he were editing election articles based on CNN's coverage. Reliable sources exist and should be used, in all cases. If they're not "immediately up to date," who cares? Ravenswing 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, can NicholasHui be dealt with please? Their latest contributions on the 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, and 2018–19 Vancouver Canucks season articles are clear indications that they are not capable of editing these types of articles. The information that they have added do not match up with any information from an official source. As Sabbatino mentioned, they update the information by making their own calculations instead of obtaining it from an actual source. Also, the positioning of the players in the players statistics section on the Edmonton Oilers article are also not in order once again. As I have said before, I have informed NicholasHui, along with other people, the protocols of updating that section of these articles, and they still have not gotten the memo. This situation needs to be looked into because it has gotten ridiculous in my opinion. Yowashi (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd ask everyone to review WP:LIVESCORES please; I am unsure why it is within the Snooker WikiProject when it has universal application. Basically, do NOT live update - wait until a match has finished and reliable sources have been updated to verify the stats. GiantSnowman 11:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Universal application is not the same as universal acceptance. And sometimes it's a more manageable task to gain a local consensus than dealing with too many cooks in the kitchen. On the positive side, if Snooker project is having success with this, other projects could choose to adopt it as well.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  We already have at WP:FOOTBALL... GiantSnowman 12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Generally the hockey project does follow something similar, we don't update player page stats until the season itself is over. However, I don't think we have ever codified anything for stats while a game is being played for pages like team season pages. I think its always just been treated as a best practice not to race to update stuff until its finalized. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  @GiantSnowman: Just curious, was it a conscious adoption of LIVESCORES in WP:FOOTBALL, or did it just work out that existing practices mirrored LIVESCORES? And is it written within the project, or a silent understanding?—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Bagumba: - we had (and, still have) numerous over-zealous IPs who insist on updating games played/goals scored as soon as a match starts - causing confusion & incorrect stats as editors unwittingly 'add' a match when it has already been added... GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's a given that typically unregistered or newbit editors not aware of prior consensus are going to do their own thing. The concession might be to live with updates at a half, quarter, period, etc. if they were correct (not necessarily cited). Barring that, the page should be protected.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I knew how to reorder the Player stats to most points to least since Yowashi has showed me how that works. But every time when I update the player stats, I wouldn't reorder it. What I mean is that it does not have to be reordered to most points to least unless if the regular/playoff season is finalized, then we can reorder the player stats to most points to least. Its not even a big rush. The most important thing when we update player stats on hockey teams is to get the numbers for goals, assists, points, plus/minus rating and Goalie's Goals against average accurately. NicholasHui (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2019 (PT)

I suspect that english isn't your first language, as your posts are at times difficult to read. Also, you refusal to STOP updating those articles until matters are settled, is quite annoying. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

English is my first language. I had been updating NHL Canadian Teams since September 2015. Also, list to me what you think I was disruptive in editing. NicholasHui (talk) 9:26, 28 February 2019 (PT

You're MESSING UP the rankings. STOP updating the articles, until this ANI matter is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that filer User:NicholasHui may be the larger part of the problem here, and that this issue needs to be wrapped up. Propose that this boomerang on filer, with either:
1. Warning to use only reliable sources, not update sports articles in real time, and follow all relevant MOS guidelines, or risk being blocked.
2. Topic ban on sports articles
3. Block

• Neutral as proposer. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am unclear of what this is asking. Is it asking me to choose one of these three options to go in effect? Option one definitely will not work, as NicholasHui has been warned numerous times about these protocols, and they still refuse to follow the procedure given to them. Option two may work, as the statistics section of these articles are claimed to be updated only once a week. Therefore, there is no use for it even being in the articles. Option three may be the best solution for this situation. Yowashi (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd go with a Topic ban, to see if it'll have any positive effect. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What does that mean exactly? Does that mean removing the players statistics section entirely from an article? I have never been involved in a situation like this before, so I am pretty much new to all this. Yowashi (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It means that NicholasHui would no longer be allowed to edit sports articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Now, how would the topic ban go into effect? Would they no longer be allowed to edit sports articles if they continue to their disruptive editing? Or, would it go into effect immediately due to all the complaints, if approved by an admin? Yowashi (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the topic ban is adopted, but NH continues edited sports articles, then he's taken back here to face likely a blocking. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban: especially given that NicholasHui is still editing these articles outside of reliable sources even given this ANI complaint. Ravenswing 04:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, as of the late stages of February 24th, NicholasHui continues to provide information outside of any reliable source. Their latest contribution being on the 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season article. Another user has since corrected the information that NicholasHui had provided, but I don't think that should hide the fact that NicholasHui believes that they can still do whatever they want on these articles. I don't think that NicholasHui is following this discussion, hence why they are continuing to make disruptive edits. I think now is the right time to take action and put an end to this conflict, rather than later. It just depends on what others involved in this discussion believe what the right choice is. Yowashi (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that if they think I manually calculate the player statistics for Canadian teams, the information I assumed other users that edit wikipedia statistics immediately after the game ends comes from the recap game they played. I noticed that after updating the players statistics, Yowashi has fixed some of the information I put. So I don't know why they think I am the bigger problem. Their were times that I fixed some errors on the Player Statistics if I get suspicious of what Yowashi puts on the stats. Sometimes, I may use the official team stats if I am sure I had made some mistakes.

The examples of the mistakes I found are listed below

December 16, 2018: Forgetting to add assists on Jacob Markstrom's stats on Vancouver Canucks 2018-19 season. (That was my mistake)

December 31, 2018: James Neal's 3 goals plus 6 assists equals 7 points instead should have been 4 assists which was my own mistake that time

February 2, 2019: Oliver Kylington should have plus/minus rating as 1 when its was instead 2. I corrected by having a combination of separate windows having the wikipedia stats, player nhl.com stats and the recap team stats to correct the mistake.

February 12, 2019, (Maple Leafs) Patrick Marleau's assists were not updated when they beated Colorado Avalanche

February 14, 2019: Connor Mcdavid's assist stats should have been 51 assists when it was 50 instead.

NicholasHui (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2019 (PT)

@NicholasHui For clarification: how, precisely, are you calculating/sourcing the player's stats? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• A small block would not be the worst solution to try and get his attention, after that we can discuss a topic ban if the behaviour continues. Why can't you not simply wait until the official website has it updated? Kante4 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why I update it immediately after the game ends is because I had seen other user's information comes from the recap page. For example, I seen an anonymous user that updates the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season page on Wikipedia. The information this user gets comes from the recap game. I followed this user's example ever since. Sometimes, I may use the official website if I am suspicious of my edits or somebody else's edits that were put on the Wikipedia page. NicholasHui (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (PT)

@CaptainEek: I know that you did not ask me, but I can provide some examples of NicholasHui's miscalculations. On the 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season article, in the statistics section for the team's goaltender Mikko Koskinen, NicholasHui calculated Koskinen's TOI (time on ice) at 1961:30. An official source states that Koskinen's TOI is 1962:15. This was after the Oilers most recent game. NicholasHui also miscalculates a goaltender's GAA (goals against average) and their save percentage. For example, after one of the Oilers' games, they had calculated Koskinen's GAA at 2.88 when the official source had it 2.87. Koskinen's save percentage was also at .909 when it should have been .906. Remember, this is just a couple of examples. There have been many other occasions from the past four months where the information provided by NicholasHui is inaccurate.

Edit: NicholasHui still has not learned how to reorganize player statistics by a player's total points. This is found on the 2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season article. Ron Hainsey supposedly has sixteen points, but is positioned above Travis Dermott, who supposedly has seventeen points. I can't confirm if these statistics are real because the statistics from a reliable source have not been updated. Again, this is not the proper procedure for updating the statistics section of these articles. Yowashi (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing Is there a time frame as to when this situation is going to be resolved? Disruptive edits are still being made on these NHL articles, and I don't think that it is ever going to stop. Can this issue please be looked into? Because I find it disturbing how NicholasHui is still able to edit these articles. Yowashi (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So far, there seems to be very little interest in the topic, due to it being about ice hockey. You may have to get a more direct response, at WP:AN where the administrators may take a closer look. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, no WP:FORUMSHOPping. Notification, on the other hand, would be fine if you think it's necessary. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Forum shopping was necessary in this case, to get more eyes on this matter. Ice hockey isn't high on most Wikipedians' interests. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no diffs provided, which makes it difficult for anyone not directly familiar with the editors to be comfortable enough to take action.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comment At a minimum, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution needs to be followed. Without diffs of a history of ignored warnings, or evidence of a prior consensus that an editor was made aware of but still ignored, I would not block or suggest a topic ban. If there was no prior consensus, I would recommend establishing it now, and trust that involved parties would follow it. If not, a new report with link to said consensus along with diffs of violations of consensus will make it obvious and easy to act upon. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair not sure a consensus would be needed for something obvious like not leaving players out of order in scoring ranking. That seems to me to be self evident otherwise what is the point of a ranking. There is clear disruptive editing here, however links to diffs would be nice, I do agree with that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand diffs are a pain, but editors need to understand than uninvolved admins need to be sure AGF has been exhausted. And non-sports ones might even be missing the gist of the wall of text without diffs. I edit sports, I understand that what is described can happen, I just need to be sure AGF has been fully exhausted by diffs of both consensus and repeated failures to comply. The boomerang target says they are just occasional errors. Someone will need to show it is instead consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Full disclosure I was asked to look at this thread because I am an administrator whose edits are mostly made up from editing hockey articles. Looking at the situation to me it does not appear that NicholasHui is attempting to communicate and is ignoring all attempts to do so. I think a short block would be more than appropriate to get his attention and stop situation from continuing and hopefully get him to start communicating. If that fails I would support a topic ban on updating sports statistics leaving other editing involving sports articles open to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm an otherwise uninvolved editor and User:NicholasHui is now edit warring on several articles, having reverted 3 times today. I've warned him on his talk page. I believe there may be an ownership issue, or more precisely, a belief that he can do whatever he wants and no one can object. (The content in dispute is not of concern to me, nor do I understand it. I'm simply responding to disruptive editing on NicholasHui's part. freshacconci (✉) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Also note this edit here -- he copypasted my own warning to him (leaving in my own signature) and dropped it on my talk page. Clearly this editor is WP:NOTHERE. freshacconci (✉) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

He's either got competency issues, or he's just 'bleeping' around with us. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now he's trying to get around our reverts, by editing logged out. We may have to semi-protect these 30 articles, as he's going to just go the evading route. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators PLEASE HELP

Would any administrator PLEASE help us out? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks likes User:NinjaRobotPirate blocked him for violating 3RR already. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE editing by IP hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.133.209.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.52.50.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Calling other editors "Nazis"

• [150]

Calling other editors "Persians"

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"[151]
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"[152]

Accusing others of bringing "Persian BS" into "Indian articles"

• "Falooda is an indian article, dont bring your BS persian nationalism in the indian article."[153]

Accusing others of "Eurocentrism" and "bigotry"

• [154]-[155]-[156]

Saying that non-Europeans should stay away from Indian articles

• "(...) like the rest of all indian historic english article this article only reflects the agenda and the views of anglophone european editors (...) all non european readers are requested to avoid this article (...)"[157]

Making copy-vios

• [158]

IP socking

• See IP's linked above

Edit-warring

• [159]-[160]-[161]

These IP's are all operated by the same person. Same geo-location,[162]-[163]-[164] same concerns (pro-Indian stance, trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by whatever means), same target articles, etc. One of his IPs, "175.137.72.188", was blocked for edit-warring on 13 February by Bishonen, unfortunately to no avail, for he continued with the exact same disruptive editorial pattern as soon as the block ended.[165] Whoever "operates" these IP's ran out of WP:ROPE long ago. Looking at the compelling evidence, whoever operates these IP's is clearly not here to build this encyclopedia. Pinging Doug Weller and Ian.thomson as they are aware of this disruption. A range block might be needed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• 60.52.50.71 is in quite a big range, 60.52.0.0/18, but there's nothing but vandalism (presumably the same user) from this range during this month. I have blocked the range for a month.
• 115.133.209.70 is in 175.133.0.0/16, and there's some other traffic here. This might be more tricky, so I have just blocked the IP.
• 175.137.72.188 is the only IP to have edited from its range, so this can be blocked simply again, and I have done so.
  • Please let me know, or post here, about future issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thanks, will do. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The reported IPs and their behavior are very similar to blocked user Rameezraja001 (talk · contribs). They all could be same person. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah, that's what I thought as well.[166] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Born2cycle yet again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to do much other than dick about with page names. There has been endless drama about this, for example with repeat WP:IDHT move requests on Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The latest one was to move MMR vaccine and autism to MMR-autism myth then rapidly to MMR–autism myth (with an n-dash) in response to an RM to move it to, and I shit you not here, "?", whose only input notes that there is no consensus as to what "?" should be.

At some point we are going to need to ban Born2cycle from all discussions and actions relating to page moves, because the evidence to date shows that he considers himself to be the sole arbiter and authority of what article names should be. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to provide any specific diffs or links to this evidence? Or is this just an unfocused rant? I'm particularly interested in any diffs showing where he claims to be "sole arbiter and authority". -- Netoholic @ 10:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The RM should be re-opened so an actual consensus can be formed instead of taking this back to the dramaboards. If you can't do that, then maybe an IBAN is needed between the 2 of you. Iffy★Chat -- 10:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• How about we ban you first Guy? You ignored the long rename discussion on that article, which had specifically rejected the MMR vaccine and autism name as too likely to promote Wakefield's believers, then you renamed it to that ("per talk", when it was anything but), all on your own.

This is a good rename. And even if it isn't, if consensus wants to choose something better, then it's certainly a GF one, and IMHO a large improvement too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• As to the other article (and if you're going to harangue another editor at ANI, bring diffs), then the nearest comment I can find is a year-old talk: comment: 7 March 2018. But then I don't follow Dr Who stuff, so maybe there's some project talk or other article I've missed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think you're confusing Sarah Brown with Sarah Jane Smith. This confusion would never have happened if Sarah Brown's article title wasn't such a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, by the way. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe Guy could ask Born2cycle to move it and sort it out? They seem good at picking sensible article names. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Born2cycle could butt out because this is a large discussion over multiple pages with numerous editors who, unliek Born2cycle, are clueful about the content area and Born2cycle's "good at picking sensible article names" translates into years-long disruption and WP:BLUDGEONing in any case where anybody dares to disagree with him. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: If you spent 15 seconds reading the debates on the talk page, you'd have seen that I am working diligently with others to ensure we choose the correct name, and the temporary change I did make was to reflect an overwhelming consensus that the previous name was wrong in a way that gave undue weight to fringe views. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly is your issue with B2C's moves here? Is it that he interpreted the consensus incorrectly, or that he was the one who did the page moves? Iffy★Chat -- 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem was the usual one: Born2cycle deciding to be the arbiter and enforcer of what constitutes the "correct" title, in a complex case where there is ongoing discussion and nontrivial dissent, and especially given that he has previous with me over other articles where he obsesses over the title. Check the archives of this page for his username: obsessive page naming drama is his thing. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

deciding to be the arbiter and enforcer of what constitutes the "correct" title, in a complex case where there is ongoing discussion and nontrivial dissent is precisely the job that RM closers do when they're determing consensus at RM discussions. There had been plenty of discussion before the RM opened and no comments for 5 days, suggesting that the RM was ripe for closure after it was open for 7 days (he was a bit early with the close but that isn't a big issue). Once again, is your problem here that B2C got the consensus wrong, or is it that that you have a personal problem with B2C? Iffy★Chat -- 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• You picked a name, "Andrew Wakefield discovered The Truth between MMR vaccine and autism" that was a shoo-in for giving weight to fringe views, and that the only evident consensus on that talk: page had been to reject it on that basis. But of course, you did your own thing instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the original title was MMR autism controversy. That's the one people have resoundingly rejected. Your characterisation of MMR vaccine and autism as "Andrew Wakefield discovered The Truth between MMR vaccine and autism" is sufficiently insane that it doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack: there may be one or two editors less likely to use the words you ascribe to me there, but no more than that. None of the others has unambiguous support, though I have floated several suggestions and attempted to weigh support and opposition for each. See Talk:MMR vaccine and autism § Name. The MR was raised with no actual target title, so should not have been actioned, especially by an editor with a long history of tendentious move discussions and an equally long history of disputes with me, given that I am the one currently leading the effort to achieve a correct consensus for the final name of the article. But, you know, you could always read the talk page, where all this is laid out and where the lack of consensus for a specific title is also identified. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"The other Guy" has been paying careful attention to consensus and so far has done the right thing. Andy Dingley's accusations are without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Questions for the filer: There are some relevant items that seem to be missing from the report. I think it would be elucidating if these questions were answered:

1. Who proposed changing the title of this page in the first place and on what date?
2. In response to that discussion, what new title(s) was/were most commonly !supported?
3. Who closed the "Move to ?" request and how soon after it was opened?
4. When was the page move(s) in question made? What were the actual, exact moved-to titles?
5. Who moved the page back to the original? Why isn't that a sufficient resolution to this problem?
6. What efforts were made to discuss this move on the page mover's talk page or the article talk page before filing this report?

For my part, I'd recommend B2C not spend any time discussing this matter here unless someone asks him to join. The rest of the community can sort this one out. Leviv ich 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I see some of the answers at a glance, there was a general discussion on how to reach consensus, and there was a 'procedural' open and close. B2C was reported as moving the page, I didn't check, but the user appears here a lot and needs little introduction; it does sound like the regular reports on that users approach to page titles. cygnis insignis 14:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is only the second time he's been reported to ANI since he was unblocked last summer. Not a frequent flier anymore. Leviv ich 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is good of you to note that. cygnis insignis 14:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me also note that last time the report was about excessive commenting in move discussions, not disruptively moving pages, and there wasn't consensus for anything beyond a warning. If someone wants to say that an editor is disruptively moving pages, then diffs, please. Leviv ich 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The page log is here and seems to accord with what Guy has already described. cygnis insignis 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the close was good or bad, this was a long, complex and possibly controversial naming discussion and really needed an admin, or at least an experienced editor familiar with the issues involved, to close it. B2C was not that person. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  As an admin, Guy can undo any NAC, such as B2C's, there's certainly no problem with that. But I disagree about "regardless of whether the close was good or bad"... if it was a good close, there's really no reason to post to ANI, is there? If it was a bad close, there's still no reason to post to ANI–we have move review for that, don't we? If it's a chronic, intractable problem with moves, well, let's see the diffs of problematic moves? ("Where's the diffs?" is the same exact argument I made last time; the result was no sanction. It seems we're here again.)

  How many moves overall in February, and how many were "bad" moves? What's the error rate? Because we don't take editors to ANI for making one bad move. Or even two.

  By the way, as a technical matter, I don't see B2C closing anything, just making a bold move. And as I understand it, the proper response to a bold move is to revert it (which happened) and which should settle the matter as long as there isn't a move-war happening (which there isn't). Hence my question #5 and #6 above. Leviv ich 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  B2C closed the RM in this diff Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that; stricken. Leviv ich 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• As WP:INVOLVED, Guy should stay well away from it. Especially now. He opened the rename discussion (from MMR vaccine controversy). MMR vaccine and autism was presented as one of his options at that time and it did not garner support from others. There was no clear favourite, but there was broad support for negative terms like "conspiracy", "hoax" and "myth". He took part in that discussion. He renamed other articles to remove "controversies" from their names, whilst this discussion was still running. Guy did not follow this when he closed that discussion and moved it to a name which conspicuously avoided any such critical term. That's pretty close to INVOLVED already and (IMHO) a very poor judgement of the consensus. As UnequivocalAmbivalence put it, " It would be like if we re-named "9/11 conspiracy theories" to "Alternate 9/11 theories". It's a neutral title, but it gives false parity. "

To continue past that point, and in their attitude and behaviour towards B2C here in particular, that's well past INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• By your interpretation of INVOLVED, he is and is not to permitted be involved any more? cygnis insignis 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• He's welcome to discuss and advocate or to make the final appraisal and judgement of others' comments. But not both.

Mostly though, I see his first close as wrong in its conclusion more than the way it was arrived at: other editors favoured the use of a negative term to describe something that they (myself included) saw as false pseudoscience. The 'neutral' [sic] presentation of 'MMR vaccine and autism' (and its easy incorporation into a presentation as if there's a link) is quite opposite to this.

He called for a discussion, he presented some options, and when other editors ignored his 'right' answer, he imposed it anyway. That's textbook INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me being blunt and stating what we all well know: That is the about the discussion itself, not this incident, which is about B2Cs bold close and move. If there is a grievance about the poster own actions, their 'involvement', shouldn't that a be separate discussion? This discussion follows every other discussion about B2C contributions on page titles, clearly the last one was not the end of it. cygnis insignis 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• If Guy wants to see this ANI thread as being solely about B2C, then that's fine. But: if he's already INVOLVED, he's still INVOLVED. So that restricts his advocacy of particular names. This thread has to stay narrowly on B2C's behavioural issues, and whether they breach anything that ANI should concern itself about. Now I'm not seeing that. Not for their choice of name, not for the trivia of some typos or at most a topic-neutral MOS issue, certainly not for some unspecified high crimes and misdemeanours on unrelated pages, for which we're still waiting on diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• To be clear here, B2C moved MMR vaccine and autism -> MMR-autism myth. -> MMR-autism myth -> MMR–autism myth, after I left them a talk page message pointing out their careless move (without any kind of consensus as to what the title should be) to a title with an inappropriate hyphen and a period at the end. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Natureium: The second move (removing the period) and the third move (hyphen to dash) appeared to have been in direct response to your talk page post here: [167]. When I saw your post, I thought you wanted him to move it again to remove the period and change the hyphen to a dash. I imagine he thought so too. I see the second and third move as attempts to comply with community feedback (from you), not ignoring or thwarting it. The first move and close may have been out of order, I grant you, but I note you did not say "move it back". Admittedly, nor did you say "move it again". But speaking as one reader of what you posted, I interpreted your post as telling him he was being a bit too bold but that he should clean up his mess, i.e., move it again. Leviv ich 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, What I wanted was for B2C to not move pages without consensus. I wasn't going to move-war, so I figured the least he could do was fix his mess, but that could have been done in one move rather than two. If someone doesn't understand title conventions (period, hyphen), they shouldn't be moving pages. Natureium (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Natureium, you're not wrong–don't move without consensus, be careful when making moves. Here's what I see happened, and this is putting everything in the worst possible light against B2C:

  1. He jumped the gun and made a close and move where there was no clear consensus yet
  2. In making that move, he used a hyphen instead of a dash, and had an extraneous period
  3. He fixed #2 with two moves instead of one

  Let's see how this ANI report characterized it:

  • [B2C] doesn't seem to do much other than dick about with page names. – That's terrible; nobody should be characterizing anybody else's editing as "dicking about".
  • There has been endless drama about this, for example with repeat WP:IDHT move requests on Sarah Jane Brown. – Bringing up shit from long ago, as we always do with B2C.
  • The latest one... – When was the last problematic move?
  • ...was to move MMR vaccine and autism to MMR-autism myth... – in response to a move discussion that the filer started, but we left that part out..
  • ...then rapidly to MMR–autism myth (with an n-dash) – in response to a request to do so on his talk page, which means rapid is good, but we left that part out...
  • in response to an RM to move it to, and I shit you not here, "?", whose only input notes that there is no consensus as to what "?" should be. – following a long discussion about titles, but we left that part out...
  • At some point we are going to need to ban Born2cycle from all discussions and actions relating to page moves, because the evidence to date shows that he considers himself to be the sole arbiter and authority of what article names should be. – Really, that's what the evidence shows? Here's a post from B2C on the article talk page: Whatever the community wants; my role here is at your service. But we left that part out.

  The ANI report makes it out as if B2C is just like "fuck y'all, I'm moving it where I want to!" when in fact, it's obvious he's trying to effectuate consensus, not thwart it, and he's trying to respond to complaints, not ignore them. If he fucked up one move, that's out of how many other moves? What's his "completion rating"? We don't take people to ANI for one mistake. Damnit. And we just had this discussion a few weeks ago. It's very frustrating to see another jump-the-gun unfounded ANI report against B2C. And that's all I have to say about that. Leviv ich 16:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, check the archives. This is someone who takes pride in pursuing move requests for years until he finally gets the answer he wants. Check the talk page archives at Sarah Jane Brown. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see that Samsara has just fully move-protected the page. When the issue is with a single editor, shouldn't the solution to be to block that editor, rather than to protect the page from everyone? Natureium (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I judge the vaccine debate to be an area of conflict sensu arbitration committee. Samsara 15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They've only move-protected it. It is still semi-protected from normal editing, as it was before, so registered editors can still edit. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just trying to help. In case anyone missed it, here was my closing statement:

The result of the move request was: Moved to MMR-autism myth. As far as I can tell there strong consensus for a change, no clear consensus on any particular title, but this is the best choice at least for right now based on the discussion above. If anyone gives me good reason on my talk page to revert this close and reopen, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm hoping everyone agrees this is the most reasonable choice. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) [168]

Unfortunately, I also fat-fingered the move by grabbing the period after the title in (the rendered version of) the closing statement, and I used an dash instead of an en-dash, so had to fix those two errors. I do a lot of closes and this is the first time I've made this kind of error. I was ready to revert but nobody had complained before I left. If JzG had just left a request to revert, I would have done so. I'll stay out of it now. --В²C ☎ 18:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that no clear consensus on any particular title, but this is the best choice at least for right now is not how things work. You don't move a page just to move it. The best choice "for right now" is for a page to stay at the title that it's at until there is a consensus to move it to another title. There's no rush to move pages (barring clearly inappropriate titles). Natureium (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:THREEOUTCOMES:

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.

Again, I was just trying to help in a difficult situation. Was it better to leave it at the current title? Maybe. But I think good arguments can be made on both sides. I thought consensus against the current title was clear, and this was at worst a step in a better direction. --В²C ☎ 18:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to help...

So was Cecilia Gimenez.

...this was at worst a step in a better direction

See previous comment. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have generally shared JzG's exasperation with B2C's general approach, but in this case I don't really see anything really problematic. Sure, it was a NAC close on a controversial topic, but that was certainly easily undone. We all view other editors' actions thru a filter of our prior experiences with them, but we have to be careful the filter isn't too strong. This was not ANI-worthy, Guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• This is very exasperating. Just a few weeks after another ANI against B2C which found no actual wrongdoing, and yet here we are again. There was no attempt was made by JzG to discuss the close itself with B2C, or request it be reversed, which would likely have been granted. And admins aren't automatically permitted to reverse non-admin closures with no other process, particularly when WP:INVOLVED as the nominator of the RM. I have no opinion on the validity of B2C's close itself, perhaps there was no consensus, but there is no way this should have come to ANI when none of the usual options mentioned at WP:MRV, including discussion with the closer, had been pursued first. A WP:TROUT is due for JzG, and please try to get along with your fellow editors in future rather than being confrontational like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Which is not a little confrontational in itself. The idea that the last discussion found 'no actual wrong-doing' is not accurate, as I recall it there was no middle ground between blocking the user or not. This was an earnest and protracted discussion that was interjected by someone who does not recognise the disruption they cause, have caused here, for was "at worst a step in a better direction" according them. B2C does not care that this is a hot-button topic, this is about his cloistered view on page titles: a constant recycling of some move discussion a lifetime ago that did not go his way. What the people involved in the article think is irrelevant to the move mongers' mindsets, those are uninvolved bystanders made hopelessly bias by sources rather than their sure and certain opinion, there to witness their ongoing debates, petulant power struggles, and bloody-minded game-playing. cygnis insignis 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Amakuru is correct, the situation is exasperating. It's completely and totally exasperating that Born2Cycle has been doing the same damn stuff for over 10 years and continues to get away with doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Best to just close this. JzG should have asked B2C to reopen the close before bringing it here and using past ANI reports as a bludgeon is not a good idea. Someone has to close RMs and, in my experience, B2C is very willing to reopen a discussion if there are objections (cf. [169]) and that's already 90% of what we should ask from any discussion closer.--regentspark (comment) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Warn JzG to comply with WP:INVOLVED

Despite being very involved in the discussion at Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism, JzG engaged in the following actions contrary to WP:INVOLVED (editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.):

1. Reverted the close and move instead of following process. Step 1 at Wikipedia:Move_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_review_request: make the request on closer's talk page. [170]
2. Used admin rights to revert a move (because of errors, the previous title, now a redirect, had multiple edits and required admin rights to overwrite for a revert of the move) [171]
3. Closed the discussion in violation of WP:RMCLOSE#Conflicts_of_interest as well as WP:INVOLVED. [172]

I think the whole point of WP:INVOLVED is an involved admin might not be as objective as they would normally be in a given situation, and they should seek out another uninvolved admin to actually act as admins for whatever it is they feel needs to be done. What happened here is a great example of what happens when this is ignored. I don't doubt that Guy was acting in good faith, but he crossed a line that I believe is important to the health of the project for admins to not cross. I feel a warning from the community would be beneficial because as long as INVOLVED admins keep crossing the line without consequences, they are going to keep doing it, which is harmful to the project in many ways. --В²C ☎ 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? You made a series of bad judgments and now you want to warn the admin who cleaned up the mess? I suggest you drop it. Bradv🍁 22:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed the mess you made. You're welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I had already cleaned the "mess". You didn't clean up any mess. All you did was revert the close and move that I would have gladly reverted myself had you asked on my talk page per normal processes, as I even stated I would in my closing statement there. You were INVOLVED, and used a hammer when only a pencil was needed. --В²C ☎ 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have gladly reverted myself had you asked on my talk page per normal processes

Given your track record of obstinate WP:IDHT behavior, no, I don't believe that. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Calton, are you not aware of the other closes I’ve reverted upon request? That this was an unusual situation and so I explicitly stated I would revert upon request in the closing statement? This could have been easily resolved with such a request, but instead INVOLVED Guy went with heavy-handed reverts and this ANI, but I’m the one creating the drama? —В²C ☎ 17:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no sense in escalating this any further in either direction. I suggest this whole thread be closed per regentspark comment above and we can move on with our lives.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this thread should be closed once the RM is re-opened. If these 2 users keep antagonising each other, then an IBAN may be needed in the future, but I'm willing to assume good faith right now, and so should everyone else. Iffy★Chat -- 22:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Born2Cycle has consistently shown very poor judgement, and should never close a RM discussion under any circumstances, ever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Would someone please ping me when an indef of B2C is proposed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, would you go for 'no close or move' or just the simple option? cygnis insignis 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  What an offer! It seems mean to indef a well-meaning person who probably has done some useful things mixed in with all the disruption but the real problem is the difficulty of demonstrating a problem when it simply involves bad judgment and wasting time. I'm afraid we will have to wait for a new problem to arise and for someone with the patience to prepare a case. However, the possibility of a bold indef is always there, and it might stick. My comment was really intended to let B2C know that they have to learn how to avoid trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• You-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding oppose. It's not an WP:INVOLVED, he was fixing B2C's uninformed parachuting-in. This is just further evidence that B2C shouldn't be involved in moves and ABSOLUTELY should not be making them. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not going to put a bolded support beside this, but JzG, you should have known better than to escalate in this situation. You were clearly involved, and B2C's series of bad moves was not quite an "any admin would do the same" situation. You didn't try to discuss it with him at all despite his explicit note that he was open to discussion, you didn't try move review, you just came straight here to rattle the sabres. I'm not saying B2C was right, he wasn't (someone should have linked to WP:SUPERVOTE by now), but in my view your actions made a bad situation worse. That's kind of what WP:INVOLVED is all about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The point remains: B2C is primarily associated with page move drama. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, you are primarily associated with fringe science drama. Guess what - if there is drama to be had, its most often within the scope of the areas we all choose most often to work. -- Netoholic @ 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The point remains: B2C is primarily associated with creating page move drama. cygnis insignis 16:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedily close as a diversion. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this giant nothing-burger. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose JzG acted appropriately, and suggest that B2C duck, because his boomerang is coming back around... --Jayron32 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could I borrow a few eyeballs on The Old Man & the Gun?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think a glance through the recent edits there, and on my talk page, would be more useful than cherry-picked links. Qwirkle (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the recent opposing edits [173] [174], the root of the issue seems to be a lack of reliable sourcing for the proposed content. This could easily be resolved by adding sources to support your viewpoint instead of bringing it to ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, perhaps better served by posting at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or giving WP:DR a read through. Doesn't appear to be urgent, chronic, nor intractable (at least not yet unless I've really misread the situation); thus ill-suited for ANI. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you did not look at both pages mentioned. Qwirkle (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, you made an edit to TOM&TG using the words "loosely based" [175]. In response Thewolfchild reverted per WP:WEASEL and that it was un-sourced. While discussion has proved...contentious perhaps, I guess I'm still not seeing the problem, as you folks seem to be currently talking it out. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I took a look at your talk page too, where the only things of note appeared to be a 3RR warning, and a section where you broke down, in exacting detail, every part of a comment by wolf. What am I missing here? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A sense of chronology, and an appreciation for WP:HUSH would be my guess. Qwirkle (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction and topic ban appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was banned from editing a topic and banned from interacting with an editor almost four months ago. Further details about the ban including the related topic and the editor can be seen here. The ban was issued due to my wiki hounding that editor, demanding sources for unsourced content and removing any unsourced content for which sources did not exist inside the articles. I repeatedly regretted the behavior but was still issued these bans.

In last four months, I have refrained from any of these behaviors i.e. I did not hound any editor and tried not to remove unsourced content from any articles which I am allowed to edit and if needed placed “citation needed” tags for any content which was not sourced or poorly sourced.

The incident of wikihounding was only the first incident in my five years of editing life thus I request this topic ban and interaction ban to be lifted as it imposes unnecessary restrictions on my editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging @AGK: and @Debresser:, the admin who imposed the bans and the editor on the other side of the i-ban. I'll notify both on ther talk pages just to be safe. People should keep in mind that Debresser is not i-banned from SIIT, so they can safely comment here. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how SIIT should respond if Debresser raises questions; I know what I think should happen, but not what the letter of the policy says. So SIIT should get guidance from an admin they trust before responding to any points raised by Debresser. Alternately, a smarter admin than me could lay out the ground rules here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not smarter than anybody, but I think any comment reply by SIIT addressed to to a direct question from Debresser within an interaction ban appeal falls within the scope of WP:BANEX ("appealing the ban" is a specific bullet point). But, you know, stay on topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) clarified in blue -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of a ban is to prevent disruption rather than to punish, and BANEX includes "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution"; there's no ban-breaking if the two have a conversation here, as long as it's related to the ban itself and not disruptive. Obviously any aggressive editing is not legitimate or necessary, but words that would be appropriate between uninvolved editors are appropriate between these two users in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown,

• On what articles you have worked during the topic ban?And what was your major contributions?
• What Judaism topics you intend to work on if the topic ban would be lifted?

Thanks --Shrike (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike:,

• I did not restrict my editing to any specific topic during this specific ban except restricting myself from editing the topics on which I had a ban. So, I worked on multitude of topics but If I have to just pick a few, I would say that my major contributions were creating and improving the articles on United States and Pakistani politicians. The other major contribution sphere was fixing the bare references in articles and that was not restricted to any specific topic either.
• I do not specifically intend to contribute to Judaism topic in near future possibly occasionally but I have nothing specific in mind at this time. I am not too much familiar with Judaism topic hence the risk that I accidentally edit an article unrelated to Judaism topic but having some material which was related to Judaism making me violate my ban and ending up getting a harsher restriction. I have been already banned for four months and the bans are not supposed to be permanent especially when concerned editor is willing to display good behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Support lifting the topic ban, let's say per WP:ROPE, and let's also say I didn't really like it from the start but a certain set of editors were lining you up for an unwarranted site ban. In the four months since the previous discussion I really don't see any evidence of conflict in SIIT's editing history at all. I advise you to tread very carefully if you're intending to wade into ARBPIA-covered topics, though. You know how I keep saying that India-Pakistan is one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia, well when I say that it's one I mean that Israel-Palestine is the other. I know that's not exactly the scope of your topic ban but there's a huge amount of overlap. Go gently, or there are plenty of editors who'll have your ass. As for the interaction ban I'll reserve my opinion until we hear from Debresser. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Support lifting the interaction ban as well, per follow-up from Debresser below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The problem was with editing articles about Jewish religious topics, almost none of which had anything to do with ARBPIA. I believe that SIIT had great difficulty determining between poorly referenced but legitimate article content and original research. If there is an unreferenced assertion in an article, the first step should be to see if references already present elsewhere in the article support that assertion and then add a footnote using the REFNAME function. Another option is a Google search for a new reference to a reliable source. To systematically go through a group of articles in a sensitive topic area and then remove content willy-nilly is disruptive behavior, especially if it is part of a hounding campaign, as it was in this case. This editor clearly does not have the knowledge and good judgment to determine between poorly referenced but probably legitimate content, and obvious original research, at least in the Judaism topic area. I do not know why they want to return to editing articles about Judaism, and would like a much better explanation. And of course I want to hear what Debresser has to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with your points on sourcing and I also accept that my behavior was not exemplary, the behavior which resulted in these bans. This attempt is not to return to Judaism topic area but to establish myself as an editor with full editing privileges. I do not intend to immediately start editing Judaism related articles but restriction prohibits me from occasional editing as well and is broadly construed thus containing a risk of me editing an article containing content about Judaism without me knowing that these terms or that specific content might be related to Judaism. The examples of these edits could be, let's say fixing the references or fixing spelling in an area which discussed something related to Judaism. These are unnecessary shackles which I would like to take off. I have been banned for four months, please let me know what do I need to do to get this ban off as bans are not supposed to stay permanent, they are supposed to be for limited time and if the behavior which got the initial ban issued is not repeated then it should be lifted. If there is a fear that I might repeat that behavior again in future then no one has seen the future and if admins can impose the ban once, they can impose it again. I can only assure you that it will not be repeated again. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say it should be safe to remove the restriction at this point, SIIT seems contrite and self-critical. The main problem was WP:CIR in the specific topic area. Perhaps a probation period might help to alleviate people's worries? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• I just reviewed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#SheriffIsInTown and SIIT's edits since then, and my conclusion is that I support lifting of all restrictions. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, lift both bans. Nice to see a self-critical topic ban appeal. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC).
• Support the proposed lifting of both bans, per User:Ivanvector. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting both bans. Sherriff can be very productive when they're not getting into controversies so let's get some of that productivity back.--regentspark (comment) 02:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support As per answers to my questions and Debresser response --Shrike (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per comments above, and especially because of Debresser's support. (Restoring comment that somehow got removed.) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian Primary Chronicle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I tried to revert the title of this article: The Russian Primary Chronicle. Its previous title was The Primary Chronicle, and this article has existed for almost twenty years. It was changed by an editor who has only been working for three months. When I tried to revert the title to its original, it indicated that I need an administrator to revert the title. Can you help with this? Here was my reason for reverting: The "Russian" Primary Chronicle implies that the article is about the translations of the Chronicle, which were done in the 20th century when the translators to be politically correct called it "Russian", and thus limits the scope of this article. The Chronicle was recorded in Kievan Rus' at a time when Russia did not exist. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't follow a word you're saying. Who is the editor (don't call people "it")? Also, provide diffs in support of your assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If the move was clearly improper then an administrator (or page mover) could help you out. However, the page was moved nearly three months ago, so in my opinion it's too late to revert it for that reason, and I don't see how it could be considered clearly wrong in any case. Your best bet at this point is to start a new move discussion and make your case. Please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that Nicola Mitchell ever referred to people as it.

"Its previous title was The Primary Chronicle ..... It was changed by an editor ..... When I tried to revert the title to its original" - these seem to clearly refer to the article or its title. or maybe our guidelines.

it indicated that I need an administrator - this seems to refer to the Wikipedia's Mediawiki UI or maybe our guidelines.

translators to be politically correct called it "Russian" - this seems to refer to the subject of the article which clearly isn't a person.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)04:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I'm 99% sure the OP can actually revert this move. The current title is Russian Primary Chronicle and the original title Primary Chronicle. Both the talk page and article are not move protected, and the original titles are single edit redirects. As I understand it, an ordinary editor can therefore before the move back to Primary Chronicle. I'm not about to try since as Ivanvector said, I'm not sure whether reverting a nearly 3 month old move as undiscussed is justified. (Although I do wonder whether making a new move and seeing if it sticks may be okay provided you don't try a second time if reverted.) Also no idea about the subpage although I guess that's a secondary concern. I strongly suspect reason why the OP is having problems is I think because they tried to move to The Primary Chronicle which has been edited so can't be moved over without admin (well or page mover) involvement so they would 'can't perform this move' message (which admittedly doesn't directly say admin required). But the article was never titled with the "The" at least recently and I'm not sure if there's a good reason for having "The" in the title. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Fgnievinski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hopefully I am wrong but I have detected suspicious editting from user:Fgnievinski. it could have been an accident, straight up vandalism or potentially guerilla marketting and vandalism. They created a redirect page sneakily enough for Procedia that any link to it would refer to the category page, effectively concealing it since 2015. I didnt notice what was happenning at first and i find it very odd that there is no full article for this journal. there are also few unanswered notifications on their talk page of deletion of articles they created. but I would suggest as a precaution that the account be investigated for sock puppetting as they may have used multiple accounts to conceal such edits if it is a result of an attempt to obstruct the primary purpose of the wiki project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to note User:Verify references is a brand new account, created just today, which immediately jumped into editing at full throttle, and (obviously) knew where to find AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And it's probably just a coincidence, but the account User:VerifiedFixes was just indef blocked 3 days ago. Just saying.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski Not having pages in favor of creating re-directs is actually pretty standard fare around here. A lot of times, a page just doesn't have any content, and is waiting for an editor like you to come around and fill it out. While not an ideal situation, it can tide over pages that could redirect to a parent page, or pages that may themselves not yet be notable enough for their own article. I note that user:Fgnievinski created this page 4 years ago, and has been editing without much issue since. It seems pretty unlikely that they are a sock of anyone, nor are they socking. Don't just accuse folks of socking without solid evidence, such as providing diffs. This issue appears to be neither "urgent, chronic, nor intractable" (as issues for this noticeboard ought be), unless I'm missing something? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

General note to any passing admin: Just as a lot of folks see socks behind every tree, maybe I'm seeing fish behind every tree; but with that said, OP user:Verify references may be the fishier user here. Although I usually lurk around ANI (in a battle for ever-better poetry), I actually found this report when I reported this user to UAA [176] and was checking their contribs. For an editor who only registered a day ago, they sure seem to know a lot about policy. I WP:AGF about that, and assume that based on these edit, one as an IP [177], and another as a recently minted editor [178] on the same page, that they have been IP editing for a while, and are thus somewhat familiar with the place. But based on what BeyondMyKen says... I question if something fishy IS going on here. (Non-administrator comment) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

yes I have been editing for quite a few years with an IP now because i hate the toxic politics of this place. Australian ISPs only have dynamic IPs unless you pay a bunch more for your internet because you absolutely need a static IP for a business fyi. creating redirects for super-class articles before their subclasses is not common here. it's especially uncommon for top level articles. the reason for this is because articles evolve organically and fork when they get too big forming little baby articles. I registered because i kept getting spammed with SIGN UP NOW messages. now i have a username, i get derogation for being an IP poster. and you will notice, with the exception of re-adding problem tags which were removed repeatedly-- in contravention of guidelines --and then posting the OR page I disengaged from all the other disputes.(btw i am right in that finch dispute. the disruptive user persists in reposting TERTIARY sources which they believe are SECONDARY sources and believes a secondary source is primary. I even very elaborately explained the secondary sources reasoning before i created this account, going through it in steps to which i got a 'nuh-uhhhh' reply from the other editor. that's why i referred it to the community because it was still a problem but there wasnt anymore i could do.)

The suggested permaban for my username is absurd."Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type." The meaning is very clear here. the name must include "bot" or "script" to misleadingly imply it is a bot. dont try to enforce rules that dont exist. Or do, pick the kind of place you want to admin. well gee, I thought captain Eek was a bot you should ban him because my feelings are hurt? what nonsense.User:VerifiedFixes yeah, so? i share like 5 letters with that username and you are sysops so you can check my activity from before i created this account and see it doesnt match.

picking through your nonsense, this is all you had to say,

"This issue appears to be neither "urgent, chronic, nor intractable" (as issues for this noticeboard ought be), unless I'm missing something?" it is not very clear regarding how to contact an available admin for advice regarding such a topic. please just send me a link and close this thread. Verify references (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

also, just before i get banned for telling it to you straight, check out how toxic this place is even to your fellow admins.User:JamesBWatson sorry about any distress i caused you over this incident. you posted an older version of the page while i read the current version. you posted "Before listing a review request, please: Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first." the current version is 'Before listing a review request please consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly.' 'please consider' implies it is optional. so there was no need for you to participate or apologise. people make mistakes and there's only so much time you can really expect people to spend on each review, especially considering how bad the first half of the article was. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_February_26 Verify references (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: I have no idea why you have brought this up here, as it is about a totally unrelated matter. However, since you have brought it up, you may like to go back to the page in question, and search for the quote that I gave. It does appear on the current version of the page, word for word, as I copied and pasted it. Also, it has been there since at least as far back a 2006. (I haven't checked further back than that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I probably created the redirect just to increase the population in Category:Conference proceedings. There you'll see lots of similar redirects, many created by other people. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

Reporting Verify Referneces for UAA was an error on my part, in hindsight it was not a clear violation. However, the purpose of this thread on this board remains unclear. OP came here to report a user for socking and making redirects improperly, but said actions were made in what appears to be good faith more than 3 years ago. I move to close this thread as stale (heck, at 3 years this is closer to moldy or "will give you botulism"). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 India–Pakistan standoff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2019 India–Pakistan standoff, which is on the front page, is becoming a battleground of inexperienced users fighting for the inclusion of their respective country's positions and points of view. The article (and its talk page too) could use some more eyes. Abductive (reasoning) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I ECP'd it earlier today, which should help a bit. GAB^gab 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: We haven't tried autoconfirmed yet? ECP might cause a big delay in updating breaking stories since the article is about a current event. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GS/IPAK and WP:ARBIPA. MER-C 21:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear example of why Wikipedia should not attempt to be a site for breaking news, but we should wait at least a week or two for proper secondary sources to appear before having an article. There's no way that this event can possibly be covered in a neutral way yet before the facts are clearly established. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, first, the events relevant to any such article go back at least a few weeks. More to the point, I guarantee you that two weeks (or for that matter, two years) from now, that topic will still be subject to edit warring and disruption from opinionated SPAs with strong nationalist sentiments locked in a contest of wills. There's a reason the WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions exist and if we waited to develop encyclopedic coverage in that area until after the fervor had passed, we might as well be waiting on the heat death of the universe. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course it will be subject to edit warring and disruption, but if there are good secondary sources it will be possible to counter that effectively. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Or we could delete and wait until it is all over and then write a proper article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at - wait until there are some good-quality secondary sources, rather than breaking news reports, exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur and add that, as a general principle, Wikipedia shouldn't be discussing crises until they're historical events. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been arguing that for a long time, too many people rush to create articles to get one under their belt. They end up messy battlegrounds that (invariably) end up wholly different in many key aspects form the early day mess.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Users from both India and Pakistan are repeatedly inserting their own POV into the following articles, disallowing neutral sources to be written in, which is making updating the article difficult. User's who have even been autoconfirmed or long-time editors are also frequently engaging in this pointless tug of war. Can the administrators please protect the articles which contain information from neutral sources? The affected article sections are shown below:

• 2019 Indian-Pakistan Stand-off (Satellite Imagery)
• 2019 Balakot Airstrike (Satellite Imagery)
• Jaish-e-Mohammed (Satellite Imagery)

NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source for analysis of these images than Medium (website)? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Medium is one of those sites that you really need to see who wrote the article. The Atlantic Council seems to have the required credentials to talk about this subject. spryde | talk 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: WP:RSN would be the right venue to discuss whether this Medium post can be used as a source in the articles. Abecedare (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. But it does reinforce my view, nuke it from orbit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am deeply suspicious of established newsmedia sources, let alone iffy ones like Medium - which is effectively a blogging platform. I don't have a horse in this race beyond hoping that India and Pakistan will resolve their conflict peacefully; and I agree with Slatersteven that this is a content dispute and not a matter for AN/I. But the guidance I'd give about why this seems inappropriate for this venue is because there's a legitimate case to be made that the source isn't reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• All of the articles mentioned here are already ECP protected under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions or the newer WP:GS/IPAK general sanctions. Administrators can't protect a particular version of an article deemed to be neutral, that's not how Wikipedia works (see WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:ANYONECANEDIT (with caveats), or WP:WRONGVERSION). I have been watching 2019 Balakot airstrike and in my opinion the talk page discussions are working well to keep unreliable content out of the articles, to the extent that any information on this incident can be considered reliable. If extended-confirmed editors are editing disruptively on these articles they should be blocked; I haven't seen anything that rises to that level as of yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ivanvector sums it up nicely. The page is getting high volume of edits as the subject is in the news and is also on Wikipedia's Main page, so it is expected. There is absolutely nothing for admins to do here. Whatever was necessary has already been done, thanks to  GAB. ANI does not handle content disputes. No one is misbehaving right now. If someone misbehaved, they will be reported to the usual channels. :IMHO Someone should close this redundant thread now. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've put Jaish-e-Mohammed under an indefinite 1RR restriction per the discretionary sanctions, due to ECP editors edit warring over sources. I don't think there's any more to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content Dispute on Magic Kingdom Parade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good evening everyone,

Since late last year, a user by the name of User:The Banner was removing information relevant to the subject of the article, besides reverting hoax edits made by a multi-IP vandal from Canada. These parades, despite being unsourced, are relevant information to WDW history. He also claims that an "independent source" is required, though in WP:CITE I can find nothing noting this. In addition, I have filed a content dispute resolution request, and was turned down, and judging by this user's past block log it looks like he has a long history of getting himself into trouble. If someone could look into this matter and resolve it, that would be great! --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So far, there are zero (nil, 0) independent sources. There was no serious attempt for discussion from the side of IanDBeacon, as can be seen here. In the present state it is - in my opinion - again plain advertising. The Banner talk 23:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: I doubt that this was advertising. Besides, those parades were listed without sources before. --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Miniapolis 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good evening. First, ANI doesn't adjudicate content disputes; second, all WP content must be verifiable—not necessarily verified, but verifiable. I see no problem with TB's edits, and don't give a rat's ass about "WDW history". This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. All the best, Miniapolis 00:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Concur that ANI doesn't resolve content disputes. @IanDBeacon:, you should already be aware that your Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard request was turned down because you had not engaged in discussion about this subject on the talk page.[179] To date, you've made one comment on the talk page of the article, and it wasn't about removing parades. An alternative would have been to engage The Banner on his talk page. That hasn't happened either. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party is an early step in the dispute resolution process, one that hasn't been taken. Please take it. You're still at the same place you were when your DRN request was denied nearly 2 months ago. With regards to The Banner's block log, I think it's bad form to be bringing up a block log to try to tilt the conversation in your favor, especially when the last block was 3.5 years ago. Whatever The Banner's faults were, they are not faults now judging by the last 3.5 years. For what its worth in regards to the content, I too would remove it. It's trivial information that remains uncited to any reliable source. The source used appears to be a fan site. If you can find independent, reliable, secondary sources to support any of these parades, then discuss them on the talk page of the article and move forward. I know you have your heart in this, so let's try to find those sources, ok? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Got it, thanks. IanDBeacon (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An off-Wiki discussion about a potential but unknown vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I saw this discussion and thought you might be interested. https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/avq1c6/lecturer_behaviour_amounting_to_vandalism/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Without any knowledge of who the editor is or which articles are "at risk" there's not much we can do. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well given the action should not be possible to find out (assuming this is real, of course), just look for the user who inserts incorrect links in legal pages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We're potentially looking at thousands of pages. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

...and in any case, this is hearsay. With a little more information we might be able to look into it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, assuming this is true. Its just as likely this is someone trying to make a similar point by getting us to hunt down non existent vandals. But it might be worth just keeping a wry eye out for any odd activity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and sockpuppetry at Carlos Marighella article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be an edit war brewing at the Carlos Marighella article, inserting the contentious label WP:TERRORIST into the intro. The editors seem to be single purpose accounts. Two accounts were banned for being a sock:

• [180]
• [181]
• [182]

Not sure if these are related:

• [183]
• [184]

--60.242.159.224 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SacredGeometry333. GAB^gab 16:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA on the loose who keeps evading blocks and creating usernames similar to Gay Nishikori

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've noticed this username, The fairy Nishikori, which reminded me about a noted LTA (here're the last known socks, Nishikori a fairy and Nishikori the fairy) who's been vandalising short time ago the page about Kei Nishikori, a Japanese tennis player, and disrupting phonetic transcriptions about tennis players and sportsmen in general; here's a partial list of the large number of blocked socks he's been creating:

1. Nishikori Gay
2. Gay Nishikori
3. GAY Nishikori GAY
4. The GAY Nishikori
5. Nishikori the GAY
6. Nishikori a GAY
7. Nishikori pure GAY
8. Nishikori th' GAY
9. Nishikori, a real GAY

Because of the nature of the edits and of his behaviour, I'm quite sure he's realted other socks, such as Trivial Wikipedian and Miaowmiaowmew which have already been blocked but there may be others sleeping, and to Chinese IP ranges, such as 14.220.0.0/16 and 113.77.0.0/16 which have been used for the same kind of vandalisms and disruptions, so in my humble opinion it's manifest that this is the umpteenth case of block evasion by this Long-Term Abuser, it's worth investigating his probable last sock and eventually block it, revert its edits and check whether there're others hidden or not Boris Guitars (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• File a report at WP:SPI. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• I edit conflicted with Bbb23 closing this, but  No sleepers immediately visible. No comment on the IP addresses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CU-blocked sock needs talk page access removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ishmailer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a CU-blocked sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis and needs to have their TPA revoked. See contribs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Widr. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Agenda-driven IP hopper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Don't know what can be done about this, but I suspect more are shortly down the pike. We have an IP hopper in Bosnia and Herzegovina who has a grievance against David J. Wineland and Southern California Earthquake Center. The filter logs are as relevant as the edits that got through. Possibly there will be more, as an edit summary on the earthqueke center talk page had a heading "Want war? You have it!" The ones on the Wineland article are BLP issues.

• IP 31.185.125.144 is currently short-term blocked for their activity.
• IP 77.238.221.246 is not blocked, but I'm sure is the same individual.
• IP 217.197.142.12 is the same individual with the same issues.

— Maile (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

All blocked and the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Great! — Maile (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I rev-del'ed a bunch of it. DMacks (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• This looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. DMacks (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Indef block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For this rant which includes ["REDACTED]" (emphasis added).

− Also this: [185] EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thank you for reporting this incident. The user has been blocked. I'm blanking prior discussion because we don't vote on blocks; it's unseemly. Additionally, when somebody is a troll, it is best not to amplify their remarks by re-posting them. A report of the form "User is editing disruptively (diffs). Administrator assistance is needed..." Is the best way to handle something like this. I am sorry you had to see those remarks. They were hideous. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked even though the user self-reverted, given the nature of the edit, previous warnings on their talkpage, and prior history of gnoming edits mixed with apparent trolling. Wouldn't obect to another admin shortening the block if they feel the user is redeemable. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-Close Discussion

I don't think so. The comments are so far out of bounds that they should be oversighted. I feel sorry for whatever trauma this person must have endured to twist their soul so badly. If they want to come back with a new account and edit properly, nobody is going to bother tracking them down. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're commenting on a closed thread but Jehochman I find it highly problematic that you, as an admin, are endorsing and encouraging WP:Block evasion for an account that has had a repeated and habitual problem of violating WP:NPA, including a previous block in which their talk page access was revoked, and has blatantly been trolling with few meaningful edits. I'm also confused as to your G5 deletion of the userpage. Could you elaborate? Praxidicae (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the edit; will email the OSers.

And after reviewing their past history in greater detail, its clear that the latest post/revert was just a continuation of longterm (and sometimes subtle) trolling. So I too don't see them being unblocked anytime.

@Praxidicae: J may choose to answer but really WP:BEANS applys. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CU-blocked sock needs talk page access removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ishmailer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a CU-blocked sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis and needs to have their TPA revoked. See contribs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Widr. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat at Talk:P

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1.127.110.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) placed an edit request at Talk:P [186]. Among other things, they threaten to press charges. Clearly not something for an edit request, could someone please take a look and respond as needed. Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week although the legal threat is incomprehensible.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin who may need a something like a bureaucrat.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm User:Jerzy, an admin for over 15 years, Angela Beasley recruited me to request Adminship. I've wandered into something that *appears to me, tentatively*, to be a pattern of starting massive numbers of surname pages with the intent of soliciting fees to include (at least) law firms' names on those pages, one might assume in return for fees from the business's advertising budgets.

(Redacted) -- Jerzy•t 07:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jerzy: I'd try the bureaucrats' noticeboard --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jerzy I would have thought WP:COIBOARD. A bit concerning that a 15 year Admin is not aware of this? As for site integrity and racketeering, don't worry. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

[187] Just so. ——SerialNumber54129 08:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

LC, admins do not know the exact wording of every single policy, procedure, guideline & essay, nor do they always know how to respond to every issue that arises. Them seeking guidance & assistance is the exact point of these AN boards, lest they do something and then be accused of abusing the tools... GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Meh, if I hadn't verified that the user is an admin, I would have thought they were a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, I know you're joking, but you probably need the adminhighlighter. Lourdes 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's great to have the security of the site at heart, but I think concern over "interstate RICO penalties" is taking it a bit far  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:POPUPS will also show you if a user is a sysop. It gets pretty badly jumbled up with users just below that level, though, with multiple advanced non-admin rights. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

If your request has private information, please contact the Arbitration Committee. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no private information and no emergency, it's just an over-reaction to the fact that the DAB page listed law firms. The page was created as a disambiguation page in 2012 by Hebrides. I've redacted what appear to be legal threats. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman I would say this in response. A 15 year admin. should know how to find out where to report WP:COIN and certainly understand 'Crat resp. I gave a response to the best of my ability. Others here have commented inrideo but you have chosen to single out my post for mild-rebuke amongst what appears to be a bunch of your fellow Admins. Why me? Leaky caldron (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There is some admin which not online for a while, or never participated in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football in recent year but somehow still maintained/"patrolling" football related articles. There is some relic on the admin rights issue and there is no rule to need admin to take exam to renew the rights. Or the rights seldom expire unless that user voluntary declare to take a wiki break. Back to the topic, it is not a place to rant wrong forum and people should know what, posting in ANI is a good indication of trying to solve the issue (legal threat for this BTW?). Matthew hk (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk Who, specifically are you accusing of "ranting"? Leaky caldron (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I, too, was surprised at a 15-year admin who didn't know where to go, and didn't know how to find out for themselves. Their log shows very few admin actions, some of which were actions that could (now) have been performed by non-admins with the necessary user rights. I really need to ask: has Jerzy been gaming the system in order to retain the bit? Do we need to redefine our standards so that the admin actions which keep the bit active are ones which only admins can perform? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - we had a recent, large-scale, discussion on things like this Admin Activity requirements - but none of the ideas got better than a NC. In relation to this case, rebuking admins for asking questions seems risky if it discourages them from asking for information to inform actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't intend to "rebuke" them, just to express my surprise at their need to ask. Also, "something like a Bureaucrat" doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about their functional awareness of this site's ways. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Can we not go after an old admin just for being an old admin and asking for help in the [arguably] wrong place? Who cares if he hasn't used the tools much? We have had plenty of admins go inactive for a long time and later come back and be a great help, and we're presently hemorrhaging administrators. OP has been directed to COIN. This thread can close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• And we've also had a number of incidents where old time admins come back and weren't in step with current practices and policies. There's a reason we have inactivity standards now, and it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions when an admin appears not to be as conversant with the site as we might expect them to be. Being ad admin is largely a matter of holding the trust of the community. I'm not saying that Jerzy shouldn't be an admin, but I am asking a question which is reasonable and legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jerzy has 57,000 edits and has never really been away as such - he’s edited consistently year on year, he just doesn’t use the tools very much. I don’t see it as gaming the system or making token edits like some other recent cases. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• WTF? Jerzy has 1500+ edits in 2018 (78% in mainspace) [188], which is >100/month, which puts him in the top 3,500 most-active-users (top 0.2%) [189]. And there are multiple suggestions of gaming and inactivity? WTF am I missing? Nobody should be getting flak for coming here asking a question, and no regular long-time contributor who's passed an RfA should be disrespected like this. Apologies are in order in my humble opinion. Leviv ich 19:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As a "regular long-time contributor"? ——SerialNumber54129 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading xtools, 57k over 15+ years, including >1,500/year for the last three years = regular long-time contributor. You disagree? Leviv ich 19:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all; I was referring to your humble opinion. ——SerialNumber54129 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You always make me feel so welcome every time we interact :-) Leviv ich 19:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by User:Purgy Purgatorio

At [190]: "Next time I will... use the means provided for libel". Also, as I'm apparently not welcome on the editor's talk page, I'd be grateful if someone else would notify them of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've notified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio, it is very important that you clarify your intention. Please carefully read the policy no legal threats, and then respond here. If your intention was to make a legal threat, as it appears, then you must be blocked indefinitely until you withdraw the legal threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Purgy Purgatorio about ten hours later, because they had resumed normal editing without responding here. They instantly responded on their talk page one minute before I posted my block notice, then followed up with an unblock request. I would appreciate it if another adminstrator would evaluate their unblock request. I have had a very long day and need to go to bed. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they have said they never meant that as a legal threat. I'll let someone less sleep deprived look at it. On a new matter, could someone look at the user page? Also, in my addled state, it seems to me from the talk page that the are maintaining some sort of list of users, and not a good one. DlohCierekim (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're clear that no legal threat was intended, so I have unblocked. I have not examined the user page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I had the following text in the edit window here at WP:ANI, could preview it, but was blocked to publish it:

It is true that Pigsonthewing was and is, now even stronger, not welcome on my TP, so thanks to Boing! said Zebedee for notifying me that my not absolutely unmistakeable formulation (cited in the charge) is considered as "legal threat". To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP. As an Austrian citizen with no whatsoever residence abroad I consider uttering any such threat on my behalf as rendering myself as ridiculous. My cited wording is and was always intended as announcing, for my future use, the means provided by WP with the WP-RPA template. I will avoid, just striking my name from an imho defamatory list and correcting to the new entry count. I will amend my comment on my TP accordingly to save anyone from feeling as a legally threatend victim.

I am disinterested in additionally wasting anyone's time on this, but please, let me know if further information I could provide is necessary or useful to someone in charge. Everybody can research this incident by starting at the link given in the indictment. I cannot recall any further encounters with Pigsonthewing. Purgy (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears strange to me that I was not granted a reasonable deadline to contemplate the serious accusation, just got my privileges cut while preparing the above after doing some clerical clean up.

I am not aware of the meaning of me "maintaining a no good list" of names on my TP, where I document some interactions here on WP. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

I do not expect that any admin valuates the potential of threat that was covered in my reply to templating me on my TP on a closed matter. Purgy (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, legal threats are a definite no no here. Sometimes if the message is very unclear, admins make seek clarification beforehand, but it depends on a lot of factors. It looks like people did give you time to respond but you didn't respond as soon as you started editing again. As someone who often ignores notifications (OBOD etc), I can understand how this would happen but ultimately if I miss an important notification and fail to respond to something I needed to respond to, it's my own fault really. If you want to avoid problems, stay well away from any message that could be construed as a legal threat. Definitely words like libel should be avoided, especially when referring to yourself as the one libeled. Remember that our various policies like WP:BLP and WP:NPA go beyond the standards of libel in the US, and quite a number of other countries (at least in some areas), and the WMF lawyers are the only one who can deal with actual legal issues. (I mean concerning wikipedia. Concerning editors it's of course on them and any lawyers representing them.) So issues like libel are an odd thing for community discussions anyway. If you are blocked because what you said is misconstrued, an unblock should be simple. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the other stuff, see WP:UP#NOT. Maintaining a list where you document your negative interactions with other editors, especially named editors and when you comment on said editors, is often seen as violating WP:FIGHTINGWORDS and WP:POLEMIC. As with everything on wikipedia, I don't think we are entirely consistent with how we deal with such stuff. Notably you're probably going to get away with more if you're an established editor than a fairly new one. But regardless of the fairness of how we deal with such things, your best bet again is to simply avoid it. Remembering we are not a webhost or a cloud storage provide, if you do wish to keep such things, you can keep them somewhere else preferably private. Note I offer no comment on the appropriateness of what you've written on your userpage. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: actually see [191] which directly deals with this. I didn't link to it earlier because rearrangement of the guidelines meant I didn't find it. This is also why I'm making it a permalink to ensure you will be able to find it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Purgy Purgatorio's TP asking them to rethink the material on their userpage. I think the intent is not to keep a laundry list of wrongs but rather a diary of their activities at WP; in particular, the earlier entries are neither negative nor directed at other editors. As they've started to have run-ins with other editors, it's turned more into a record of wrongs. GoldenRing (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I documented my cooperativeness at my TP. Purgy (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:03wikicreator

• 03wikicreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gaming the system process. Added {{Uncategorized}} to different articles to achieve 10 edits and created an article Berlin United. Paid editing declared on his userpage. His/Her username is clear that he wants to create articles.--94rain ^Talk 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I found 01wikicreator、02wikicreator、04wikicreator. They all registered on 2018-10-18, but have not made any edits yet.--94rain ^Talk 12:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    94rain, I found Special:CentralAuth/Wikicreator00, Wikiname10, Wikiaccount324, WikiCorrector1928, Wikiuser31, MyWiki110, and WikiUser775 as well. Same exact day of registration. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Of those obviously Wikicreator00 is the most clear. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Gharaibeh

Hi. Gharaibeh (talk · contribs) come to my talk page after around 9 years of inactivity to describe me with offensive words here like accusing me as having "Islamic extremism,..etc. He returned after all those years to concern about article about his tribe that was nominated for deletion by me and was deleted according to deletion discussion. this behavior support the possibility of bias in his writings. regards--مصعب (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks in reported user's recent edits: [192], [193], [194]. Reported user has level two warning on their talk page as of this writing, but nothing more. Most of Gharaibeh's edits have been to Draft:Gharaibeh. OP is mainly correct in User:Gharaibeh has not made many edits since 2009, although they have made more than none. Seems like perhaps a formal warning to Gharaibeh would suffice for now. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues arising from Signpost article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Violation of topic ban by Barbara (WVS)

Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed", as a result of this discussion (and clarified and upheld here). Her creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour violates this restriction. Bradv🍁 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. This puts a different perspective on the "humour" article. I note that this is an "official" WVS (WikiEd) sock account, considering that the TBAN applies to the accounts holder, are all the related accounts being used confirmed? --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in topic bans but Sarek's comment here, specifically in response to Barbara's request for clarification makes it fairly obvious to me that this is a blatant violation of the ban. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely a violation, and I suggest they should be blocked for it. This is just one in what's becoming a long series of "pushing the boundaries" violations of this topic ban, and no matter that this was intended to be humorous (though in my opinion in very poor taste), this ongoing behaviour needs to be corrected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Clearly a violation of her topic ban, and an example very poor judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The posterchild for “theyism” on Wikipedia, which SMC’s piece clearly borrowed from, is a heterosexual woman whose only departures from boring vanilla center-of-the-bellcurve normality are her career path and a lip piercing. There is absolutely no reason why this has to be read into for imaginary phobias. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I blocked for 72h and will now do the necessary administration. Note that the block in no way expresses my position on the publication of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, whether the essay is funny or not, whether it should be deleted or not, whether it should have been published in the Signpost etc. Please do not use this block as an argument in the discussions related to the essay.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Actions by the editor at a newspaper allowing an article written by another person to be in that newspaper are not the same as "edits by that editor". Else, the Signpost could not have any sections remotely mentioning any issues at all regarding "sex" or "health" whatsoever "broadly construed" including listing "most read articles" or "featured articles" which have any connection whatsoever with that topic. As such would be an incomprehensible limitation on the proper functions of that newspaper, it is clear that stretching this to say that the newspaper itself should be subject to a "topic ban" is absurd. The editor in question did not write the essay, and thus ought not be censured for allowing that essay to be published. As the Signpost has, indeed, listed articles relating to "sex" or "health" broadly construed, then the Signpost per se should be eliminated under such a theory. Such a block as has been given should therefore be infinite in scope for any editor at all. Collect (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Collect: No, I think Bri is acting editor, not BVS? ——SerialNumber54129 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The writer of From the Editors Bri does not appear to assert to hold the title of "supreme editor" and it is clear that Barbara Page was acting as "editor" in presenting the humor essay. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As mud. ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The credit for the 'Pronouns beware' essay is "By Barbara Page and SMcCandlish". You appear to be claiming that that credit was false, or for some reason a lie. On what basis is this claim made. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hasty block. The essay was copied over from another user’s space. It’s not clear what Barbara had to do with it. Barbara had not edited in a day, why not wait for them to respond? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the Signpost item in question is covered by the topic area of the ban, which is health and medical topics (with some examples given). The item is related to gender identity, the personal sense of one's own gender, to quote the corresponding Wikipedia page, but is not about any associated health or medical aspects. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It says including sexuality broadly construed - for me there is no doubt that the essay is covered by the topic ban (this is why I blocked).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a comma before "broadly construed", as the qualifier applies to "health and medical topics". "Sexuality" is one of the example given of applicable topics. I'll agree that gender identity broadly speaking falls under anthropology and psychology, but not every part of it is related to health or medicine. I do not believe the topic of pronoun choice fits under the scope of health and medical topics. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: A comma conveys no meaning, at all. Gender identity, is about sex. ~ R.T.G 11:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The two commas surrounding the subclause do convey meaning, which I've explained. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It ought to be clear from the links Bradv provided that the scope of the ban from human health and medical topics includes anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed. An individual's choice of personal pronouns (certainly related to sexuality, may or may not be related to their own anatomy, and also relate to mental health) absolutely falls under that scope. Ivanvector (^Talk/<subEdits) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is obvious nonsense, at least as an overarching generalization. The most usual reason for hiding gender in written communication is to avoid the effects of gender sterotyping, which has nothing to do with sexuality in the narrower particular sense this flap is about. Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, and the suggestion that it is is offensive. This isn't about "hiding gender", it's about a person's own choice of gender expression, inherently related to sexuality in a very specific sense. The idea that a person's expression of their own gender or nongender is not related to sexuality is mind-boggling, and using those sensitive choices as a source of ridicule is disgusting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked pending a consensus forming here. From my unblock rationale: "Block was *far* too hasty; it is definitely not even clear that the essay was covered by this topic ban, either in words or in spirit. Discussion is in progress at ANI, no reason to short circuit that. *If* consensus for a block develops, obviously an admin can impose it without being accused of wheel warring." The problems that led to the topic ban had zero to do with gender identity. Zero. If for some weird reason consensus eventually forms to block, then I won't wheel war, but a unilateral block based on a faulty reading of the topic ban is not cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I think it might've been better for you to express your opinion here rather than move immediately to unblock. Your note in the block log about process is a reasonable bone to pick, but from your expanded statement here it seems like you unblocked because you disagree with the decision not the process of reaching a consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  (directed at everyone, not just AM) Please take the 5 minutes to read thru the previous topic ban discussions Bradv linked to. There was never any problem related to gender identity brought up. There were substantial problems related to editing on anatomy and sexuality topics within the scope of a broader medical topic, mostly due to competence in that area. The topic ban is worded the way it is because we're imperfect humans, and a precise topic ban that is not too broad and not too narrow is hard to craft. It is possible that based on the current wording, this might be a topic ban violation (I strongly disagree, because sexuality and gender are different things, but I can see how some might see it). But it is impossible that the topic ban was intended to cover this situation. In such a circumstance, it is vital that a consensus be reached, rather than a knee jerk block. As I've said many times, people who hang out and comment a lot at ANI are nuts, so it's possible a consensus for a block will develop, and in that case I'll be powerless to prevent it. But I still hold out some hope that people will actually read the original topic ban discussions, rather than try to play "gotcha" to punish someone who published a moronic essay, and realize this was a misinterpretation of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I read through those discussions before starting this thread, including the long and protracted disputes with other editors which preceded the topic ban. It never occurred to me that someone would argue that gender identity is not covered under the term "sexuality", especially considering the "broadly construed" part. Bradv🍁 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Bradv: Gender identity can indeed be covered by "sexuality", but not in this context in which the topic ban is restricted to health and medical topics. I've explained my thinking below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  For a short block, where there is little risk of continuing editing problems, it's not unusual to unblock the editor while a block is reviewed. Otherwise the editor may experience a significant portion of the block even if ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The links establish that this is a clear topic ban violation. This action, taking an essay which had 33 views in the 89 days prior to Signpost publication, and choosing to publish it in a place that has now spilled across multiple parts of Wikipedia, and indeed the broader Wikimedia project, shows why that ban was appropriate. This was a bad unblock - if a sysop had chosen to block for a topic ban violation, as indeed is in their toolset even absent a community discussion, that too would have been appropriate. Saying that no such action can be taken because the problem was pointed out in a community space is a poor use of sysop discretion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• (multiple ecs) I obviously disagree that it was a faulty reading of a topic ban, and I do not need a community consensus to block, but I am not going to wheel-war either.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not a t-ban vio. The article is about grammar choices not medical and health, or sexuality as it relates to medical & health. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The essay is about personal gender identity, not "grammar choices", and is deeply rooted in sexuality and sexual expression. The language of the ban makes clear that this topic is covered, thus it was a violation, and the subsequent clarifications indicate that this ban covers the entire project, not that there is an exotic exemption because it's the Signpost. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I disagree. Sexuality and gender are definitely two separate things. While the Signpost article is unfunny and stupid, I don't see it as a violation of the topic ban. Nihlus 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Per Atsme ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How about unblock, and extend the TBAN to include everything on Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block, obvious t-ban violation, and if she does not even understand that (or that the "joke" which, as Cullen so eloquently explained here, is an instance of punching the weak for the lulz) I question whether she is competent to interact constructively at all. This is vile. --bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• TBan violation per Ivanvector but meh about the block. Unless and until there's a pattern of her skirting boundaries; a block was (probably) overreaching. ∯WBG^converse 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

See Bradv's links. Each of those long discussions was a result of her testing the edges of her restriction, and here we are again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The TBAN was stated as "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" i.e. the TBAN includes "sexuality broadly construed", not some odd spin alonge "medical sexuality" that somehow (very oddly and in a way unrelated to medical English or plain English usage) might exclude "social sexuality". The "pronouns" essay opens with the author stating their "personal pronoun" and includes towards the end that the discussion is more than, therefore must include "social gender preference". It is not possible to find a definition of "gender preference" that is not built on a person's sexuality. The essay is not some esoteric discussion about pure grammar, it specifically defines itself by these relationships to sexuality.

There can be no logical doubt, this "humour" essay was within the scope of the TBAN. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Question is it common practice to block long term, established users before they've had a chance to respond or clarify? Good unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It was apparently a question to me, and it was a loaded question - but, well, 72h is not long-term, this was not the first block (this is why it is 72h and not 24h), and she did react before I blocked her - and she also reacted after the unblock, but she still did not care to either come here or write on her talk page why this was not a topic ban violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara asked for clarification here and instead of providing any, you blocked her. It doesn't matter how long you blocked for, it was a bad block. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I still disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please answer the question. Is it common practice to block long term, established users when they request clarification, instead of clarifying? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not answer loaded questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did you block instead of clarifying, especially when Barbara asked for more details? It’s a simple question. You are responsible for your bad block, so please justify it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still loaded. We need one more iteration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara asked for clarification. Instead, you blocked her, without offering any clarification. Why? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank you for properly formulating the question. The point is that this was not the first violation. She has been there before, she was topic-banned, she was already been dragged to ANI for topic ban violation (blocked and later unblocked). From established users we expect that they, after being properly warned, understand what is going on. Otherwise one can always prevent a block by asking what is wrong and requesting clarifications. To me it looked like an obvious TB violation, and I applied a block. If it turned out that I clearly misread the situation, for example, as it was suggested here, she did not publish the essay, she could have clarified this before or after the block, and I could have unblocked. In addition, this is not a justification, but she is active but did not address the block at all, which is usually taken as a sign that she does not have a good response.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"she did not publish the essay" and previously it was stated "did not write the essay". Can someone, anyone, explain why the name "Barbara Page" is the first of two names credited as the co-authors? --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I only cited this as a hypothetical reason, I do not think this is the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Signpost article in questions showed some fantastically poor judgement, and should probably have never been written, but I can't see where it actually violates the terms or spirit of this topic ban. I find no reason to sanction further. If this sort of thing becomes a pattern, we can revisit the idea of a different topic ban. But this, as bad as it is, does not substantively violate the existing ban. --Jayron32 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (1) It was a failure of this user to use an account named XXX(WVS) for anything except from Pitt-business i.e. business related to Wikipedia versus University of Pittsburgh. (2) It was a failure of ourselves to allow any editor who is not a scholar to use an account named Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, instead of [Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater]. (3) I am not sure of what is said by Barbara... has been a Visiting Scholar ... since 2015. I would prefer B. is a VS from 2015 or B. has been a VS from 2015 until xxx. (4) the initial ban was related to misreading or misunderstanding sources, to the point of inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. (5) Here, the risk of misreading an empty set of sources seems equal to 0, while identifying gender and sexuality in order to justify a block seems questionable. Pldx1 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree with Atsme. This was (an attempt at) humour about grammar. It fell flat, and is hopefully going to be deleted, but that doesn't make it blockworthy. At no point does the unfortunate article refer to anyone's sexuality. This is no more about sexuality than that bacterium she wrote the last article about and was blocked for was about medicine. Yes, this is about pronouns, which are associated with gender, which is associated with sexuality, but at that distance, pretty much everything is associated with sexuality, from clothing (because it can be sexy), to cigars (remember Sigmund Freud!) to food (don't even ask...). If this falls under sexuality broadly construed, then Barbara can not edit any articles about people who are believed to ever have sex (or never have sex), people who have children (or don't have children), etc., or pretty much anything that people do (Chess! No, because that is all about mating...) and might as well give up and go home. Also, it was done days ago, she hasn't been involved in the foofarah since, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's not just about pronouns, even if that was in the mind of Barbara though. Saying "just about..." something denies the very real, and deliberate, use of language to dehumanize people throughout history. Specifically with transgender people, to use the wrong pronoun to describe them is a deliberate and intentional act to delegitimize the concept of being transgender. This is not merely a grammatical issue, because the use of grammar has been used as a tool specifically by bigoted people to dehumanize and delegitimize the other for a very long time. I have no idea if that was the author's intent here, I can only say that it is the intent of most people who came before them and did similar things. --Jayron32 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, and it is an attempt at humour that was badly misjudged. But that alone does not make it a topic ban violation - my thoughts below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  That other people use it this way is a fine argument for deleting the essay. It's a terrible argument for blocking Barbara. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Which is why I pre-agreed with you before you even said that. --Jayron32 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hang on, "gender preference" as used in the essay, is not directly part of sexuality, despite every reliable source where it is defined, it is? This is dabbling with sophistry a bit too far to be credible. --Fæ (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If someone starts talking about pronouns, I'm probably going to assume it has something to do with transgenderism, not to mention the "identify as" bit. If someonementions enchiladas, I will not immediately imagine their sexual potential, I'm just going to want enchiladas; that's a false equivalency. This isn't about sexuality as much as Animal Farm isn't about communism. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × many) This is a ridiculous argument. Of course there are many topics that might touch on conversations of a sexual nature (Rule 34 is a thing) but that's way off from a topic which has a specific sexual association. One's gender and choice of expression is directly linked to sexuality, intrinsically and inseparably. Some people get off on Sailor Moon but it's not a sexuality topic by any definition. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Look at the number of people who disagree right in this conversation. You advocate that she should have known it to be perfectly obvious, when so many here don't? --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There are a number of people here whose opinions on gender and sexuality are bewildering and insensitive, yes. The fact that some people for whom it's never been an issue think that it cannot possibly be an issue for anybody is enlightening, though it is not surprising. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
        • ^^^this^^^ --Jayron32 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict × far too many, compounded by a slow connection) The majority of the debate is "does the topic ban actually cover sexuality in all aspects, or rather does it only matter when it is sexuality relating to medicine?" NOT "is this essay about sexuality?" which almost everyone agrees that yes, it is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think there's a topic ban violation here. Having been active over the topic ban itself and knowing the actual editing conflicts that led to it, I read "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" as covering sexuality in any way related to health and medical topics. And this humour page (which, in my opinion widely missed the mark, sorry) does not come close to health and medical topics or to anything remotely close to the actual issues which led to the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Just to put it in a slightly different way, when it says "health and medical topics, including..." that defines the superset for broadly construed and any of the subordinate included sub-topics are constrained by being part of health and medical topics. It's not health and medical topics AND sexuality, it's sexuality where it forms a subset of health and medical topics. And the humour thing is not a subset of health and medical topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• +1 as per Atsme - I'm not seeing a violation here either. –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it probably violates the topic-ban on a technicality, but Wikipedia doesn't run based on technicalities. Regardless of whether the topic-ban is violated, some action may be needed. I still remember Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't even violate it on a technicality. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It probably doesn't. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Barbara started this article with content about Nominative determinism. She then copied User:SMcCandlish/It to the Signpost. With no further significant contributions (the rest is editorial). I'm not sure that's in the spirit of the topic ban, since she didn't actually write the content. It does seem to be a technical violation though, in my opinion, since she edited a page relating to the topic ban. Without digging into Wikilawyering territory, I therefore think that it was a hasty (but justifiable, just perhaps not justified) block, a good unblock, and worthwhile discussing here. I have no opinion on further action warranted at this time. Anyway, that's just my 2 ¢. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NB. I read the scope of the ban differently to Boing! said Zebedee, as I view the including as an Inclusive or. That's probably just the programmer in me. I can agree with SerialNumber54129 about this being about as clear as mud, and more sticky. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm a programmer too (at least an ex-programmer) and I read it in the context of having been there at the time, having known the actual problems which led to the topic ban, and having understood the entirely medical nature of the problem areas and of the ban extent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: How dare you inject facts, understanding, and topically specific experience into an festival of self-righteous outrage by people making assumptions about what something meant instead of actually reading it? Shame on you!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• What Boing said. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think Boing is right here. Natureium (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Barbara made a bad decision here in putting her name to that article. The best thing she could do, for the good of Wikipedia (I originally wrote "for her own good" here, but that seemed rather patronising), would be voluntarily to do something other than edit Wikipedia over the weekend. If she does that then it doesn't matter if she's blocked or not. There's a whole world out there to explore, so just take a break. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• No ban - I'd be inclined to not think there was a breach, as not the actual writer of the material. Perhaps unwise, but not a substantive breach of the TBAN. I also think that the block was hasty, in the sense that if the "breaches" were going to be in this form (no restarting of mainspace editing), the 72hr block couldn't possible be preventative and certainly didn't need immediate enacting pre ANI, as no Signpost editing would take place within that time slot. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Violation. If her name is on the article (it's the first in the byline), and it mentions "social gender preference" etc., then it's a violation of the TBan, which includes the words "broadly construed". (NB: Yesterday I !voted to "Keep" the essay.) Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC); edited 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Let's see. An editor banned from sexuality related topics wrote/posted/something-ed an essay making fun of pronoun choices. Gender identity is definitely a part of human sexuality and therefore this is a violation. That said, the sort of insensitivity shown in the essay is not uncommon so, perhaps, we should just give this whole thing a pass (assuming that the essay itself is deleted or somehow vanished). How much drama do we really need? --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment having read both the previous topic ban discussion and the signpost column, it's clear to me that this isn't a violation of the original topic ban, which was originally imposed strictly as a result of competency issues and which encompassed sexuality in the context of medicine. If a broader topic ban is desired by the majority of people here then that's cool and all, but the cognitive dissonance I'm seeing here is a bit worrying. I should also note that the three-day ban of this user was completely unnecessary. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support action. This was incredibly ill-considered and frankly outright polemic screed that is so mind-bogglingly beyond a legitimate WP:HERE purpose (and so certain to cause a furor) that I can't fathom how two longterm editors could think this was an appropriate thing to publish anywhere on the project. You know, for the last couple of years I have occasionally come across people griping that the signpost was becoming a problem and that no one was awake at the wheel for the editorial process, and I've just dismissed it as hyperbolic griping (I personally think the publication has served as a vital community role) but something like this really raises questions.

For the record, if you look, you can find plenty of examples of me pushing back on problematic efforts on policy talk pages and at VP to liberalize our style guidelines to allow for idiosyncratic pronouns in Wikipedia's voice, so I can try to assume that something like that inspired this pugnacious rant masquerading as "good humour", but even a half second's thought by a veteran editor should have revealed how this was likely to be interpreted as a blanket attack/gripe about certain notions on gender identity broadly and how utterly inappropriate this is under any of half dozen principles of WP:WWIN. Frankly, I'd like to see SMC admonished on this as well; he's a stellar contributor and a workhorse in numerous of our policy areas, but this speaks of incredibly poor forward thought and understanding of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, at a minimum. As for Barbara, yes, this certainly falls squarely within the topic ban, and I support the previous block and would consider supporting further measures necessary to draw a line in the sand regarding the pushing the boundaries of said ban. Utterly un-wikiprofessional; I can't think of any other way to describe this. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You're just making up patently false accusations about the content and intent. This is covered in great detail at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, and at WT:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, so I won't go over it all again here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh? What have I "made up" exactly? I haven't done anything but provide my feedback on details which don't seem to be in dispute between you and the numerous people above and at the Signpost page who are standing aghast at your polemic rant there, so I don't see where I even had a chance a construct a falsehood? Care to back that up with something more substantive? You know, I wasn't being disingenuous when I said that you are a super productive editor and one valued by myself personally, but your response to this whole situation is not a flattering look for you. I'm not just concerned you're digging a hole for yourself here, I'm worried you're determined to do it with dynamite. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeat: "This is covered in great detail at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, and at WT:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, so I won't go over it all again here.".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The editor's topic ban is constrained to health and medical topics (including sexuality within that context). Even if it were not, the essay in question has nothing to do with "...sexuality, broadly construed". It is about and only about abuse of the English language in non-neutral ways to push unencyclopedic wording into our articles, including trademark and logo over-stylization, injection of honorifics for religious reasons, and use of neologistic pronoun replacements (xie, hirs, etc.) in Wikipedia's own voice. That the last of these has something to do with identity politics is entirely incidental (this is about editors defying WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS to make our material hard to understand for their own personal or organizational reasons). Gender identity matters being confused with sexual preferences is a common error but it is an error, as everyone familiar with these topic spaces already knows and understands very well. Also, Barbara was not a co-author of the material (which long pre-dated the Signpost use, as a userspace essay), but simply did a compression pass on it. This thread should be closed without action as utterly wide of its mark, in multiple ways.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Context matters. The topic ban revolves around "health and medicine" and anatomy and sexuality in that context. The satirical essay is concerned with language, titles, and pronouns. There was no violation. The block was hasty, the unblock good, and should stand. Jonathunder (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Having read more closely the nature of the topic ban, and the views of those who instituted it, and the important distinctions re: medicine and health, I now view this as not a violation (especially since she apparently didn't write any of it. We had this same sort of debate when someone under a medical and health TBan edited articles on veterinary medicine. The consensus was that a TBan about health and medicine did not apply to veterinary medicine, and only applied to human health. In the same fashion, I view Barbara's topic ban as regarding health and medicine, not linguistic preferences regarding one's personal pronouns. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Canvassing: People were non-neutrally canvassed [195] by Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to come vote for a block/ban here, on the basis that people are wikilaywering over "lack of common understanding of words like 'gender'" (which is not what this is about, but whether a topic ban about health and medical material can be extended that far). It also and included a claim that a topic-ban violation was determined to have occurred [196], which is simply an outright falsehood, as this discussion is still running and leaning far away from that interpretation. I've opened a separate ANI thread about this, as there was a whole lot of other canvassing by the same editor, and this new canvassing was done after calls to stop, and after a prior very lengthy topic-ban for the same behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Response by Barbara Page

I have read and then read again Scott's essay. I think I made some small edits while preparing the piece. But since I pasted the content to the Signpost's Humour article draft page I can take the blame. I originally put Scott's name first, but someone else went in to change it...so what, the details really don't matter.

I am a little Pollyanna-like because I have also seen situations where people struggle with pronouns. I struggle with words. Words-not people or people groups. I see myself playing right field, making daisy chains while everyone else bustles around doing what people do during a baseball game. The whole Signpost article is about pronouns. As a 'paster' of the essay into the Signpost work space, I saw nothing in the contribution that was anything close to violating my topic ban. My context for finding the struggle with pronouns came from a great friendship with a WP editor who is an actual linguist. We talked about pronouns for two hours once. People groups were never the issue with us. I asked her about some quirks in English and she gave me great insight. Where are you seeing something that smacks of other things? I don't see it. Of course and comments get lengthier and lengthier it is undeniable that I am in the minority. I am also a wife married to a man. I have many in my family who are not like me. I have been married for 39 years. I have six grown children and six grandchildren. They get to choose their pronouns. I am very sorry to have caused so many editors to become agitated. I like the 72 hours break. I might be editing in other wikis if you are looking for me.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that before trying out any other humour in the Signpost, you run it by someone else first. We don't need jokes by committee, but this was reasonably easy to identify as a drama magnet. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of strong opinions, you have a new incoming link to your tiger essay. Regarding this month's humor, I'll say it seemed obvious to this Signpost reader who the main author wasn't. 🍣 — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't really care about blocks, topic-bans, or any sanctions but just commenting on the merits of the underlying situation: this signpost piece was a poor piece of writing; the fact that it underwent review and still got published exposed some blindspots in the process; and the subsequent missing-the-point defensiveness/justification seen in the authors' replies has been really disappointing (the piece had as much to do with "struggle with pronouns" as Gamergate had to do with "ethics in journalism"). For those wishing to wash off the bad taste: look at this as an (off-wikipedia) example of appropriately thoughful response to another piece of poorly written and insufficiently reviewed content. We can do better. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Why are Signpost articles being misattributed? If Barbara did not write even one word of the article, why is her name anywhere on it? Honestly, this is the oddest thing of all, to me. One should reasonably expect in an encyclopedia and all of its publications that authorship is correctly and accurately identified. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Beats me. I just assumed it was some kind of "thing that Signpost does. Maybe because Barbara added a picture to it? The title the Signpost used was certainly not my idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given that Barbara (WVS), in her comment above, is forceful that though editors are very agitated, she hasn't committed any mistake ("I saw nothing in the contribution that was anything close to violating my topic ban. "). Does it mean that a similar disruption may occur again? I leave it to the community to decide, with the proposed action:

• Barbara (WVS) is indefinitely blocked until they confirm that they will respect the conditions of their TBAN, broadly construed, with no exceptions

• Support as proposer. Lourdes 05:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as, basically, off-topic nonsense, for all the reasons covered above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ehh.. I'm inclined to say that's probably not the way forward here (and anyway, I don't think the above forecasts that result). Obviously you can tell from my comments above that I am concerned here, as are others. But jumping straight to indef without giving Barbara the benefit of the doubt that they would comply with the TBAN if it were made explicit by the community that it covers issues of gender identity? (Should that prove to be consensus as I think is likely to be the outcome, also per above). No, I think that's not the ideal solution. She has a genuinely reasonable argument to make that she shouldn't have been expected to know that. You or I or others may think its so obvious that she should have assumed as much, but I personally think WP:AGFing on her assertion that it was a good-faith mistake is right approach. Clear guidance will give Barbara a chance to prove a willingness to avoid the area sincerely, or it will give the community the evidence needed to see that she won't. That's my preference insofar as the remedy for the issue with Barbara and the TBAN. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely no need for this draconian measure. There's not even agreement that the TBan was violated. What is in fact needed is more clarity about the parameters of the TBan, from those administrators and other editors who were present in the discussions and events leading up to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Hell no. I personally think that she borderline-violated her TBan but there does not seem to be a consensus among uninvolved editors. ∯WBG^converse 06:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems a matter of opinion, but for me Barbara's actions weren't even a TBan violation, per Atsme & Elspamo4. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This takes broadly construed to "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" - and extends it to outer space. Pronouns are linguistics - and minor copyediting / copy-pasting into a newspaper (as opposed to actual article content) - is also somewhat broadly construed to Wikipedia. Should The Signpost run off-site so that Wiki limitations do not apply? Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously Oppose as there has been no topic ban breach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, while the publication of that piece has offended quite a few people (and I do think it was a mistake), a lot of the responses I'm seeing look very much like attempts to punish everyone involved (and even some who weren't involved) as harshly as possible, using every means and every venue possible. That's not the way we're supposed to do things here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Barbara did nothing wrong. I'm ashamed that Bradv, whom I had defended when he was scapegoated over the Strickland affair, is now stretching Barbara's topic ban beyond reason in order to punish her for political thoughtcrime. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I echo everyone above the TBAN was not in any way, shape or form breached, I would strongly suggest this is speedy closed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the topic ban was not violated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per GBartlett & CTroutman. ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nobody seemed to notice this yet

Extended content

Part of the Signpost article was a diagram of a cut away stellar body.[197] Under it were piped links and text. "Are you (also) a trans-biological explicate manifestation..." (piped link to Quantum suicide and immortality under the word trans, i.e. "Are you trans?" click ->suicide). McCandlish makes an edit shortly after, generalising transgender as a character, for the purpose of consolidating a "language activists" identity, as those who would undermine the real transgenders. Defines all who oppose him, without any particular qualifier, as the enemy of transgender. [198]. Candlish literally appoints and harasses Fae into being his main antagonist at length, beginning around here [199]. If I had to trawl the VPP posts I think I'll bring back 20+ diffs of blatant personal debasement towards Fae. I picked Candlish up here in the debate, claiming to be an experienced professional in the field of freedom of expression, evidently a part of three posts in one diff. Now I can see that diff included a paragraph for or about Fae, specifically diagnosing her with a specific psychological problem, the Dunning Krueger Effect (). His next post to her (on that page) is specifically to point out to her that he would never claim to be a victim I've never claimed to be a victim; that's your kind of game. Disagreeing with being mischaracterized, and correcting it, is not anywhere near equivalent to claiming to being victimized by it. More to the point, the post you're replying to has nothing to do with any of that, but with your own long-term behavior problems on Wikipedia His next post to Fae then attempts to wikilawyer [200] specifically to accuse Fae of gaming WP for achievements. To me he said that it was not an argument about transgender issues and... informs me of a little known small band of POV pushers who are trying to take over Wikipedia... [201]. Now I am going to break there and make my personal point. I've been waiting for SMcCandlish to A) Make a clear statement toward any inadvertent offence, B) Apologise to Fae and stop winding her up about her self, and C) To thank, and take the useless and unfounded slack off User:Barbara who has thoroughly shouldered it up for him. Instead he wrote for Barbaras section above, "Beats me. I just assumed it was some kind of "thing that Signpost does. Maybe because Barbara added a picture to it? The title the Signpost used was certainly not my idea."" Nobody seemed to mention the first point I made above, and when he dumped his obvious friend I better just..-->(Barbara) I was provoked to point out that nobody seems to notice he didn't state apology for the public and has attacked Fae far beyond protocols, that I am pretty sure he started it on that one unless I check VPP. ~ R.T.G 13:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC) "Nobody seemed to have noticed this yet" because there is no "this" here; you've not demonstrated a case for, well, anything. In the order of your diffs: In detail: 1) I had nothing to do with the diagram or its caption; in the pre-press copy I saw, there was a dinosaur picture. 2) Diff doesn't show what you say it does; I hope everyone does actually read it [202], since it shows that Fæ and her canvassed army are blatantly lying about me being a transphobe. Also, what you said makes no sense in the context; their accusation is that I am the enemy of trans, so it cannot be consistent with your narrative in their support that I'm such a trans defender that I'm wrongly accusing "all who oppose [me]" of being anti-trans. Nothing in my post relates to a single thing you said about it or me, anyway. 3) You don't seem to know what the word wikt:literally means, and the diff doesn't show what you say; it's just me responding to Fæ again making up stuff about me out of nothing. Defending against Fæ's 3-day-long firehose of "transphobic" accusations, across multiple WMF sites, is not "personal debasement" of Fæ, it's just exhausting defense against vicious bad-mouthing. 4) This is the same diff. The Dunning–Kruger effect is not a mental diagnosis, it's an effect (a result), namely of assuming you know more than you do, not being aware of the information you are missing, and propounding your "expertise" to people who understand the topic far better than you do. Trust me, I'm extremely wary of making "metal diagnosis" comments on WP and frequently criticize the practice. I did so within the hour (check my user-talk edits). 4) It's correct that I don't claim to be a victim. I've been wrongly and tiresomely maligned, but I'm not into "victimhood". Your diff doesn't prove anything other than than what I just said. 5) You appear not to have actually read WP:WIKILAWYER since nothing in it pertains to that post. And there's nothing wrong with a pertinent citation to WP:NOT#MMORPG policy when someone appears to be treating WP like game to "WP:WIN" with spin-mongering. If you think that policy is wrong, take it to WT:NOT. 6) I did point out that we have an issue with people injecting non-encyclopedic wording into articles for religious, promotional, and sometimes identity-politics reasons. I said nothing about "trying to take over Wikipedia"; you're just making stuff up. Are you and Fæ taking the same "how to write online fiction" class? 7) On your A, B, C points: A) I'm not 100% sure what that means, but this probably has it covered (2nd paragraph, starting with "At any rate, I have not denied any responsibility for what I wrote ...". B) Fæ does not identify as "she" (nor am I "Candlish", for that matter). No, I will not apologize for defending myself against days of vicious character-assassination. C) You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I've gone out of my way to derail this bullshit ANI case, and Barbara and I are in touch in user talk and e-mail; what communication we have is none of your busybody business. Moving on from that: Yes, it is correct that I don't know why the Signpost piece had her name on it; I'm not privy to internal Signpost decision-making. Your closing statement doesn't parse as English; to the extent I can make any sense of it, it's already been addressed above. In short, if this is your first foray into diffing something to prove a case at ANI, you really badly need some practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC) 1, There were three points in that and, without checking, you don't claim to have repaired one of them (checked:I don't consider a world-rant to be that statement). I mean this has gone on at length and you demand demonisation of challenge. You posted a trans->suicide link, and you haven't even apologised for innocent onlookers. Trans people will be among the minority of people offended by that, though nobody seemed to notice. 2, And I quote, generalising the transgender identity, for the purpose of consolidating the enemy, general transgender identity, +specific unnameable small group of shared enemy, "The transgendered and non-binary are not some hive mind. They're individuals with highly variable preferences. We have a serious problem with language reform activists (most of them not TG but self-styled "allies", and often criticized by actual TG people as terrible allies) constantly making one-size-fits-all assumptions and demanding that WP editors write the neologistic way the activistic like. We are finally getting pretty close to acceptance of singular they, and I think that's about as far as it'll go." 3, Literal quote: "something of the Dunning–Kruger effect is at work here, with you presuming expertise in the on-WP editing record that you do not actually possess" 4, yes I apologise, I posted that one twice, I made a mistake. I make mistakes and I apologise, being honest and human at the same time. 4, Your response here quoted, "I don't claim to be a victim. I've been wrongly and tiresomely maligned" Um. 5, You, or Fae, do not get to abuse each other or anyone else about using WP to score points and achieve like a game, if I recall you are in the 50+- and 100+- editors and both you do use WP like an MMORPG game. (A cursory glance does not show any part of WP:NOT mentioning MMORPGs) 6, I quote,"Repeat: This is not about trans people", "it's about people insisting on doing weird stuff to English", "That some editors advocate such things in relation to TG/NB people sometimes is entirely incidental, and it's not about the subjects but about a small subset of editors" [203] A) That is a rant about the world. It doesn't even come close. B) Do I need to trawl VPP for diffs to point out that you are totally bitter with Fae? Are you going to say that totally bitter, you don't know what I am talking about? You don't diagnose her personality, motivations for editing WP, Mr McCandlish? C) IDONTLIKEIT, either the lack of formal response to Barabara or the excuse of, "That's because we conspire". WP is transparent. It was why I wanted to bring up the trans-->suicide pipe link. Don't apologise for that or anything, Candlish, after all, you only posted it and nobody gives a shit, especially you. Now that's great for the Signpost. You feel honoured and cautious by your position there. Let me "parse" something for you, You express no expectation of your self, at least up until last night. My "closing statement" said nobody mentioned the trans-->suicide pipe-link yet. Nobody mentioned the blank space between your self and Barbara (I am sorry there is such a thing in human experience as an atmosphere. I was provoked by the lack of faith towards the public (you do not apologise or anything that encourages me to put you forward to the public, do you parse that?). You have been bitter, bitter with Fae. It's called personal resentment. ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Here is another "closing statement". It is going to cover all the points. It, it, it, it... it, it it, it itititititititit... WHAT DO YOU MEAN I DIDNT COVER THE POINTS CAN YOU NOT READ IT ARE YOU MENTALLY SICK HAVE YOU NOT MET THE small group of subversive editors ITS NOT ME ITS... It's you. That's you. Can you parse that? ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC) "In short", that much will still be you, regardless of how good a lawyer I am. ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC) It is worth noting that she is not the pronoun that Fæ has indicated a preference of wanting to be referred to as. That preference should not be marginalized and it's pretty clear, by the sum of this topic's discussion, that not intending offense earns no quarter if the outcome results in offense.--John Cline (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I mentioned that, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [204] ~ R.T.G 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC) (uncensored, perhaps you didn't notice)Stop repeating right there. Hindsight is easy. Your nutshell was bland, even in appearance, and lacked impact. It said you were going to debate every whacked out sort of pronoun from stylised or something to something else. And then, it went it, it... it, it it, it ititititit... Every alleged pun except one line, near the end is based on the word "it". Look man, I'm not saying I could have done a better trans themed humour article. I'm not saying that. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with it. ~ R.T.G 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC) No one has any interest in any more responses on this thread. I see you've taken this to my user talk, and I'll try once to address your concerns there (to the extent they're parseable), but that is all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Fæ's return to canvassing and incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes

Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeffed then later topic-banned by ArbCom from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender-related activism) from 2012 to 2017 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ), for incivility and aspersion-casting, as well as canvassing and forum-shopped in this topic area. Very recently, the editor was back at ANI, again for canvassing about gender (technically off-site meatpuppetry), though ArbCom remanded the matter back to the community for further examination [205]; I'm not sure if any was ever undertaken.

Today, Fæ non-neutrally canvassed [206] editors to come vote for a block/ban at ANI against an editor of something Fæ disagrees with (on a gender identity topic), on the false basis that people are wikilaywering over "lack of common understanding of words like 'gender'" (which is not what that ANI is about, but whether a topic ban about health and medical material can be extended that far). This multi-round canvassing also included a claim that a topic-ban violation by that party was already determined to have occurred [207], which is an outright falsehood, as that discussion (#Violation of topic ban by Barbara (WVS), above) is still running and leaning far away from that interpretation.

Just previously, Fæ also non-neutrally (with various uncivil false accusations, including of transphobia) canvassed people, across multiple WMF projects [208][209][210], to the discussion in which this new canvassing to ANI occurred. The newer canvassing happened after multiple editors called on Fæ to stop canvassing and forum-shopping and being uncivil [211][212][213][214][215]. Both rounds of canvassing also included pointed character assassination attempts and severe distortions of the nature of the material under discussion.

It's thus time for a separate re-examination Fæ's behavior, especially given that the topic ban was provisionally suspended (in Dec. 2016) only on the understanding that these behaviors would not resume. They clearly have continued in exactly the same vein.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The very best possible outcome from any additional discussion about this fiasco would be if SMcCandlish would stop repeating him/her/itself over and over and OVER again. My gosh! How fond you must be of your never ending and incredibly tedious repetitiveness! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, this is the first time I've mentioned this canvassing and incivility at any noticeboard, the actual venue for it. The only other noticeboard mention of it was afterward, as a cross-reference from the other ANI case mentioned herein. This is about Fæ's behavior pattern and its relationship to sanction-lifting conditions, not about the socio-politics of the topic about which Fæ is canvassing and casting aspersions, nor how much discussion the topic generates. Please stay on-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC); revised  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The length and breadth of the evidence and the persistence of the behavior despite warnings seem to indicate that Fæ needs a reinstatement of the TBan. Or perhaps another trip to ArbCom. This seems to be a pattern only remedied by an enforced TBan. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec, some difficulty replying here, I may need to reformat)

Putting a note in small text against the MfD, explaining why the editor named in the nomination has probably been unable to take part and that they were already blocked, does not fit the definition of canvassing, as far as I am aware. It was intended as relevant information, not an invite for anyone to rush to ANI with a particular view.

Writing an untargeted email to Wikimedia-l, not direct emails or notes, summarizing why the Signpost "humour" essay was alarming for the community does not fit the definition of "Stealth canvassing" for sending off wiki emails. This has been discussed very recently in an Arbcom case after a post on Twitter (nothing whatsoever to do with "gender identity" or sexuality as I recall, just a question of whether an open Twitter post could ever be called canvassing), and was rejected with a variety of views including members of Arbcom and ex-Arbcom members stating that writing on Twitter openly, rather than direct messaging of individuals, was act of free speech that Wikipedia should not be attempting to control. Should the Canvassing guidelines change, I will be happy to fully comply with them. If I have misunderstood how the "stealth canvassing" guidelines are to be read, I will be happy to comply with any consensus for their interpretation and apologise. I note that in practice it is highly unlikely that my more general note about the offensive Signpost "humour" essay has had any effect on the MfD, because it was neither targeted towards any particular group (like a gendergap group) and was intended to be a summary of fact only.

With regard to the claim of "false accusations, including of transphobia", I have never stated that SMcCandlish is a transphobe or has transphobia. I have stated that the Signpost "humour" essay on pronouns appeared transphobic, and I am happy to explicitly list and quote the very many very well established Wikipedians that have stated the article is "transphobic", "bigotry", "transphobic rants" etc. I hesitate to do that here as evidence, because no doubt someone will claim pinging anyone else would be is canvassing, but these opinions are openly and fairly expressed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour and SMcCandlish should add them as parties to this claim if there is a problem with me making the precise same statement of fact.

I note that SMcCandish has stated this ANI thread with claims against me at the top of the MfD, next to a statement that my addendum explaining why Barbara (WVS) probably had been unable to take part was for " for politicized reasons". This in untrue. They also stated "You're going to end up there yourself real soon now", which looks like using inappropriate threats of taking people to ANI to create drama.[216]

Despite my multiple invitations to discuss matters on my talk page, a genuine invitation, rather than creating drama and derailing the MfD with tangential claims about me, which are irrelevant to the facts of the nomination, they have refused to do so.

Despite my attempt at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour to get feedback by asking

• It would be useful to have some feedback here on how critics of this "humorous essay" can fairly complain, including the deletion discussion, and which words they are allowed to use or not use in compliance with Wikipedia policies. One of the authors SMcCandlish has repeatedly responded as if what is intended as criticism of the article were a personal attack, so it would benefit everyone to be clear about what is reasonable criticism allowed in comments or the MfD. Many participants in the MfD have already stated that the article appears transphobic and intended to cause offense, some of those contributors have also identified as trans or genderqueer, which you may see as giving them a special perspective on appropriate use of related language or "humour", maybe not.

SMcCandish has refused to say anything there. Instead they have gone to ANI rather than make any attempt to discuss their assertions, even though they stated "despite my distaste for the dramaboards".

It seems relevant to note that the WMF have for the first time refused allow a notification of the publication of Signpost on WikimediaAnnounce-l, due to:

We received multiple reports of concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019 edition of the Signpost

When the Wikimedia Foundation have been forced to act due to SMcCandlish's unnecessary drama, forced to take the extreme step of censoring the release of Signpost due to SMcCandlish's views, and have received multiple complaints off-wiki, I think it is obvious that the issue here is more with SMcCandlish's view of Wikipedia's policies, understanding of civility and what is "transphobic" than mine.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line: SMcCandish posted a very offensive "humor" essay at the Signpost, mocking transgender advocates of innovative pronouns. Entirely predictably, many editors expressed outrage and a smaller but significant number expressed support. SMcCandish proceeded to bludgeon every discussion about the controversy, repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Fæ emerged as the most incisive critic of SMcCandish's stick-wielding behavior. Now, SMcCandish wants to silence their most effective critic. The funny thing is that I agree with SMcCandish about the pronoun issue, but I completely disagree with every single aspect of their bullying tactics in this bizarre episode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about whether you agree with my essay and its inclusion in the Signpost (someone else's decision), it's about Fæ's disruptive behavior – for which they were previously long-term banned – in an attempt to WP:WIN a content dispute in the same topic area as their recently-ended ban. However, in point of fact, there is no consensus that the essay was offensive (both MfDs are on-going and with diverse input). Fæ has not been an effective critic at all (every argument they've advanced has been rebutted, by many others not just me), and has not addressed "discussion behavior" by me, but simply engaged in "transphobic" aspersion-casting about something I wrote. Basically, you're just making stuff up out of nowhere. Also, it not possible for your claim that I'm over-discussing and for Fæ's claim, "gone to ANI rather than make any attempt to discuss", to both be true. In reality, I'm discussing, and other people are discussing, and many of them were non-neutrally canvassed by Fæ, and Fæ is being ANIed because they ignored numerous warnings about disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck: there have been no warnings of any kind whatsoever on my user talk page. If you or anyone else wishes to warn me about anything, my talk page is the starting point. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY; there is no magical loophole for you to exploit. When multiple editors have raised the same concerns with you, in discussions in which you are the most frequent participant on one side of the discussion (by a wide margin), and you continue the policy-violating behavior, no talk page notice is required. You've received the ANI talk notice, which is required, and that is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When multiple editors point out you (Fæ) are non-neutrally canvassing and being incivil and you continue to do it anyway, then there is no alternative but dramaboards. You were warned repeatedly that this behavior continuing would lead here; such warnings are routine and are not threats. Your claim that I have "refused to say anything there" at WT:Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour is an obvious fabrication, since I even responded directly [217] to the very comment you quote at excessive length above. Finally, your claim to have only said that things seemed transphobic to you is disproved by the diffs already provided; you claimed that the are transphobic and have continued in an incessant WP:IDHT anti-WP:AGF pattern to maintain this position even after being shown otherwise (frequently enough that Cullen328 complained). See WP:SANCTIONGAMING; you can't be as bad-faith assumptive as you want just by tweaking your wording slightly. Statements can't have a phobia since statements don't have brains; a claim that something is transphobic, without evidence, is necessarily WP:ASPERSIONS against the editor. The rest of your text-wall is just more hand-waving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain."

PS: I got edit-conflicted while you added the WMF statement. Whether WMF wants to put up a CYA notice (and you're badly mischaracterizing what they said, which is nothing but acknowledgement of receipt of allegations) is completely irrelevant to the question here, which is whether your repeated canvassing and incivility – after multi-editor opposition to your canvassing and incivility – is grounds for re-instatement of your topic ban, which was for the same behavior in the same topic. Let's pretend you're right, and that I'm really a transphobic monster in disguise; what you're been doing is still wrong and still grounds for re-instatement of your ban.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you have not once taken up any of my multiple invitations to have a civil discussion on my user talk page. Instead you have preferred to derail the MfD with a series of bullying allegations about me, which I have refused to discuss in the MfD. My talk page, not an MfD would be your starting point.

You ignored my open invite to discuss what language was appropriate and civil for the MfD in the Signpost comments. That was highly specific, after your multiple false claims that anyone was calling you a transphobe, as opposed to your article where at least ten, maybe twenty by now, highly experienced Wikipedians have stated in black and white that it was transphobic.

Feel free to close down this ANI request and start a discussion on my user talk page for the first time. I have zero problems with civil discussion, or for than matter reasonable civil free speech. The same free speech that you appear keen to ensure I have no access to. --Fæ (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

When multiple editors try to address your incivility and canvassing and you continue both, and have a previously sanctioned long-term-abuse history – for the same things in the same topic area – it's too late for that, and ANI is where we go. Also, it's hypocritical to bring up user talk; there is no message from you on my talk page, and you've firehosed so many nasty accusations on so many pages that any request for user-talk discussion you may have buried in any of them isn't likely to be seen, nor should anyone take it seriously. I've looked and I see no such requests, other than posts made after this ANI was opened. Also, the fact that some other editors (i.e., the ones you canvassed) were also incivil in the same way is no excuse. And they did not recently get off a topic-ban for the same behavior in the same topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck: there have been no warnings or complaints from anyone on my user talk page. On SMcCandlish's user talk page there is a standard neutral MfD notification created by me, which is both necessary and sufficient to comply with guidelines. I have made no other action or complaint about SMcCandlish where any other notification would have been advisory or best practice. --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been over this already, twice [218][219]. Sticking "Factcheck:" in front of your posts does not make them more convincing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Prediction: SMcCandlish will continue beating the dead horse, on and on and on and on and ON, ad nauseum, as if normal people are incapable of understanding their points unless they are repeated at least 37 times. Their goal is to defend themself at all costs from the obvious fact that they published an insulting and obnoxious essay on the Signpost. So sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation: "I will continue saying nasty things about you, and predict that you'll defend yourself, hoping everyone's stupid enough to think my 'prediction' coming true also means that my grossly bad-faith-assuming accusations will also be mistaken for proved true." Very silly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Be careful about allegations about character assassinations, because people can read the whole MfD, and with all these allegations from you they may think you are self-assassinating your own character, and going after the most prominent critic can be read counterproductive to you. I once did an ANI request for reinstating a TBan on an editor, and that horribly backfired on me, because that was in revenge. The same as in here, it's very easy to read as a revenge and a very poor handling of events. The best course of events, frankly, would have been happened if the MfD just ran its course without bullying Delete voters. But it's unsalvageable now. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not angry at Fæ for disagreeing, or holding a strong socio-political viewpoint (it's one I mostly share). I'm not appreciative of being maligned, of course, but oh well; I have tough hide. This isn't about my feelings. It's about Fæ's return to canvassing and incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes – something which does and will continue to affect other editors. I really don't expect that this ANI will close with a re-instated topic ban, but it provides diffs that will be useful if this happens again. The majority of ANIs about longer-term editors result in no action; it generally takes several in the same vein within a fairly tight time-span before the community will act.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose re-examination at this time. While good intentioned & IMO very funny, the humour piece was clearly extremely offensive, distressing, and even repellent to quite a few. Sometimes wikipedia needs someone to go on a mission to prevent this sort of nonsense being allowed to stand. Up to a point, Fæ's actions are to be applauded. That said, it would be better if in future they focussed more on playing the ball not the man. Wikipedia is not the place for launching witch-hunts, even in a good cause. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) I apologise if anything I have written about the unfunny Signpost essay has come over as a witch hunt. My single concern in this matter has been to ensure neither Wikipedia, nor the Signpost is ever misused for what has been received by a very large number of our contributors as an attack against transgender and nonbinary people. I have no idea what is in SMcCandlish's mind, nor have I ever made any assertions about motivation and my concern is not about the person but the words being published. Considering my role in establishing the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, I do feel I have a responsibility to take up legitimate complaints in other channels where people feel abusive or defamatory material is being promoted, and this has been one of those cases where there are many LGBT+ people who remain unwilling or frightened to make their concerns publicly on-wiki for themselves. If my own genuine worry and upset has distorted my rhetoric, rather than remaining in Vulcan-like calm, I can only apologise, I know this never helps any case of this type and I will back away from the keyboard for a while apart from where a logical fact check might be needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Linking a discussion from a neutral venue with very diverse readership is not inappropriate canvassing. Wikimedia-l, the Signpost and this very ANI page are seen by thousands and do not sway consensus. Otherwise, the opening of this very section would need to be considered inappropriate canvassing of the other discussion, which I may otherwise have overlooked. Nemo 09:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Notifying WT:LGBT and zero other wikiprojects was canvassing, especially given the non-neutral language. Drawing attention to the MfD at Wikimedia-L and Meta using very non-neutral language was canvassing. There is no way around this, sorry. Providing diffs to discussions is required at ANI and other noticeboards; doing so does not constitute canvassing. In short, you don't seem to have read WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Factcheck: Wikimedia LGBT studies is likely to be single most relevant wikiproject to notify about the MfD. Not long afterwards there was a notification on the Village Pump. The LGBT studies notification was shorter than the MfD nomination statement, but was not written with any intention to introduce any different type of statement. To ensure there can be no possible complaint of bias, the wording has been changed to be the full text of the MfD nomination. Nobody, including SMcCandlish, has objected to the wording of the MfD nomination or claimed it was biased. If a complaint is made, I will consider revising the nomination statement based on feedback so it is civil and expressed as fairly as possible. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Just more wikilawyering and WP:SANCTIONGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I was specifically referencing "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline" (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification). Thank you for specifying that your concern is with WT:LGBT, but 1) that qualifies as central because it has nearly a thousand watchers and 2) it's clearly the single most relevant wikiproject for a matter of perceived heteronormative discrimination (or can be seen so in good faith). On a practical note, a talk page perceived to be followed by "pro-A" people will immediately be a magnet for every "anti-A" user out there, so that if you advertise a pro-A proposal in it you usually end up mobilising anti-A people who automatically intervene to "compensate" any "prejudice" from the other side. Nemo 10:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I just want to say: yes, what Nemo describes is how I've seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies work. -sche (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

        It may be, but it's not how WP operates in relation to the wikiproject. Its watchlisters are overwhelmingly of a particular mindset, and strongly predisposed to react in a particular way to something anyone claims could be offensive to the subject-group of the wikiproject. If it were actually true that watchlisters and thus canvassing respondents at topical pages evened out, we would not need or have rules against canvassing, obviously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

        {{citation needed}} for the claim about mindset, given mine and Nemo's experiences. And notifying wikiprojects is not only routine but explicitly given as the first example of appropriate notification in the rules on canvassing. -sche (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

        Not in non-neutral wording. There is no amount of excuse-making you can come up with to make this not canvassing. I expected about a 10:1 oppose/support ratio in this ANI, and opened it only as a spot to record diffs for Fæ's next target to use in a later case when a zillion canvassed editors aren't lined up in Fæ's defense. The fact that the support ratio is so much higher than that is a clear indication that editors considering policy, and consequences to the project, instead of just voting with their socio-political feelings, know I'm right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

      • Nemo, canvassing is not somehow permissible in cases where we think, post hoc, that it might not have been effective. In this case it provably was, because the results at the canvassed MfD (against the Signpost copy) are pretty much exactly the opposite of the ratio of support/delete at the MfD on the userspace copy (likely to be kept), despite various strong arguments that Signpost, as a publication, should not have pages torn out of it after the fact, and that it should enjoy a measure of editorial freedom. The result of the canvassing was overwhelming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Emotions are clearly running high, and I think the accusations (on all sides) go further than can be justified. I do think including that essay in the latest Signpost was a misjudgment, but I do not think there was any malicious intent. And I'm saddened once again to see good people fighting each other. On these grounds, I don't think there's justification for any sanctions against anyone. Spend the weekend doing fun things, and come back refreshed and with clearer thoughts - that's something that usually works for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A now-moot demurrer ...

That's false equivalence. Non-neutral notice to attract focused, single-viewpoint mass attention to a discussion is canvassing, and is a policy violation. Falsely accusing someone of being transphobic and, now, of abusing WP for self-promotion [220][221], are CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS violations. Pointing out these behaviors with proof of them at the noticeboard for that is not canvassing and is not a civility problem (despite Fæ's false claims to be personally attacked [222] – without any evidence of course, making it yet another uncivil aspersion). It's simply irrelevant whether "emotions are clearly running high"; one set of actions are against policy, the other are not. One set of actions violates the terms of someone's topic-ban being lifted, the other does not. There is nothing more to it. Canvassing and verbal attacks are not permissible, and we're not forgiving of them when they are a long-term pattern of abuse, and continue (actually, worsen) even after people (and not just their target) object to them on the very same day.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've struck that after seeing the two links posted below by Guy Macon, which I agree are over the line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Note: Guy Macon's diffs were the original ones I provided when opening the discussion. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but people pay more attention to what I write because of my sweet personality and rugged good looks. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hah! See my user page; I've been compared to Robert Downey Jr and Edward Norton, and more importantly Steven Tyler and John Buscemi. Va-va-voom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ach, I've been caught out not properly reading all the links!!! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion this [223],[224] went over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have responded to the meta page discussion about the appropriateness of whether the self elected volunteer role of "WMF Tech Ambassador", which presumes compliance with the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, is appropriate. It is in no way a "witch hunt" or harassment, however I have made an honest apology there because it clearly is being interpreted as a witch hunt. This was never my intention, which is instead one of simple transparent governance of WMF safe spaces.

  Should anyone wish to raise questions about the WMF Tech Ambassador role or the relationship to the Code of Conduct, it would be best to do it there, rather than on this project. Guy Macon has already done this.

  I shall shortly be changing the discussion so that it is instead raised as an email to the Code of Conduct committee. This will have the benefit of removing any possible appearance of being any sort of witch hunt and we can leave reviewing the evidence to the respected members of the committee. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Trying to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador by private email instead of in a public discussion does not "remove any possible appearance of being any sort of witch hunt". As for your explanation of what your actual intention is, I can't help thinking about your response to SMcCandlish telling you what his actual intention was. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry, but in the light of your comment minutes ago on my talk page about being scared and intimidated, I do not feel safe myself responding to you in a public forum as this may result in allegations of harassment. I suggest you email the Code of Conduct committee if you have any further comments to make about the case as far is it relates to the CoC requirements for "a respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note. Given this, I am interpreting the non-sysop action as an effective gag to remove my free speech until one or more administrators or an Arbcom clerk confirms what it means, or whether as I suspect, is it a misuse of process for someone to bully their view on others and shut up someone they have chosen to dislike. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fæ That is just a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It is not a sanction in any way, and does not prevent you from commenting here or anywhere else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, thanks for that note. I fail to understand how the Arbcom ruling could possibly apply to my user talk page. If DS applies to the MfD for the disruptive "Pronouns" essay, then the DS notice should be placed there, for everyone to comply with, not on my user talk page.

This move by SMcCandlish feels like a crafty strategy to gag me. Along with the comments on my user talk page by Guy Macon that they feel 'scared and intimidated' by me, this just looks like a coordinately tactic to game the system by people who know precisely how to go about it.

I no longer feel safe myself commenting here on this case, or discussing SMcCandlish's actions anywhere on Wikipedia. I feel I am being blatantly harassed by people who know exactly how to distort policies and process to personally attack me.

This writes off ANI as a venue for legitimate discussion. Apart from corresponding with the WMF and the Code of Conduct Committee in confidence, this makes honestly discussing this very unpleasant case of using Signpost to publish what many other Wikipedians have called "transphobic", impossible for me and based on the above pointy and biased comments about the LGBT Wikiproject, inadvisable for anyone with a track record of LGBT+ related contributions.

Congratulations to those who seem to think that scaring me off Wikipedia and open and transparent dialogue was a smart idea. I hope you might at some point sit back and reflect on whether this type of behaviour is good for the project. --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(...Gives the question serious thought...) It's certainly not what is best for the project. What would be best for the project would be for you to voluntarily cease the behavior that so many editors are complaining about. As an alternative to the disruption continuing, I have to say that yes, some sort of restriction on you is good for the project. If that "scares you off Wikipedia" that would be undesirable, but still better for the project than allowing your disruptive behavior to continue. It's not as if there were no other editors who are willing to do good work in this area without being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, re: "I fail to understand how the Arbcom ruling could possibly apply to my user talk page" that's where DS notices are supposed to be posted. The person posting it was just following Arbcom's specific requirement. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, how many interactions you have had with admins over your behavior, and your ability to correctly cite and interpret policy when it suits you, I am beginning to suspect that this whole "misunderstand pretty much everything about this case" song and dance is an act that you are putting on. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how these templates work, they are the sort of thing I investigate when I need them and then forget about them. I have not been an admin for a very long time. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia, this was the whole point of the MfD, the essay was and remains disruptive. As said, I have no intention of returning to the MfD or commenting about the authors. I would also like to avoid yourself, for reasons that are clear on my user talk page.

By the way, in the last few years my main contribution to Wikipedia has been biographies, you can see 144 linked on my user page. Most of these are of women and LGBT+ related minorities, see the related reports on my user talk page. A sexuality topic ban would make almost all of these contributions or discussion of the article subjects, impossible. Effectively I would probably cease contributing in any way that improves content.

None of these biographies or related contributions have been problematic for anyone. --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: "A sexuality topic ban would make almost all of these contributions or discussion of the article subjects, impossible", there is a simple solution to that. All you have to do is to read the many words that other editors have written explaining exactly why they think you need a topic ban, then stop doing those things rather than arguing that you were right to do them. Actions have consequences, and there is a good chance that your present course of action will result in a topic ban -- either this time or the next time you behave this way. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban Fæ's behavior must stop. That there was already a topic ban in place shows me that nothing was learned. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: this suggestion is in bad faith and not based on any actual violations of policy. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The policies here are specific to Fae and Fae's previous behavior. Check the links SMC posted in their statement. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban Fae dodged an arbcom case a few short weeks ago for exactly this type of behavior (especially the mailing list post). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The case request was rejected by Arbcom. Many of the views expressed were that there was no canvassing, and a detailed discussion resulting from the case request is available that basically supports that view is on the talk page of the Canvassing policy. There was no "dodging". --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The request was rejected by ArbCom on the procedural grounds that prior resolution attempts (eg at AN/ANI) had not been made (and that feared outing reasons for going to ArbCom first were unfounded). It wasn't a "Fae did nothing wrong" result, it was simply "not within ArbCom scope yet". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Tban Fae may well have acted according to the project's best interests—in their own lights—but it is, unfortunately, not uncommon for editors to believe that doing what's right for the 'pedia excuses behaviour which has previously led to a topic ban. It does not. ——SerialNumber54129 15:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is horribly bad-faith retaliation for the act of bringing to the community's attention a bigoted, unacceptable Signpost "article" attacking trans and non-binary people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that when one has been indeffed then later topic-banned by ArbCom from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender-related activism) from 2012 to 2017 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ), for incivility and aspersion-casting, as well as canvassing and forum-shopp[ing], it is unwise to be seen to continue such behaviours, regardless of the cause. In other words, Fae did not have to be the one to make the case; there will always be someone else. And in this particular case, it indicates a—lapse?—in judgement not to have foreseen that one's recent Tban, etc., might be brought up. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Person reports clearly-unacceptable transphobic bullshittery to Wikipedia community; person who co-wrote said transphobic bullshittery demands that they be banned for having the temerity to report it." You realize what this looks like, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I realise that WP:BANEXEMPT is still a redlink; WP:SOFIXIT. ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I was well aware that those that Fæ canvassed for backup in that discussion would say this was a "vengeance" ANI, but that doesn't obviate the need to diff the behavior. If it's not dealt with this time, then it will be if it happens again, which is likely since it's a years-long pattern. I openly agree with the blanking of the Signpost page, and the userspace page appears to be in little danger, so nothing provides your imaginary ulterior motive for me. It's simply not okay to spend days attacking someone as a transphobe on half a dozen pages and to canvass to get your way in a content dispute. It doesn't matter what the topic is, or who is involved, or how popular you are with a particular subset of editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I can't improve on the way NorthBySouthBaranof put it just above. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose ban. The Signpost humor article is essentially meaningless drivel. Sorry, SMcCandlish, but you should rein it in. It isn't quite ready for prime time. The Signpost humor article is not offensive in the service of the making of a wider point about language impositions by smaller segments of our society on larger segments of our society. The Signpost humor article lacks an intellectual dimension. Good humor, aside from the ice cream, generally has an intellectual dimension. I could be mistaken, but don't see the intellectual dimension in the Signpost humor article. I find the Signpost humor article saddening and not at all entertaining or thought-provoking. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. per everyone above (mainly NorthBySouthBaranof), Maybe Fae shouldn't of gone to Meta/Mailing list but either way this section is nothing more than retaliatory behaviour, There's only one person in this section that deserves TBANning and it's certainly not Fae. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Seems to be an attempt to have a chilling effect on Fae's good faith effort to point out the unacceptable Signpost article. Please close this and let's focus on the real issue here – which is not Fae! Lourdes 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose - someone has to call out the bigoted bullshit masquerading as "humour" on Wikipedia, and frankly I told several editors offline about the offensive essay too, and about all the editors I had previously held in very high regard lining up to defend it, because it's embarassing to advocate for this project when these things happen and in my opinion people should know about it. Last week we blocked an editor for calling out blatant racists, this week we're seriously discussing banning an editor for calling out blatant transphobia. What are we saying about what we really want Wikipedia to be, anyway? Which marginalized group shall we alienate next week? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What you've said is so inaccurate that it's hard to take seriously. The editor last week was initially blocked for gross incivility (using violent sexual imagery), followed by something that required oversight. This week we're talking about banning an editor who was previously banned for the exact type of behavior they're exhibiting now. All of this sky is falling hyperbole is not helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK there was no clear evidence that the editor they used it against was racist. They were weirdly familiar with policy and certain areas and norms of wikipedia for someone so new, so were probably a sock of some sort, but the stuff that caught the communities attention seemed to be some dumb suggestions on Dinesh D'Souza, and while their suggestions were dumb, I don't see how they could in any way be called racist. I had a quick look at their contrib just to see if there was anything I missed, but I'm seeing no signs of racist behaviour Special:Contributions/Luciusfoxx unless you're saying all MAGA Trump supporters are racist [225], but as much as I despise Trump and the MAGA movement, much of which is racist, I find it a step too far to say that any supporters of such are racist. I mean even if you want to get into semantics of whether supporting something clearly racist is racist, at the very least, this isn't the sort of unconscionable behaviour that would make such violent commentary understandable. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, even if Luciousfoxx was a blatant racist, many of us never saw the evidence. (Frankly I didn't even see the Trump/MAGA stuff until now.) AFAIK the reason they were blocked was for socking suspicions, not blatant racism. I didn't pay much attention to the discussion afterwards, e.g. I only discovered a day or two ago that MJP ended up indef blocked for other stuff, and never bothered to understand what the second block was about except, and checking now I'm fairly sure I'm right, it seems to fit even less into the description so I assume it's the first block we're talking about. But in the parts of the discussion I did see, I never saw any of racism evidence presented. Instead people seemed to be saying there was baiting, except much of the baiting seem to involve the ANI and discussions and editors that only got involved after the disgusting violent commentary was made so as I said, in the absence of backwards time travel were not justification. (Frankly the other editor people were accusing of baiting did have some very questionable behaviour racism related in their history from the little that I saw, but again it seems a real stretch to say Luciousfoxx was a blatant racist for involving themselves with that other editor especially since we have no way of knowing how much Luciousfoxx actually knew about the other editor. I would actually have a more sympathy to MJP's position if they had used that violent commentary against this other editor, but that wasn't what happened. Ironically of course this other editor is AFAIK still in good standing, but Luciousfoxx obviously isn't. And to be clear, I'm not saying Luciousfoxx shouldn't have been blocked.) Note as I said before, ultimately, whatever other editors MJP has to deal with, and whatever else is going wrong in wikipedia, for plenty of us this doesn't excuse saying what was said for that particular editor. I have seen the sanitised version of what lead to the indef, and I have no idea if there is some more proven back story as to who Luciousfoxx is a proven sock of only known to certain editors, but if there is then remember that because us plebs don't know about it, and were never even told it existed, we could only go by what we actually saw. (And what I saw was we didn't even know who Luciousfoxx was a sock of. One common theory was someone who has been hounding MJP for ages, and if true then that's absolutely disgusting and frankly I don't really care about that language any more. Except that what I read was people were fairly unsure of this theory, and it wasn't even clear to me that it even occurred to MJP when they used that language, so again, if there was any of this going on us plebs weren't considering something we weren't properly aware of.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. This may seem fairly off-topic, but as someone who still strongly supports the block based on what I saw, while I fully respect people disagree on whether the language used (or anything else) especially since it was directed at an apparent sock, was justification for the block, I do find the comment on the block fairly "alienating" and dismissive of all that went on around the block for those of us who did or do support it. Even more so since I absolutely abhor racism or for that matter transphobia. So I do feel it's justified as a response. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Luciusfoxx was ostensibly a Trump supporter, therefore must be a racist. Isn't that how it works? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you can't see revdeleted edits on MjolnirPants' talk page, and some other material is oversighted so most of the rest of us can't see it (and I am not an oversighter), but suffice it to say that comments were left after-the-fact which leave no doubt that MPants was the victim of a targeted harassment campaign with a racist agenda. Luciusfoxx admitted that was the whole point of them being on Wikipedia in the first place. In retrospect it was plainly obvious and MPants (and others) tried to get that across, but we were all too busy clutching our pearls because - my stars! he done did a curse! - that we sat around picking our asses while a productive editor was driven off the site by one part racist assholes and one part complicit admins (myself included, again in retrospect). And other valued editors have essentially retired in the wake of that incident, because of ignorant (and by that I mean genuinely unaware) editors defending the series of blocks against MPants, in the name of civility. Everyone can be forgiven, seriously, for not being aware of the whole story behind that incident (and there is more behind oversight which I am no party to), but if you think that Wikipedia is not constantly under attack from editors with a racist agenda, you should get your head out of your ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Fæ's opinion about an essay has nothing to do with Fæ's canvassing and incivility in furtherance of that opinion. The several comments above simply are not responsive to the ANI report but are WP:ILIKEIT about Fæ's personality and socio-politics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So be it. Your essay is bad and you should feel bad. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector Whether my content was terrible or not is irrelevant. You can't violate terms of a topic-ban appeal to go after things you think are terrible and (perhaps more to the point) personally go after their authors. I think people are going to look back on this ANI and cite it as one of the cases of the editorial community basically shitting in it own pants in public, in a spectacular display of hypocrisy and special-exceptionalism. How are we supposed to take seriously the idea that you can't canvass and attack people in furtherance of agenda X (pick one: fringe "science", creationism in schoolbooks, actual transphobia, racist "theories" about intelligence, etc., etc.) if the same people who condemn it will crawl over each other to be the first to label it heroic to do the same things for agenda Y? For the first time in my entire wiki-life I'll say this: I'm damned glad we have an Arbitration Committee. This kind of ANI mob rule / popularity contest bullshit will bring the project into more long-term disrepute than anything else possibly could. All you're doing is proving the increasingly common accusation that this has become LeftismPedia where rules only apply to people right of center. (And, no, I'm not a conservative saying that.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban While NBNS is absolutely correct in that Fae should have the ability to alert the community to an essay in a WP voice that can be read to be very bigoted (and which I fully agree is one likely reading), they have no right to accuse anyone that supported the essay to be bigoted, per Guy/SmC's diffs. Whether the essay was meant to be insulting or humorous is a separate question, but one cannot go throwing accusations like those of Fae on other editors; given past blocks and warnings, this is crossing the line. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

At no point have I called anyone a bigot or a transphobe. I have attempted to be extremely careful to keep on pointing out the difference between the essay and the author at each stage for our readers, and I do not think I have made a mistake on this. I am happy to apologise if at some point I typed something out that appeared ambiguous, if something reads that way it was a mistake, and would clearly be a serious mistake. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Every other post of yours about this has had a "transphobic" accusation in it. It is not possible for an article/essay to have a phobia, because it has no brain. It's just unadulterated ad hominem against the author. You cannot system-game your way out of sanctions by tweaking sanctionable personal attacks to seem to be about content when they are and only can be about the person. This has already been explained to you, so you are just playing WP:IDHT games again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is incorrect and I certainly Do Hear You. The essay has been objected to by many, many Wikipedians as being "transphobic", they are objecting to the way the essay reads and the words and language put it it. Clearly an author can write humour pieces which poke fun at minority groups, this does not make the author a racist, or whatever minority group they are writing about, even if what they have written will be read that way.

It is impossible to object to say, racist jokes, without explaining what the problem is and actually saying the problem is that the jokes are racist or use racist language but that does not presume that the author is a racist.

As I have written several times now, at no point have I called you a transphobe or any equivalent term. The essay was problematic for the reason already stated and the MfD discussion with opinions from highly respected Wikipedia contributors, including at least one Arbcom member, spells this out to both of us extremely clearly. --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. "Other people are being incivil, too, so I can automatically get away with it despite a specific restriction that applies to me" isn't how it works. On the other matter: -ism actually does apply to material; and -ism is a doctrine, which consists of material. A -phobia is a mental condition. They are not comparable. Given the likelihood that you'll not be sanctioned at ANI this time because your canvassed entourage are defending you, and the likelihood that you'll do this again, I'm sure we'll get to review this in more detail in an AE or ARCA case, the outcome of which is quite certain to be a reinstated topic ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The diffs given by Guy, while not explicitly accusations of bigotry against SMC, are basically saying "SMC supports this essay I believe is very bigoted, therefore SMC must be bigoted and should be stripped of WMF privileges". If it was 100% clear the essay in question was bigoted by all, and SMC still supported it, you probably would have a case. But while I agree with the stance the essay was inappropriate, I also can read the humor it implied, and thus taking someone supporting the essay which has different viewpoints as to try to get them stripped of WMF privileges is nowhere close to appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is getting beyond ridiculous. Someone publishes an essay that is viewed as offensive by many editors and are we surprised when that boils over into allegations and counter allegations? Ideally, like I said on the MfD, the original essay posters would have been wise to just ask for its deletion when they saw the objections (you do know that you can still do that) but wisdom is in short supply these days, unfortunately not just on Wikipedia. If you do something boldly offensive and then double down on it, you should also learn to live with the flak that you get and not go crying for help. --regentspark &lt;small&gt;(comment)&lt;/small&gt; 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've already openly stated I support the blanking of the Signpost page. I have no more pull than that; the Signpost editors are not posting here, so the "you" in "you can still do that" are not present. This ANI is, and only is, about canvassing and uncivil personal aspersions by Fæ. Even if we pretend the latter are okay in this context, a) it is not okay for Fæ in particular to do it in this topic area, as a breach of the conditions of their topic ban being lifted; and b) the canvassing is not excusable (doubly for Fæ for exactly the same reason). WP simply does not permit T'ban-related breaches no matter how right the editor feels they are or how many friends agree with their viewpoint. Same goes for canvassing even in the absence of ArbCom having editor-specific conditions about it. Cf. numerous people T'banned from FRINGE and MEDRS topics not for being wrong but for aggressively violating policies, after warnings and second chances, in furtherance of being right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussions examine the actions of all involved editors. It's not limited to Fæ's. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course. So show me the consensus that I've violated a policy. There's a clear sense that a lot of people don't like what I wrote, but that's very different proposition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban This has gotten incredibly ridiculous. In my opinion, Fae is right about the essay published in the signpost, but that does not justify the extremes they have taken this too. There are now several threads about this, including here on enwiki, on meta, and on the wikimedia listserv. Fae's mission here is not to ensure that people be respectful to transgender people, but to stir up as much drama as possible. There is no justification for the lengths they have gone to and the amount of drama they have caused across multiple projects. Natureium (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I regret sending the email to Wikimedia-l, that was stupid, lesson learned. It was a single email intended as a notification, there have been no replies to it. Were I to do this again, I would suggest that someone else send out a summary, possibly once the MfD was closed or well underway. It has been called canvassing here, but according to the lengthy discussion we had as a community about off-wiki emails on WT:Canvassing, this would not be a breach of guidelines.

The discussion on meta is a single discussion about the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, which does not apply to Wikipedia, so should not be discussed here. Based on feedback I have moved that to an email procedure. Again I regret not following the confidential email procedure in the first instance, though this would not have given the author an opportunity to discuss the matter with me directly.

Other discussions on Wikipedia are the MfD and the comments page. I created the MfD but nothing else. The notice at the LGBT Wikiproject was a notice, there is no discussion there. There is a thread on a more general Signpost talk page, not specifically about the problematic essay under deletion, but it is short and is defunct.

I am unaware, I think, of any other discussions besides those two understandably active ones on Wikipedia, and of course this one on ANI, which I would very much prefer to never have been created. I have not gone out of my way to create multiple discussion threats, clearly if I did that would be deliberate disruption. Until this ANI thread, nobody had written about the case on my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to Oppose any topic ban here. While I do think there are some reactions from Fae that went over the top, I think there are very definitely mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account. A topic ban (or sanctions on anyone involved) would only make a bad situation worse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  ArbCom will disagree; being right isn't grounds for violating T-ban related restrictions, nor canvassing (especially when doing the latter is also a violation of the specific terms of the T-ban being lifted).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Whether ArbCom might agree or disagree is entirely up to them, and it's not for you or I to decide. But until it's brought before them and still remains in the community domain, that's of no relevance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Nah. All you have to do is actually read RFARB and ARCA (and AE) decisions, in particular the ones about this particular editor and this topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban This is retaliatory and an unnecessary escalation of an already unfortunate situation. Enacting this ban would be damaging to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban. The following two calls for firing: As part of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, Barbara (WVS) has been granted special status at the University of Pittsburgh, and in this capacity is seen to represent Wikimedia and Wikipedia, even if not in a paid capacity. Given their coauthorship of the defamatory essay, I do not see how it would be ethical for Barbara (WVS) to retain any recognition or relationship, and ask that a representative of Wiki Education provide an official response together with SMcCandlish is named as a WMF Tech Ambassador, and I have requested on Meta that this formal recognition is immediately removed by the WMF, as their views are directly antithetical to the WMF supported Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, as published by Fae, are nothing but calls to a witch hunt. This is a clear attempt to defame two persons, clearly directed against them as human beings and not about what was or was not intended to be read in the criticized article. Such a bigoted attempt to belittle people is disgusting, and protective measures are to be taken to be sure that such an horrifying pattern of behavior will no more occur again. Never ever. Pldx1 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already stated I regret sending the email. It was stupid. I apologize. However writing a notification email to Wikimedia-l is not of itself canvassing, though the email should have been acceptable if limited to a very strictly neutral notification, or not sent at all. By stating that the authors have views directly antithetical to the WMF CoC, this is correct and a matter of fact, as the publication of the "humour" pronouns essay, was disruptive and has been read by many, probably the majority of Wikipedians, as offensive and defamatory for genderqueer people. To publish and promote an essay which does this, regardless of it an aim to be humorous, or putting humour in the title, it is directly against the explicit requirements of the Code of Conduct with regard to treating gender minorities with respect. As also stated above, this is a matter for that committee to review. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that the essay was deliberately offensive and defamatory for genderqueer people, you can not validly assert as a matter of fact that the authors have views directly antithetical to the WMF CoC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this is wooly thinking on my part about what exactly the words mean. That was a stupid thing to say. If I could retract it I would. I should have been expressed purely on the essay and its impact with zero possible implications about the authors at all, as if it were a statement to go to court. Frankly, from this point on, this is such a bloody minefield, I have no intention of sending a notification about Wikipedia to Wikimedia-l again, even if the policy is made clearer. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: You most certainly can retract it and should do so immediately. Do it at the Meta discussion. Do in e-mail to the WMF parties you've been badgering to get myself and Barbara "fired as volunteers" from various processes. Do it at Wikimedia-L. Do it at both MfDs, and anywhere else you've made such claims. A retraction you offer but will not actually perform is a hollow sham (or worse).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: For starters, this conduct does not even violate the policy in question, see WP:CANVAS: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at...[t]he talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Each of the diffs McCandlish supplies is at such a discussion space where a notice on this particular MfD would be appropriate and permitted. Now, do I think Fae's approach here was particularly well advised or helpful to the situation? No, I do not. In particular, the Meta posting is rather immflamatory and ill-advised. But there's been no explicit violation of the cited policy. Now clearly there's a history here of combativeness in this area significantly enough that the community had to intervene. Knowing nothing of that history, I can't rule out the question that action will be warranted here eventually. But insofar as there has been no brightline violation of policy, this is not the time or place for that. Fae was bringing a legitimate complaint about polemic/WP:NOT content to the wider community's attention, within the rules permitted, so proposing a sanction here is only muddying the waters of an already tense and complicated situation. I'd suggest this section be closed sooner rather than later under a WP:SNOW rationale and in the sake of preventing further sprawl in this discussion. We have enough to puzzle out here as is. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. This isn't going to make a bad situation any better. GAB^gab 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment/weak oppose-I am inclined to say per Nat but the mitigating circumstances are indeed a factor. But, I do agree that as much as the piece was poorly written and ill-thought; Fae is dragging this to the extremes and needlessly. @Fæ:, now that there are multiple longstanding editors looking at the Signpost case and the entire locus, can you just stay out of this? ∯WBG^converse 17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that the discussion by now has enough eyes on it that it would probably benefit from both SMcCandlish and Fæ practising abstinence from it from now on, lest it give rise tio suggestions of WP:BLUDGEONING; yes, I am referring to the habit of replying to every single opposition comment, whatever "side" you're on! ——SerialNumber54129 18:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Yes please and thank you. The MfD would benefit I think, genuinely. Note that I have already stated this above, but it's clearly a very long thread now. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Amen. -sche (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The ban reinstatement already has more support than I expected, given the mood, so its actual intent – to provide a diff pile for a later, calmer case if one is needed, or (much better) to cause cessation of the problem because Fæ will see the writing on the wall – is likely to work out fine, one way or the other. Those !voting to essentially pretend policy doesn't exist for anyone they agree with already know they're in the wrong and are doing it anyway, so pointing it out again won't change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like GeneralizationsAreBad's generalization. :-) Hard though it may be for many of us to appreciate, trans* and many gay people have a well-founded fear of persecution and are easily hurt by "jokes" like this, and WMF policy is rightly explicit about safe spaces. No sanction for a whistle-blower who did what he believed he must do. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. These aren't WP:CANVASS; raising topics of potential concern and attracting attention to disputes so they can be resolved by a broad audience are what most of these discussion boards and projects are for. The post to the LGBT project could have been more cautiously-worded but is (comparatively) neutral and brief; the complaints over the WMF Tech Ambassador position are not, but those seem like the correct venues to raise such issues, and it would be silly to say that no such complaints can be raised while an MFD is in progress. (The Tech Ambassador role itself, of course, is not something determined by consensus and therefore cannot be canvassed.) The MFD discussion perhaps shouldn't have been linked in the complaint sent to Wikimedia-l, but that seems comparatively minor given that it's just a footnote in a message sent to a broad, neutral venue, with nothing that would really drive people to it. These don't remotely rise to the level that would require a topic ban. Regarding the question of whether going after the WMF Tech Ambassador position was going too far - maybe, but I definitely don't think it's sanctionable to send in such a complaint. Regarding the WP:CIVIL concerns, I don't think it's uncivil to indicate that you believe someone's statements or actions are transphobic as long as that position is at least not completely unreasonable, since transphobic language is itself is a civility and conduct concern. Banning people from saying so would essentially be saying "no, it's uncivil for you to call me uncivil." This doesn't mean Fæ's actions or language are ideal, but I don't think they're sanctionable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support some form of WP:BOOMERANG against SMcCandlish. Nihlus 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• The continued WP:BLUDGEONING should, frankly, stop. The second point in that is SMcCandlish accuses Fæ in that they call SMcCandlish transphobic. However, it has yet to be shown, even when maybe a lot of people are on the edge of shifting from calling the essay transphobic to calling the author a transphobe. However, that was yet to happen. A lapse in judgment about that should be fixed, and either there should be diffs, or the accusations in "calling a transphobe" should be retracted. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban this is particularly appalling. Fæ made an accusation against SMC and called for sanctions, but after SMC attempted to rebut the charges, Fæ attempted to silence SMC by claiming that it was not a debate. Fæ, it is not okay to try to shut down an editor who is responding to charges that you made against them. Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ground hog day, every day. The things one sees when one checks in here. The first time the person behind the account "Fae" claimed he was intimidated/harassed off this website (in response to criticism of the exact type of behavior he's exhibiting here - particularly weaponized and fact-free allegations of homophobia) was in 2010. [226]Dan Murphy (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  User:Ash/Passive aggressive is especially interesting... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, From what I've seen, the incivility and the canvassing by Fae is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Speaking as someone who has made it a point to stay away from drama boards, what is happening here is far too Orwelian to overlook. I commend SMC Cavendlish for remaining civil despite the unfounded accusations of writing "transphobic polemic" and the provocations that have been directed towards him. While incivility doesn't surprise me from the general public, it does surprise me coming from some (or, at least one) of the admins in this case who have proven little else other than that they are emotionally underdeveloped and overly sensitive, both characteristics highly unfitting for an admin. Points are better made when they are level-headed, logical and free of ad-hominems, but a lot of what of what I've seen from Fae and their supporters are appeals to emotion. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Ivanvector and Nihlus.Praxidicae (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and Boomerang SMcCandlish - NorthBySouthBaranof puts it best. Fæ's work to bring this to the attention of the community and WMF is entirely appropriate. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to notify WMF of the conduct of their "ambassador". I see no sign of incivility or aspersion-casting; all of their comments seem to be well-supported by the facts. If their topic ban has been rescinded, there is no reason to expect them to avoid this topic. On the other hand, I see nothing but bullying from SMcCandlish on the various related talk pages. If Fæ is on a mission, it is a mission that I fully support. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I would suggest that such a response by Fæ is exactly what SMcCandlish was looking for when he wrote the Signpost piece. It is thinly disguised bait at best, and unfortunately Fæ bit way too hard. Perhaps they did go a bit too far, but so did the Signpost article. Pinguinn 🐧 05:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Interesting technique of just making stuff up when you don't actually know, rather than finding out. In point of fact, I wrote this essay in user space over a year ago, and left it in draft state, read by nearly no one. I was unaware of Fæ at that date, much less Fæ's history of disruption in this topic area (I was unaware of that until 2 days ago [227]). Someone from Signpost found the essay while reading some of my more public and worked-over essays and asked to use it, and I assented (which I should not have). Then Fæ exploded into a fireball of canvassing, slander, hounding, and more. That's all there is to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Fæ's "transphobic"-laden WP:HOUNDING of myself and Barbara_(WVS) has resulted in the latter being pressured into resigning as as Visiting Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh today [228]; I imagine this also has implications for her job at UP, unless she has tenure, though I have not pestered her for details. Fæ's smear-campaign behavior is having real-world consequences. Shit like this is precisely why we have rules against this kind of "destroy anyone I disagree with" behavior. No one's real-life roles for external organizations should be endangered over content disputes on Wikipedia. (Keep this in mind especially considering what political forces are in power in the US and UK at present; how would you like it if, say, some right-wing religious activist tried to get you fired for blockading their attempts to de-neutralize content at WP articles like Creation and evolution in public education?)

  Fæ appears to acknowledge this was wrong on their part, but pretends that retraction isn't possible [229]. (How about just do it.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC); diffs added 08:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, how's the view from way up there on your high horse, SMcCandlish? From down here it looks an awful lot like you're trying desperately to deflect your own responsibility for writing a flaming trash heap of an essay. If you're disturbed that that's having real-world consequences for real people now, well then good, I'm glad you're capable of some small amount of empathy. If you really want to do something about it and not just blame everyone else for the real consequences of your own essay, you could go right now and slap a {{db-self}} on it. Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's comments bear a striking resemblence to the "character assassination" narrative currently in vogue within US politics, complete with liberal usage of the term "witch hunt". Organizations do not cut ties or pressure folks into resigning (if that is indeed what happened) without good reason; they do it because they find the evidence compelling. These are the natural consequences of Barbara's, and your, actions. They are not the fault of the whistleblower. –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solution to this dumpster fire

This taking up more and more space on multiple pages, and is unlikely to arrive at a solution that doesn't piss off a bunch of people. Therefore I propose:

• Refer this to Arbcom, with the message that the consensus on ANI is that this case would benefit greatly by the structure of an Arbcom case.
• An experienced and uninvolved administrator who is especially cool headed and who has a thick skin should write up the Arbcom request.
• As far as possible, the Arbcom request should be neutrally worded as opposed to advocating for or against sanctions. There will be plenty of that in the evidence phase.
• If Arbcom accepts the case, I propose that all; discussions on all English Wikipedia pages be closed and collapsed, and that we advise the other places where this is being discussed about this, noting that they may (or may not) want to do the same.

If needed, I can make this into an RfC, but I personally think we can get the consensus of the community on this proposal with a more informal discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think it’s inevitable. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while I personally support a tban on Fæ, it seems apparent that the community-at-large does not support such an outcome. Nor have there been clear indications of clear community support for sanctions against SMC or Barbara. You are correct that we are unlikely to find an ideal solution here, but I don't expect that ArbCom will be able to find such a solution either. I suspect we've all seen ArbCom decisions that left everyone involved unhappy, and given the explosive nature of this situation, I don't think an ArbCom case is worth the risk. At this point, it is probably best to let this blow over. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - zero confidence that Arbcom is any more capable of realizing this situation for what it is, because of vague hand-waves to civility. Support in spirit, but it's only going to lead to something bad for the project and which nobody is going to like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  My thinking is not that Arbcom has any special abilities that ANI lacks, but what Arbcom does have is structure. Each person gets their own evidence section, with strict word limits, and clerks to enforce those limits. It is my hope that this structure will get us away from what we hace now, which is a discussion that keeps growing without any limit, and which keeps spilling into more and more pages and even to other projects. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose based on general opposition to the idea of RFCs to send things to ArbCom. I have no opposition to someone actually trying to start an Arbcom case over this (it is, in fact, the sort of thing we keep them around for), but no consensus is necessary for that. I disagree with the rest of this proposal because even with a neutrally-worded request, the nature of this step pressures ArbCom to accept and do some vaguely-defined 'something'. If someone send does send them a case, they should decide whether to accept and what to do themselves based on the merits rather than because the community !voted for it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, this isn't an WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I mean, we have people weighing in on a formal-ish proposal, and it's asking the community for consensus, so the effect is the same. My point is, no consensus is needed to present something to ArbCom, and I think it's a mistake to ask ANI for that since it inevitably prejudges the resulting case request, no matter how neutrally-worded it is. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd settle for a warning that additional such behavior in the future likely will lead to either a reinstatement of the TBan via ANI, and if that fails a likely ArbCom case, because the evidence over multiple venues and multiple cases is adding up over time. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Have previous warnings caused the behavior to stop? Did removing the previous topic ban and replacing it with a warning have the desired effect? Why would this time be any different? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  How many official administrator warnings, posted on Fæ's talkpage, that "additional such behavior in the future likely will lead to either a reinstatement of the TBan via ANI, and if that fails a likely ArbCom case", have there been since the TBan ended in 2017? Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Note, Arbcom does not settle content disputes. It makes rulings on editor behavior. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The same is true of ANI. Your point being? Both the current ANI case and my proposed Arbcom case are about Fæ's behavior, not about any content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This may go on for months. ArbCom cases take too long, but the flip side to that is that ArbCom is the right venue for things that will take too long. Guy Macon is right that ArbCom cases have structure, which ANI does not. There are multiple conduct issues: whether Barbara violated a topic-ban; whether Fae violated a warning; et cetera. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon makes a very good point. Arbcom pretty much always looks at everyone involved. For example, nowhere in this ANI case has anyone called for sanctions against me, but if Arbcom takes the case anyone is free to present evidence of any wrongdoing by me, and if the evidence is compelling, I will, after 12 years of editing, receive my very first sanction. Another possible result is a finding that Fæ did nothing wrong, which means that I and everyone else would have to stop saying that they did. That's the real advantage of Arbcom; it settles the user conduct issue and allowes everyone to move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support closure of this entire ANI thread as it doesn't seem to be moving towards consensus, and I agree with Aquillion, if editors are free to file at Arbcom individually or jointly about any part of this matter at any time anyway, then perhaps it's better to close rather than seeking consensus at ANI for an Arbcom filing. Leviv ich 05:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• I guess it's a nice theory, but ArbCom wouldn't accept the case in all likelihood, for several reasons. There's no evidence that the MfD processes about the pages in question are failing, and ArbCom doesn't resolve content disputes anyway. Whether there should be community censure toward myself or Barbara_(WVS) or Signpost editor-in-chief Bri doesn't rise to ArbCom level (MfD is already answering it); there's no grounds for an RfARB against these parties. Whether Fæ is breaking the terms of their topic-ban being lifted is a simple matter, which can be determined at AE or ARCA and does not require an RfARB. A long list of temporarily-ranty parties in an RfARB to just nit-pick at people for heat-of-the-moment accusations isn't something ArbCom will be interested in (nor should it, nor should the community want that); it's very, very different behavior from HOUNDING-style pursuit of "enemies" in socio-political dialogue across multiple WMF sites and multiple en.wp venues; that's all Fæ. The entire topic area is already under AC/DS anyway; ArbCom will simply say "there are unexhausted remedies available for disruption, so use ANI, or use AE if the party has already received a DS/alert." If you look into recent activity over there, you'll see that they just merged the GGTF and GamerGate cases into one, to consolidate, so they'd be extra-against the idea of re-forking a new "Gender, round 3" case. The place to resolve any further disruption is going to be AE and, if necessary, ARCA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.