Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 16 August 2021 (→Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl: Closure and closing statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:SinglePorpoiseAccount

    NO CONSENSUS FOR ANY ACTION
    There is clearly not a consensus for any sort of formal community action here. The username, although not a violation, was voluntily changed. Socking accusations should always have credible evidence and be filed at WP:SPI ("they seem to know how things work here" is not credible evidence). The other issues identified do not require a formal community sanction. Such measures are usually reserved for persistent ongoing problems, which does not seem to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

    No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.
    This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.
    My using of evidence to make a point is in fact a good way to handle feedback, and there's nothing wrong with calling out perceived WP:DNTL.
    I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

    Evidence of sock puppetry

    • This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.
    • Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.
    • They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.
    • Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

    Other problematic behavior

    This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.
    Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

    Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

    IMHO, you're dealing with an SPA and a Sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [1]
    Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [2].
    At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [3].
    Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.
    They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.
    I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Apologies in advance for the formatting, I couldn't get it to cooperate tonight.) So apparently I've missed a whole discussion here, and some nice little defamatory statements right in the beginning of this. Lets take it from the top:

    Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

    • I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"
      No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

    This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[4]].

    • "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"
      This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

    This was my response to receiving a 3-part list of supposed "lies", but FormalDude did not actually prove they were lies in his response. In fact he did the opposite and proved himself wrong by quoting the statements he said didn't exist. Also note that the RS/N was created by FormalDude. More on this later.

    • "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"
      I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

    This is a laughable mischaracterization of both our behavior. I'll admit things got a little heated, but FormalDude was not being civil. Let me give you an example from the edit before that one:

    And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful.

    Doesn't seem that civil to me, wouldn't you agree? My comment about being civil was there in an attempt to deescalate, which is obvious when you look at how the debate progressed.

    Evidence of sock puppetry

    • This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.

    Wow, who would've thought a new serious account wouldn't immediately go looking to edit lots of pages. The accusation about my name is blatantly meant as a degrading ad hominem.

    • Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.

    Well I guess I should take "like a pro" as a compliment, but I really have been just an IPA for about one and a half decade now. Back in the day IPAs were just as good as regular accounts as long as you were just editing technical articles and fixing broken links, so I never bothered. But when it got to the Maricopa audit article I found it was annoying to have a changing IP among others who had a single IP, it wasn't immediately obvious who was me and who was someone else. In one instance there was actually someone who got the same IP as me, obviously connected to the same VPN network and behind their NAT. That was the final drop since if things got heated that would be a dangerous situation.

    • They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.

    Again I think I should take that as a compliment, but my previous statement about being an IPA still applies here.

    • Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

    I don't remember mentioning "WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS", but I might have just forgotten about it. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

    Other problematic behavior

    • "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"
      This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

    That's odd, someone who hasn't been in a consensus situation on Wikipedia for years, if ever, misunderstanding formal consensus? Well, I'd never...

    • Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
      Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.
    This is not what I said. What I said what this:

    AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified.

    See how the context matters? Note the qualifier at the end; "after they have previously stated the results are verified". Reporting errors in your own reporting, when you have a reputation for getting your reporting right because of your stringent pre-publishing quality control, is obviously a conflict of interest. Now, if that's enough to actually stop them from reporting those errors is a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here.
    • Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

    I'm actually a little confused by this one, FormalDude linked to their own edit. I can only assume it refers to a statement I quoted from the AZ Central FormalDude linked, to disprove FormalDude's hypothesis that [AZ Central] reported how professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria." is an unchallenged statement. Fairly swiftly disproven, if I do say so myself.

    Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[5] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[6]

    Anyway, this isn't the proper forum to discuss that, I just provided this as context as to why the dispute began in the first place.

    FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[7] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about WP:BITE. If this is the sort of response we are to expect from FormalDude when he suspects (wrongly I might add) a newly registered account is a sockpuppet, he is bound to scare off actual new Wikipedians rather quickly and permanently. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all know that SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk · contribs) is a returned user and their amusing user name is a promise that they will continue pushing their barrow. However, apart from long-and-windy commentary, I don't see any wikicrimes that would justify sanctioning SPA at this stage. I will say that an indefinite WP:ARBAP2 topic ban does not require a high standard of proof of malfeasance—bombarding discussions might be sufficient. Some suggestions for all participants: (1) You don't need to have the last word. A good way to bring a discussion to a close is to stop commenting. (2) A clear consensus overrules a clear minority so if there is such a consensus, just revert conflicting edits with a polite pointer to the discussion showing the lack of consensus. (3) If the consensus is not crystal clear, an RfC should be held to settle the issue. If invited, I would help guide the drafting and running of such an RfC. (4) There is no deadline and don't fret about replying to every edit or comment right now. (5) I will sanction SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [9], [10]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[11] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this[12] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having doubts is well justified ... FD has repeatedly called people liars and then hides behind WP:DNTL as if that essay were in any way a defense of violations of WP:NPA -- Jibal (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They may be "just observations"[13], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. None of the comments I have made at RSN are defending any editor. None of the comments so much as discuss any editor. And either diffs should be provided or that observation struck. My comments at RSN align with the community consensus on the general reliability of the discussed source publication. They are, however, among the few comments in that section to discuss the reliability of the specific source article in the context of proposed WP content - which is the ostensible purpose of RSN. It is my standard practice, when posting a new section at a community noticeboard (as I had done in the days immediately preceding), to then make comment in one or two other sections - to "pay it forward". I have no particular interest in the topic discussed, and no history of editing the discussed article. The "editor interaction" evidences nothing other than that two people happened to comment at a community noticeboard. Raising a block from 2013, which was overturned by a then (and current) Arb as an out of process arb enforcement block, blocking admin has since resigned, and which was a significant factor in that admin not being resysopped, is poor - and, in the context of an ANI discussion of another editor, is a clear association fallacy. As an observation, while facilely true, it lacks any relevance. - Ryk72 talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening.. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of name change: My rename request went through and I (formerly known as SinglePorpoiseAccount) am now known as MrPorpoise. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

    For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Well I don't know what to say other than you're being duped by FormalDude. I don't think my inexperience with the formal processes of Wikipedia should be a cause for a ban, but if you're comfortable with having that decision on your conscience then there probably isn't anything I can do besides accept that after about 15 years I'm no longer welcome at Wikipedia. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Due to SPA doubling down on their disruptive edits and attempts at manipulating the narrative of the dispute (both here and at WP:RS/N), I unfortunately do not see any acceptable outcome that is not a ban for SPA.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH. This user has spent walls of text trying to convince us that the AP is not a reliable source, citing their own amateur analysis of an article which they claim evinces bias. This continued after having the facts that this is not how we do things here explained to them multiple times, in detail.
    I can understand if a user doesn't grasp how we identify RSes, but a user to whom that process has been explained multiple times, who insists on pursuing their own inept methods, and who does so to support a WP:FRINGE view at such a controversial topic as this doesn't strike me as capable of contributing meaningfully to this project.
    Furthermore, while I agree with several others that none of the examples of incivility are actionable on their own or even taken as a whole, they do go a long way towards evincing a WP:BATTLEground mentality.
    And that's ignoring the obvious quacking going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment our SPA friend is clearly wrong at the WP:RSN thread (and consensus there is clearly against their view), but that isn't cause for a block. I don't see any other cause for a block presented, the diffs at the start of this thread are just needless dramatics over a disagreement. If there aren't better diffs (and Mr. Porpoise doesn't talk themselves into a block) I will be voting in opposition to this proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They are persistent on spreading falsehoods and purposefully misinterpreting clear Wikipedia policies, as well evidenced by how many editors have had to make repeated explanations about basic guidelines to this user. And there are very valid reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. See:
      1. Their WP:FALSECON attempt here and my response here.
      2. Examples of them doubling down after being polity informed about policy here and here
      3. SPA not disclosing IPs that they used to support their argument (see above). In fact, they actually implied they were not the owner of those IPs to another user (BD2412), saying here that Wikipedia was "ignoring random IP accounts".
      Really I recommend you just look at SPA's authorship of WP:RS/N and Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, and you should see why a block is necessary. I would not have come to this conclusion if SPA had once admitted or taken responsibility for any of their serious actions, but they haven't–and that indicates to me that they will resume their disruptive behavior as soon as this AN/i is closed.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this really the place to double down? I thought the bullet points under this heading were purely for leaving final votes, not discussion? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussion that leads to a vote is permitted. Also, procedural arguments are not going to get you anywhere. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, sorry about that then. I just didn't see any discussion under any other vote bullet points, even in other cases, so I didn't want to unintentionally break any more rules. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How is "I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so" possibly problematic? If SinglePorpoiseAccount continues to argue the same points in direct opposition to site policy and their previous statements, they will surely be blocked. If they say they will not do that, that is good. Regarding "IP socking", I really could not care less. If it is necessary the talk pages can be semi-protected. Otherwise, I don't care even if the editor is using multiple IPs (though I assume not). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I can assure you I never had any intention to break any rules, and I am very sorry for any I may have broken. Even though I have experience with common templates and some Wikipedia policy, I am still inexperienced with the formal processes of Wikipedia. If there are any rules in particular you think I should read up on then I welcome any pointers. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @力: I think you should care that a user was purposefully deceitful about using IP accounts in order to make it seem like more people supported their point of view.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody has proved the user was "deceitful" or using IP accounts in violation of policy. And as I said previously, I don't care even if you could prove it; most everybody discounts the opinions of IP editors already, and as noted there is a clear consensus against them at RSN. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      FD throws that charge around freely and then absurdly uses WP:DNTL to justify it. Jibal (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jibal: Nothing absurd about it, I guess you probably just didn't look into this in the slightest.
    • Support site ban. The username "SinglePorpoiseAccount" alone implies an intent to cause disruption, and also heavily implies the user has edited here before and is familiar with what an SPA is. I've been reading into this incident for the past couple of days; personally, I'd suspect sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion. Patient Zerotalk 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      FIY, I have already put in a rename request to have it changed to MrPorpoise. At the time I registered I thought the pun would be found funny, but now I see how that's not how it has been viewed at all. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      User names don't imply any intent, they don't imply previous editing (though SPA has said they did edit under IP addresses), there's no evidence of sockpuppetry nor is this the place to raise the issue, absolutely no evidence of block/ban evasion, and none of these musings and imaginings even remotely support a site ban. -- Jibal (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I find it plausible but inconclusive as to whether this editor has previously edited under another name. I think their issues with accepting the reliability of sources stem from a poor choice of a starting point to edit Wikipedia. Articles on politically charged topics with substantial bodies of misinformation circulating in conspiratorial sources are rarely a good place to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I would suggest a general U.S. politics topic ban for a minimum of six months, subject thereafter to review of the editor's contributions to determine whether they have demonstrated productive participation and understanding of the rules. I expect that if they are in fact only interested in pressing a viewpoint in a contentious area, then they will be uninterested in editing substantially and for an extended period of time in other parts of the encyclopedia. However, I would not specifically oppose a site ban, deferring to the consensus of editors that there is a problem here requiring some action for resolution. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this more targeted proposal first I also share the impression that the evidence is suggestive of socking, but far too short of the threshold of anything substantial enough to ban on such a presumption. It does happen from time to time that an editor contributes extensively enough as an IP to be more than passingly versed on our ecosystem of policy touchstones to be able to site them more or less intelligibly. That behaviour, standing alone, cannot be used as a basis to presume a block evasion or other forbidden use of multiple accounts. I will grant that the claim of 15 years of residency here as an IP, combined some some of the more particular behaviours begins to strain AGF considerably, but, in that respect, if there is a feeling that WP:DUCK has been met here, the appropriate forum to request a checkuser is WP:SPI rather than just a ban on the basis of presumption.
    On the other hand, there are some non-trivial concerns with WP:CIR and possibly WP:NOTHERE at work in this case. I do see an editor in Porpoise who is at least nominally making efforts at good faith discussion (assuming we are not being gamed by a sock, which, again, we should pursue the standard sock busting methodologies as that is concerned). I also think their confusion about the mandate of RSN and how that little aspect of the dispute played out looks genuine to me, and lends credence to the possibility that they really are just some sort of advanced amateur here who took their time in doing a deep dive on consensus building process but have been very slowly accumulating knowledge on general bits of policy over a long slow engagement with Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I am 100% convinced this couldn't be a very subtle snowjob regarding their past experience here, but I have enough doubt that I'm inclined to treat this editor with the default level of WP:ROPE I'd advise extending to any other editor who landed here because of strident positions in a contentious area. Therefor I am more amenable to this intermediary sanction to pull them out of the area where their conduct has raised concerns. Mind you, I actually wouldn't even support the TBAN on the present evidence, but Porpoise is asking us to take a lot on faith when there are some real questions as to the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, and since the alternative would seem to be a full ban, this intermediary approach seems to be a better outcome for them. SnowRise let's rap 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would obviously prefer a temporary TBAN over a permanent SBAN, and U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude. Let's not forget the core of the issue, as I see it, is still a personal conflict between me and FormalDude and an IBAN would help me keep him at a distance. I admit I still have a lot to learn but I don't think I would make progress as quickly in useful areas for regular editing if I keep having to deal with this conflict. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I almost forgot to mention; I would urge someone to please review the sockpuppet cases where FormalDude has been involved, in a manner which is completely separate from this and regardless of the outcome here. If there have been real new Wikipedians wrongfully banned they need to be found and let back on the site with an apology. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's all of the sockpuppet investigations I've ever been involved with (grand told of four) so that everyone can see I've only ever been involved in overtly obvious sock puppetry, much like I think is the case here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for the reasons power spells out above. I think the username is funny and should be kept, first of all. SPA is being accused of both having such a good knowledge of policy that they must be a sock, and also "blatantly misunderstanding" consensus. Which is it? SPI is that-a-way, I'm not seeing any actual evidence of socking. The evidence of accusations of misbehavior does not contain accusations of misbehavior except for the "lies" comment (which was bad and should not be repeated but is not sanctionable by itself). Arguing WP:COISOURCE is not pushing a fringe theory or conspiracy theory, and I actually think the fringe/conspiracy/sock accusations against SPA are more problematic than anything SPA has written on the linked threads (including RSN). Fundamentally, we don't ban people for disagreeing with us or holding an unpopular or even bad opinion. SPA should endeavor to avoid writing long walls of text and accusing people of lying; everyone calling for SPA to be sanctioned should be more tolerant of differing opinions. This thread should be closed with no action. Levivich 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Levivich - I find their name funny and certainly agree it shouldn't be changed. (If you're offended by their name wait till you find out we have someone named Darknipples here!), SPA has stated they've used IPs prior to creating an account so it would be obvious they have knowledge of various guidelines here, If you're concerned about socking create an SPI, otherwise quit the socking accusations. Lastly as someone who hates walls of text for some weird reason I don't mind theirs... maybe because it's entertaining and worth reading dunno. ... Either way I don't believe we've reached the blocking or banning stage just yet. SPA should stop accusing people of lying etc etc but other than that I see no reason to block/ban. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I might agree that their username could be a good pun if they weren't an actual single purpose account who has only edited 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Give it a rest with banging the same drum. It's becoming rather boring. I'm well aware of their editing area and you didn't need to point it out for the fourth time. –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Formal, I agree with Davey on this. The username is a mildly amusing pun, made a bit more poignant by the fact that the pun seems to be accurate at this point.
      Don't get me wrong, I believe it represents an issue, but I wouldn't consider it an issue in and of itself.
      Also, if I saw some reason to suspect that the notions they have regarding sourcing and bias were amenable to change, I'd not support a ban at all. But the vast (vast) majority of editors who have expressed similar notions have been entirely unwilling to adapt to our norms here. I doubt SPA will, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't believe that unless a new user edits a bunch of different topic areas incompetently without any knowledge of our policies or how to work wikitext, they're obviously a sock or an SPA. Levivich 20:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And I think it's worth remembering that even if they were an SPA, that is not in itself a cause for sanction. Being an SPA has a negative connotation here because it often overlaps with dogmatic attachment to one particular view on that single topic and/or a WP:NOTHERE motivation. But it's far from a per se relationship: an immense amount of work gets done on this project each and every day by editors who, if we look at their current or historical activities, would seem to qualify as what any veteran editor would classify as an SPA. What matters is not the expansiveness of their interests, but whether they apply policy/community consensus appropriately and neutrally to the content and engage in good faith when their fellow editors have concerns. That's precisely why WP:SPA is an WP:ESSAY, not WP:POLICY, a fact that people seem to forget a lot when using the term as an indictment (and I don't doubt that I've been guilty of it a time or two). SPA has taken on a pejorative tonality here because of a cultural presumption that editors who work across a variety of areas are demonstrating that they are here to build the project at large and not advance "the great truth" of one particular topic or protect any sacred cows. But it's important for us all to remember that the relationship is not a straight forward linear one: many exceptional community members have a very narrow focus to their work and many problem editors contribute disruptively and with extreme POV over a variety of topics. SnowRise let's rap 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the arguments made above and my own observations, this had crossed my mind while reading through the earlier discussion here but I held off because I didn’t have any long term knowledge of this contributor or a deep understanding of the context of the dispute. I’m glad that someone with more standing has opened this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sockpuppetry may be reported at WP:SPI where the claims will be diligently investigated by experienced clerks and CUs, so I will not consider them in this comment. The rest of the comments do not merit sanctions. The worst comment was saying another editor is lying, which may well be uncivil, but neither Wikipedia policy nor ANI enforces parliamentary language upon editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It was FormalDude who made the accusation of lying, and absurdly justified that violation of WP:NPA by citing WP:DNTL -- Jibal (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - If there is enough evidence to confirm they are a sock of an active user this is not the proper venue. As mentioned that would be SPI. The user name is not to my taste but if we are going to allow possibly sexist or more offensive names than this, their name is not an issue comparatively. The bad faith accusations by them to others is not great and should be corrected but, past that I am not seeing near enough justification to ban them yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 6 month TBAN from US Politics per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH, and would be okay with a temp site ban (1 month?) as a distant second, pending user consensus in this thread. I think an indef site ban is probably overkill at this point. WP:DONTBITE applies...--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose They are a two week old account who foolishly jumped into a contentious political article. Mistakes were predictable and inevitable. What is more surprising to me is that they stuck around and decided to get involved in this ANI report and I think they are handling the criticism better than some of our experienced editors would be if they were the subject of a noticeboard complaint. It just happened to me and it is most unpleasant. Most new editors would have stopped editing and left at this point. If you think they are a sockpuppet, report them at SPI. Otherwise, hopefully they learn from their mistakes like we all did and start working in articles that are less of a flashpoint for discord. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose They've hardly done anything wrong except disagree with other editors. The sockpuppet accusation seems utterly baseless to me, and nothing else comes even remotely close to blockable behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose None of the charges, "For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above" have any evidentiary support. -- Jibal (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to warn SinglePorpoiseAccount

    They have certainly used up a lot of editor time on a non-starter issue. That said, I join those who think sockpuppetry issues should be handled at SPI. Without that lens, this looks like a real scrap between two editors that spilled out into RSN. If SPA had thrown in the towel earlier we wouldn't be here. It seems they have picked up on that message, and are responding to feedback. Can we warn them to avoid WP:BLUDGEON and leave it at that for now? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Firefangledfeathers: I have opined above that part of the problem is that the editor dove into the wrong end of the pool, with contentious issues of U.S. politics. They have stated in response: "U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude". I think this is a reasonable compromise, though I'd caution that contemporary U.S. politics generally is best to avoid if you're running into steep consensus against your views on what constitutes reliable sources in that area. BD2412 T 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: If you think this merits a sanction or even a consensus for a warning it would help (me, at least, and maybe also others reading this) if you wrote up a report with the evidence. As the report is worded above it seems largely non-actionable, but I'll admit I'm not really willing to closely read the walls of text on talks myself to dig something out. Judging by some awfully dubious comments, such as this, perhaps there are enough issues for an article ban to be justified, if someone can make a decent report. But this section is not a decent report. (at the same time, it could also just be a series of misunderstandings) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: This statement, also noted earlier in the discussion, is also quite problematic coming from an editor with only a few weeks of history, and in the context of a politically charged topic with a strong fringe view. BD2412 T 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to maintain context, that was in reply to this statement. I'll admit I went too far both in demanding unanimous consensus and in the escalating tone, but I feel like it's important to keep in mind the accusations of lying went both ways.
    That said I have since learned the importance of WP:DISENGAGE when a discussion starts heating up and I have no intention of escalating again, the above really is just to maintain context for my quoted statement. I have learnt my lesson and I feel like I have demonstrated at least a basic level of restraint here since I started getting pointers from voting Wikipedians. In addition, while I stand by my opinions of the BFN article, I realize those aren't shared by the consensus of other Wikipedians (as made overwhelmingly evident in the RS/N) and I can't use those as basis to justify which sources to use. My apologies to everyone who has participated in this matter, including FormalDude. I would however stil want a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude, it seems we inevitably provoke each other and that's no good, neither for ourselves nor other Wikipedians. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the apology. I would support a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent MrPorpoise from provoking/derailing any future discussions I'm participating in. However, this may not be necessary as it has only happened twice thus far. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect you to apologize too, or at least thank all these nice Wikipedians who have spent their time reviewing the matter and made meaningful comments (thank you Wikipedians!). Anyway, the IBAN needs to be mutual to be meaningful. That is all I have to say to you on the matter and I will not leave any further replies for you. MrPorpoise (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gonzafer001 bizarre behavior

    CONSENSUS FOR T-BAN
    As a community action, Gonzafer001 is indefinitely topic-banned from New Page Patrol, tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) may be a case of WP:CIR. Today he tagged an article I created for speedy deletion [15], without a valid rationale from the criteria. That doesn't seem like a huge problem by itself, but then I looked at his talk page, which is littered with PROD and XfD notices for articles he created on non-notable subjects, as well as notices about managing a COI and a sockpuppetry notice. They've also been repeatedly warned about vandalism and copyright violations. He also has repeatedly recreated an article about the Bellingham Metro News, of which he openly says on his userpage he is the founder and editor in chief. This all goes back to 2016. Their other edits today include stuff like this [16] and [17] as well as spamming a bunch of articles with the "sources" tag when it's not appropriate. In 2019 Doug Weller warned him for incorrectly tagging things for speedy deletion. [18] This editor clearly doesn't understand how sourcing works here, nor has any clue about what should be tagged for speedy deletion or how to correctly do it and it's wasting time and effort of people who know how to do this stuff. ♟♙ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?(User_talk:Gonzafer001) I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    *sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gonzafer001 was asked to comply with WP:PAID in July 2019 by User:SounderBruce and still hasn't complied. He and his sock have repeatedly been promoting him. They've been referred to WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk
    How many years does it take to read the first sentence of a policy page that you're citing?
    Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Jibal (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about WP:COI) because at this point it's spam. You can't write articles here about your own company. From your responses above, I can't tell if you have competence issues or are simply refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [19] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was very much tempted to indef per NOT HERE/CIR especially with EnPassant's link above, but I have left a final warning and will not hesitate to block Gonzafer001 myself. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban proposal

    Gonzafer001 is indefinitely banned from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected.

    • Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      力, I use Twinkle on my smartphone (using Chrome in desktop mode). Aside from naturally being a bit fiddly due to the size of the screen, it works fine. Girth Summit (blether) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      力, I'm a little confused by your response... this is someone who has shown over the course of several years that he doesn't understand the very basics of how processes here work, seemingly refuses to read and attempt to understand them, and you want to give him additional tools to apply speedy deletion tags??? Editors are expected to understand how things work before using automated or semi-automated tools and those who misuse them routinely have them removed (including Twinkle). I think your proposal would inflame this situation rather than resolve it. As for NPP, he's doing it somehow, regardless of his permissions, because he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day. Bans are on behavior and don't necessarily need to involve removal of tools. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I see a new editor with a history of COI issues, but otherwise trying to improve the encyclopedia. If Gonzafer insists that the clear feedback here is not an opportunity to improve but instead complains (more) that people are "trying to censor" him, this may end with a full site block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      He's been here since April 2016, to me that is no longer a new editor. Just saying... ♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment agree that this isn't the perfect solution, but now he's broken his sig so that you can't reach his talk and claiming he didn't, doesn't inspire good faith. He's a time sink, who hasn't proven to be a net positive to the encyclopedia Star Mississippi 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, once I saw that I no longer knew if he truly doesn't understand the basics, or is just trolling. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This Editor is wasting everyone's time. He is playing Admin in comment, trolling editors and acting daft. Agreed, he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day causing a lot of work which will have to be undone, eventually. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support' indefinite ban from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected. This is a fairly even-handed remedy. Further WP:CIR issues should result in editor being blocked from editing. There is an incredible lack of competence manifest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And now he admits he's lying and playing games [20]. Obvious WP:NOTHERE ♟♙ (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This edit summary certainly looks like trolling, and I'm not happy with the explanation. The continuing issues with signatures suggest competence issues as well. This is close to an indef. I'm willing to give them one more chance to explain themselves or at least to demonstrate they understand what they should not do going forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, or support an indef block. It seems even the opposer believes something must be done. I don't see why nothing is being done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Could an uninvolved admin make any necessary action here? ♟♙ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl

    *I would, first, say that I read this with a great deal of sadness. It was completely unnecessary for things to come to this, and no one involved was entirely blameless.
    • AussieArticleWriter has been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee after several edits of theirs were suppressed. Any questions or concerns regarding this should be directed to ArbCom or the oversight team as appropriate.
    • There is a general consensus that BrownHairedGirl has engaged in conduct that falls well below our accepted requirements of civility and has engaged in personal attacks, and must cease to do this. Proposal 3 ("BHG subject to escalating blocks") attained community consensus, so BrownHairedGirl is subject to the restriction that she may be blocked, first for twelve hours and afterwards at the blocking administrator's discretion, for any violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding civility and personal attacks, and that such a block must not be reversed except by consensus of a community discussion. This restriction applies only to personal attacks or incivility and may not be used for unrelated issues such as a block for edit warring. The blocking administrator must clearly indicate in the block log message that the block is covered by this restriction. The restriction will be logged at the list of community editing restrictions.
    • There is no consensus as to whether either the block or unblock of BrownHairedGirl during this discussion was valid, but for both of them, "Pour gasoline on it" will not generally be a successful strategy to put out a fire.
    • I offer no opinion as to whether the requested arbitration case should be accepted to further decide the matter; this is a community discussion and independent of that process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I haven't interacted with that user much before, but in the last few days we came to be in a disagreement over one particular discussion, and her tone has become increasingly aggressive, up to a point I asked her to WP:REFACTOR and apologize for several recent comments that seem to breach WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIV and like. She responded within minutes by removing my request from her talk page with an edit summary "rv troll". I tried to de-escalate and resolve things amicably, but since BrownHairedGirl refused and called me a "troll" to my face (which, call me odd, I find rather offensive); further, I also noticed that today she managed to personally attack two other editors. I think it's time to ask the community to review the situation.

    Here's a chronological list of diffs I find problematic:

    • [21] "But a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my Piotrus are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage"
    • [22] "I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus?"
    • [23] "Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations... your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques... The only IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality.
      • [24] this is my request asking her to refactor the last three posts cited in diffs above and apologize for them
    • [25] "rv troll" edit summary in response to the above

    In addition to this incident, I'll also note that at the same time, just today, BrownHairedGirl seems to have written similar AGF/NPA-violating comments directed at User:The Rambling Man ([26] "TRM, please do try to stop trolling"). User:SQL asked her to tone this down [27]; which didn't go down so well judging by the fact that after few short exchanges SQL themselves was asking her to "retract personal attacks" made against them: [28]. BHG's posts on her talk page in response to SQL: Accues an editor (presumably TRM) of being a troll again; does so again, referring to (presumably) TRM as troll four times; does so twice more again, and accuses SQL of "harassment and victimisation"; next she refuses to retract the previous accusations, repeats it and the "troll" comments, and adds a new one, accusing SQL of "being a troll-enabler"; continues to repeat a bunch of those accusations again; and finally ends with repeating some of the above and and saying "Your choice not to communicate further is a blessed relief after your terrible behaviour, so please make your non-communication permanent until you repent of being a force-multiplier for a troll.".

    So within the last 2-3 days it seems that BrownHairedGirl managed to violate AGF/NPA, rather seriously, towards at least three different editors. Since she is hardly a new editor, one could expect her to uphold, rather than violate, our policies (AGF, CIV, NPA...). One may be having a bad day or few, but if a response to a request to refactor and apologize request is to call the other party a a troll, well... I don't file ANI reports often, but this toxicity is too much even for an old timer like me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • As this will inevitably draw the anti-TRM hawks out of hiding, I'll just say that the kinds of things being expressed by BrownhairedGirl felt to me like just venting and while toxic, didn't bother me at all. I've been too busy lately just creating shit-tons of featured and good material, and keeping errors off the main page, to be bothered by that kind of stuff. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely reject Piotrus' claims, and am preparing my response. But there are a lot of diffs to collect, so it may take a few hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm interested to hear both sides of this, so could we please break ANI tradition and try to work through this without the typical high-octane drama? There's a lot of signal to noise ratio issues at play, and if we can cut through that and work out what happened and why, we might just get through this without it becoming a cluster (I'll let you choose which sort). ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by BHG. I stand by my comments about Piotrus. For example, Piotrus falsely accused me[29] of You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial. That was because I had pointed out that in the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers (including Bobby Sands) the question of political status was a major political dispute at the heart of a low-level civil war. You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side. The nature of that dispute is uncontested: one side insisted that they were political priosners, the other than they were not. Piotrus wants to create a situation where en.wp editors will have to make a binary choice between one POV or the other, because categorisation is a binary choice.
      Piotrus's decision to accuse me of "inventing" undisputed historical facts is just one part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics which he has adopted in relation to political prisoner categories, and I make no apology for calling him for his malicious slurs. I could provide a lot more details on his antics, but I hope that his attempt to smear historical facts as inveting is sufficient illustration of his tactics and why I eventually questioned his integrity when he repeatedly pushed the same point by demanding sources for that simple, core historical point, and I stand by that comment.
    So Piotrus's decision to come here to complain about my responses to his antics is bizarre.
    As to TRM, the situation is at core relatively simple. TRM posted at BRFA a comment which was pure snark[30]. It offered no insight or value to the decision on whether run that bot task; it was purely a personal attack, and as such it was classic trolling. After I called it out as trolling[31] and hatted it[32], TRM unhatted the off-topic comments,[33] and posted another round of trolling.[34].SQL hatted the discussion again, and I replied to TRM.[35]
    Then SQL came to my talk to reproach me for posting in the hatted area. SQL's concern was not that I had been trolled or that the BRFA had been disrupted by the trolling, but I had replied to the troll. SQL's opening comment tome[36] was If you have an issue with another editor, you know where to take it up. That inverted the core fact that the whole thing was a matter of another editor taking issue with me in the wrong venue. But there was no reproach to TRM, only to me. After several rounds of this, I eventually asked SQL to stop this harassment and victimisation, and go reproach the troll who had accused the disruption. SQL took offence at that, and we both tried to disengage.
    I then went off to explore the background of TRM's comment that another editor has advised him to come to BRFA. I then discovered that in fact, TRM had been goaded into action by Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) (formerly Chris.sherlock), a long-term highly destructive editor who has waged extraordinarily long and vicious vendettas against numerous editors,and who began his vendetta against me after I opposed his vile vendetta against @DuncanHill. As a result,Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is subject to a one-way IBAN re me and DuncanHill. That IBAN was flagrantly broken by his antics on TRM's talk (permalink to that discussion,which is busting with personal attacks on me by all three participants), and by Aussie Article Writer's trolling of my draft RFA (permalink), and by Aussie Article Writer's continued breaches of the iBAN on his talk after being blocked for the IBAN breaches (permalink).
    Sadly, SQL was uninterested in any of that shoddy background when I posted about it on SQL's talk: permalink.
    Now, having slept on it, I am much less annoyed at SQL and TRM. All three of us -- TRM, SQL and me -- were all played like puppets by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, whose exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. I sincerely hope that they are again banned (as they were for three years) and they are never again able to spread poison like the did to collaboration between me, TRM and SQL.
    So Piotrus's post on my talk today[37] was an attempt to leverage the drama created by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, by falsely linking it to my rejection of his smears at DRV. I promptly reverted it as trolling, and stand by that label: it was a clear attempt to make mischief by falsely portraying me as the cause of two dramas instigated by others.
    Now, please can we end this drama and get back to editing?
    SQL and TRM, please be wary of that menace Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock. And Piotrus ... if you making false accusations that another editor is inventing history, and double down at length with FUD tactics ... don't cry "personal attack" when your integrity is challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if it's worth anything, I wasn't aware that (a) AAW was a sock and (b) the owner had been IBANned with you. I assume good faith with editors I've never heard of coming to my page. Although I probably should have learnt a lesson from years back when a rather excited admin blocked me for apparently deliberately proxying for a banned editor. Live and (in this case not) learn. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: I wholly accept that. You had no reason at all to know about the IBAN, and your AGF was taken advantage of.
    As I wrote above, I think in hindsight that you and me and SQL were all played like violins by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock's latest attempt to do what he has done successfully for years: create conflict to discredit others. Chris had enough insight to see how to press our buttons, and has enough malice to try to maximise destruction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to AAW it wasn't technically a sock account - it wasn't block evasion and there wasn't any overlap of the accounts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, your comments regarding Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are egregious personal attacks. I don't care whether or not they are blocked, or whether or not they have personally attacked you, those comments are unacceptable and are unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor with as much experience as you. I ask that you strike them, and I am prepared to hand out an NPA block if necessary. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability Which comments? About his vile vendetta against me? Entirely justified. About his spreading of drama and malice for many years? Entirely justified. I'm sure you noticed his attempt to blame me for his problems during his last meltdown. Stop letting him press your buttons. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: as @DuncanHill notes below, my comments on Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are entirely based on the facts of his appalling conduct over many years.
    It is entirely unacceptable that Wikipedia editors have continued to be exposed for so long to the vendettas of Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer. He chose in this case to knowingly violate an IBAN to pursue a multi-venue attacks on me -- and you are criticising me for describing this? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Note that Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer also violated his IBAN re @DuncanHill by posting repeatedly on Duncan's talks: see the history of Duncan's talk.
    Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is well aware that bot IBANs are in place: see this disastrously botched appeal against his IBANs, last month.
    Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer has been actively targeting editors for years. Why do you want the targets of his vendettas to refrain from noting that when he has another swing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I don't think there actually was an IBAN againt AAW with regard to me. There should have been one years ago after an email he sent me, which got one of his then-blocked accounts a loss of email privileges. He regained email by reappearing as another account. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    nope
    • (edit conflicted of course) I find myself reading another ANI thread where things can go one way or another - we could spend a long time quoting each other and end up with someone blocked, or we could try to look at this from an outside perspective. Wikipedia is weird, it causes otherwise lovely people to get rather annoyed about things which often wouldn't cause such a dramatic response (myself included!).
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Some of your above comments have merit, others are combatative and have only escalated things. And that's what a lot of this is, on both sides - escalation for very little outcome. Your behaviour has been rude, and regardless of how anyone feels or how justified it may well be, we can do better than be rude. In an ideal world, I'd ask you to please refactor/strike things other people have found to be a personal attack - not on the basis that it may or may not have been one by the letter of some website's policy, but solely because what do you honestly lose by doing so? What we gain though, is de-escalation, and that is worthy of small concessions on a project built on collaboration. I'd also like to note that even though you have been rude, your experience of being harassed and targeted is valid and deserves investigation - everyone should be reminded that being uncivil does not preclude someone from also being the target of harassment, and we must not dismiss someone's claims solely because of the manner in which they present them. I appreciate your attempts at trying to disengage, and understand that sometimes that's easier said than done.
    • @Piotrus: I hear you, and I agree that things have been said in a manner which aren't great. I understand that the resolution you would like is for BrownHairedGirl to retract/refactor their statement to you and apologise. I think that is a reasonable thing to request and would help de-escalate things.
    • I've tried really hard to hear both sides of this - I don't want to see anyone blocked where the outcome could still be one we learn from. Incivility has no place here, we can do better in how we speak to each other and we can always choose not to escalate a situation. I'm not expecting people to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but stepping away, having a mug of wine tea and working together on this is a good start. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I an not willing to refactor my comments in relation to Piotrus unless their allegation that I invented historical fact (and their many followups in similar vein) are clearly withdrawn.
    To my mind, that sort of attempt to smear another editor's reasoned objections is many orders of magnitude more destructive than possibly rude words in response. Wikipedia may survive rudeness; but malicious allegations of historical falsification destroy the substance of what we here to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: What's the outcome you're looking for here? I understand your stance - de-escalation is almost always something that has to happen on both sides. Do we need to look at more IBANs as a way of moving everyone away from each other here? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime: Some misunderstanding, maybe? I didn't bring this to ANI, so my only desire here was to defend myself.
      I would be quite happy for his discussion to simply to be closed as "no action needed", and put an end to the timesink. But if you want something specific, then i ask that Piotrus retract all his bogus allegations that I invented an NPOV problem, and the rest of the spinoffs as the dug in deeper. If that happened,then I would of course retract/refactor some of my comments in reply.
      I don't think that any IBAN here would be constructive. This at heart a content issue, where Piotrus has been waging a campaign to discredit anyone who point to complexity and nuance and POV problems in the application of a label which he insists can be objectively determined. That cannot be resolved by constraining Piotrus's interactions with one or more individual editors who have had the temerity to challenge his simple certainties; it needs a change of approach by Piotrus, or their recusal from a topic where they are too heavily emotionally invested to assume good faith in those who say "it's not that simple". Note for example that in the DRV discussion, Piotrus has repeatedly pronounced that those who point to POV issues in the term "political prisoner" are supporting "fringe views", taking a pro-western stance, etc. I will see if I have the energy to collect more diffs, but here's one to start with; Piotrus dismissing as a straw man [39] my assertion[40] that In the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange or Leonard Peltier, there is not a mainstream view versus a fringe: there are two radically different worldviews which have opposing concepts of what is a political prisoner. Choosing one pOV over the other is breach of WP:NPOV. That sort of counter-factual bluster is deeply corrosive battleground conduct, and there was lots of it from Piotrus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl: Evidently action is needed, I was really hoping you'd reflect on the words you've used and come to your own conclusion on their suitability for use. They are not suitable. We're all guilty (myself, recently) of using inappropriate language to describe other editors. We must be better. I'm stepping away from this conversation now as its fairly likely to spiral into ANI-class bullshit, and at 9:30pm I'm more inclined to go put my feet up than continue this. I'm fairly sure this will result in a block, and perhaps it should. BrownHairedGirl, defeat the trend we're seeing on this project and apologise - do better than we've all done previously ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime: again, I will make no apology for eventually standing up to a sustained attempt by Piotrus to smear and misrepresent editors who accurately pointed to complexity in response to his campaign to erase other perspectives.
      If Wikipedia really is a place where the response to such POV-pushing and bullying is more problematic than the POV-pushing and denialism itself, then it will no longer be an NPOV encyclopedia. Collegial discussion requires open exchange of views and willingness to accept factually-based counter-arguments. I am very troubled by your lack of concern about that conduct, because NPOV is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should their other accounts get indefblocked as well?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this thread on SQL's talk page shows a real lack of civility. SQL had already asked BHG to stop contacting them at this point. BHG justified the post by saying that it presented new information. Ok, sure, fine. But SQL replies reiterating clearly that they wish to be left alone and feel BHG's behaviour is approaching harrassment. Even after that BHG leaves another comment. Then SQL asks again for BHG to stop, and then BHG comments again. This is the kind of treatment that drives editors away from the project (cf. Special:Diff/1037702885). Colin M (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I was close to being driven away from Wikipedia by SQL's stonewalling, both over their initial refusal to recognise that I had been trolled and by their later refusal to even acknowledge that the whole saga had all been stoked by a serial vendetta-monger who breached an IBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as BRFA/bot processes are concerned: I've never had a bad personal interaction with BHG, but I've noticed she can brush off as a bit verbose/abrasive when in a dispute. Aside from the incident linked to in the OP, there was this extended issue (along with the various spin-offs on other talk pages; and the history since a bunch was redacted by BAG members, eg here). As a result of the incident, the volume of text and the heat-to-light ratio was such that no other BAG member wanted to review the issue, and I'm surprised Primefac made the effort. I think she means well and often identifies an actual problem, but I'd just gently advise this approach is not always particularly helpful, especially when you want BAG attention on something, and it can discourage bot operators (like QEDK, who stopped running the bot and says "I'll probably let it lapse anyway since I have no intention of running a bot on this wiki again"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: I found that episode absolutely horrible, and it severely dented my faith in BAG.
      The facts of that case were quite simple. A bot was authorised for category-related tasks, the BRFA having been notified at central talk pages. When it began work, it started populating a category which was nominated at CFD, where everyone except that bot operator opposed the bot's work. It was clear that owing to an oversight in notification, there was not actually consensus for its work, but the bot owner dug down and insisted that there was consensus, despite the overwhwelming opposition.
      BAG handled that very badly, focusing on a procedural defence of their initial good faith authorisation, rather than on the current consensus that the bot would do a lot of damage to category redirects. I was horrified by how hard I had to push the simple point that a good-faith assessment of consensus had turned out to be radically mistaken, and that the authorisation needed to be reassessed.
      I felt that QEDK was badly let down by BAG, who supported QEDK's destructive digging-in instead of simply saying "let's pause and reopen discussion". BAG guided EDK into confrontation rather consensus-building, and I am unsurprised that QEDK was disillusioned; I was disillusioned too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I quite agree with that reading. I don't want to run this sub-thread too long, but I'll just say that I do think it was largely how you decided to handle the problem, as well as the specific comments you made, that led to the great deal of animus discussion and the bot being retired. In addition, QEDK (unsurprisingly) basically disappeared after that month and he's now largely inactive. Obviously I can't say whether it's connected or not but I'd imagine so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: we'll have to differ on that. I tried all the usual gentle steps at escalation, but was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by QEDK, and stonewalled by BAG. The animus arose out of BAG's collective failure to reopen the consensus-building, which required an escalation of pressure to stop the bot doing damage.
      It could all have been so vastly happier for everyone if BAG had simply re-opened consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears the bomb robot has tipped at a hill. 😡 El_C 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      BrownHairedGirl, gotta say, after reading the linked threads and all the diffs above, I have to agree with PR and others that your tenor and demeanor appear to be have the opposite effect of what you intend in these discussions. Far from resolving these disputes, it is making them escalate to all-out brawls. I actually agree with you re: the CfD and deletion review discussions linked above, but I agree with others that your behavior is still problematic, regardless of what the right call is in the linked discussions. One can be right, and still be wrong about how they go about being right.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (I reply against my better judgement...) You say "escalation of pressure" as if you moved a user talk discussion to WP:BOTN. I feel the need to emphasise to you, after jogging my memory by reading the diffs again, that the whole affair was the most... ruthless... thing I've seen in the bot space, and I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's not often you see Primefac writing in all-caps. There was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task, three BAG members reviewed (and denied) your complaints, following which your messages towards QEDK included a vile, gaslighting thug, vile, scummy conduct, you systematic mendacity and persistent gaslighting, repeatedly stonewalled, deceived, bullied and gaslighted, whether this bot-owner is competent to run a bot, and those are just excerpts from two comments. You repeated similar stuff over dozens of other comments. Do you honestly not see how this would make another editor feel? Speaking for myself, I'd say that whole affair would be enough to throw in the towel and do something else onwiki, or find a different hobby altogether. It's not how we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RE: a vile, gaslighting thug... [etc.] — holy shit! P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, once again, Cow Man says: diffs = friend. El_C 20:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: we are back to the core problem:your assertion that this was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task. I fundamentally disagree on both counts.
      QEDK repeatedly dismissed the objections of all the category regulars, often very insultingly. none of the regular category editors supported him, but he dismissed all the objections. That is not the conduct of a good bot owner.
      Similarly, this was not a "legitimate task". It was a task which had been approved in good faith without notifications treated at the most relevant editors, who objected en masse when they became aware of it. A good faith error was made in approving it, but once such widespread opposition became clear, it was no longer a legit task.
      That's the problem:the way we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment is to reopen a decision which turns out to be unexpectedly controversial due to lack of notification. I pleaded for that opportunity to discuss it collaboratively, but was repeatedly rebuffed. When BAG block the collaborative pathway, expect anger in return
      You have quoted me without diffs, which is unfair because I cannot review the context ... but I do recall utterly vile personal attacks from QEDK, to which I was responding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Diff for you are again behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the diff. That allows other editors to see my comment in the context of my explanation of the behaviour that I was describing.
      QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. He was ploughing on with a task which clearly did have consensus, and had been lashing out at me in multiple venues. It would be much more productive to read the whole thread than to cherrypick the points where I snapped at the antics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (FTR: I did give a diff in my original comment (of Primefac's removal, which contained that comment).)
      I remember reading this and the preceding/related discussions last year, such as on his user talk and though I can't remember all the details, I can remember that (on the whole) I didn't come away with the 'QEDK wasn't listening' impression. I also felt that even his most frustrated response fell short of "utterly vile personal attacks", and he kept his composure better than most of us would've. I think he was trying to listen (see how he responded to Trappist the monk's concern, on the same link), although after a while probably felt you weren't engaging in good faith. The BAG members responding also seemed to be more concerned with what you were saying (eg [41][42]). I also remember QEDK said he paused the bot's activity until BAG gave an all-clear, which removes any sense of urgency in my opinion. I'm not necessarily saying you were wrong about the content issues (I haven't reviewed them in depth, and in general you often are right), I'm just dismayed by your approach and how QEDK was treat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In that WT:BRFA discussion, it seems QEDK didn't really know that category redirects often have no backlinks and no members by design (even {{category redirect}}, which QEDK cited, says admins should only delete category redirects "If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages"!). It took me a while (and multiple re-reads) to understand that too, just now. Yes, maybe QEDK should have made sure he deeply understood category redirects before proceeding. But that's no reason to throw AGF out the window and write something like this comment, which I will quote at length: You have now made your goal crystal clear [...], and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors. There is no justification for escalating rhetoric like that. "Manipulating consensus", specifically, is a nasty and (in context) unfounded accusation. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I've looked at some (but not all) of the diffs, and one thing is clear: BHG needs to learn when to dis-engage with a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support block (struck; the support was for a temporary block to prevent continuing personal attacks in this thread, those have now stopped User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)) even if QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug is accurate, constantly repeating these personal attacks is degrading to the conversation. Multiple editors have told BHG this. I still haven't read the initial deletion discussion that led to the DRV, but this diff about Piotrus your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand is clearly a personal attack. I don't see any option other than a block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        For goodness sake, I repeated that comment about QEDK solely because it was dug out of the archives by someone else, and i explained why I used it at the time. My offence here was to defend myself.
        As to the DRV, please read the discussion and see that comment in context. I was being heavily goaded: accused of "inventing" historical facts, of creating a straw man pointing to one of he biggest political crises in Northern Ireland... and eventually I snapped. Your quite here omits both the context of the rest of my comment, and the wider context of the discussion which proceeded it. For the record, Piotrus made multiple claims at both DRV and at CFD to expertise as a social scientist ... yet his conduct of a FUD campaign against inconvenient facts was incompatible with the norms of that profession. So I didn't make a statement 'as quoted: I asked a question about what was was going on, with that as one possible explanation. I can't even quite the whole of what i wrote, because it seems that doing so will be treated as an offence in itself.
        This mining of decontextualized quotes is a terrible way to assess a lengthy discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I have finished reading the CFD and DRV discussions. As this is a dispute over content that has turned into a behavior dispute, I will give my opinion on both. Both BHG and Piotrus are bludgeoning the DRV discussion. There is certainly a philosophical dispute regarding how categories should be used regarding controversial classifications. Whether or not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT applies to prohibit Category:Political prisoners is the topic of the open DRV. BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered. That said, Piotrus's suggestion that modern scholarship and not just contemporaneous opinions be considered is reasonable (we would certainly do so for 19th century political prisoners), and I don't see how that implies he is POV-pushing. With any amount of context, the your claim to be a social scientist are false comment is needlessly inflammatory; please do not insist that comment is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @力: It was a final-straw response to Piotrus's repeated claims that I was "inventing" the issue as a "straw man". I am glad that you agree that it is not. But can you understand how I was goaded by the repeated attempts to erase the issue and cast me as a liar,as well as by the wider bludgeoning?
        Of course, the views of contemporary scholars should be represented in the article, along with the views of the protagonists and contemporary observers and scholars. But to single one of those perspectives out as the "fact" summarised in a category entry or omitted from the category is a distortion of multi-polar reality.
        One of the issues here is cultural. Poland has moved far to the right, and its rejection of the communist era is complete; everything from that period is viewed by the vast majority as bad. Ireland has moved from centuries of conflict into a very different space, where everything is about creating space for two traditions to co-exist. So we are very much in a space of multi-polar narratives,and allowing all POVs to be heard, and not requiring a single official truth. It's fuzzy and complex,but least we not shooting each other no more.
        I don't expect outsiders to understand that, but I do expect that they at least try to educate themselves before denouncing it as fabrication. I remain highly alarmed that someone who claims to be a social scientist has been bludgeoning an en.wp discussion to insist that there is only one POV and no subjectivity. That pursuit of rigid certainty is the polar opposite of the critical analysis of complexity that I expect from social science, and I can't reconcile the two things I see. If I had been less goaded by the repeated malignment and by the repeated denial of a POV divide on the issue, I would probably have expressed my concern more cautiously, but that's not the situation I found myself in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The second quote needs a bit more context, but is not much better with it. BHG is saying that either QEDK is lying about being a social scientist and lacks thinking skills or that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. I unfortunately recognize this sort of dichotomy from some of BHG's previous comments which were cited in the Portals arbcom case. Examples of it being applied to three different editors: one, two, three. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. I think the community is often naïve about the damage that power-users with chronic civility issues do to the movement. Editors like BHG drive away others in a manner that adds up to much more lost effort than they can ever contribute on their own. Even for the rare editor who is a net-positive despite chronic civility issues (which I don't believe BHG to be), it sends a message to other users when we let them continue editing—a message that creates a chilling effect. It's really easy to not call people things like "vile". If someone can't manage that bare minimum, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, whether they have 2 edits or 2,000,000. Until BHG can show that she understands CIV and NPA, and understands that they apply even when the other person was a jerk to you, and even when you feel you are in the right, she should not be editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, at what point did blocking enter this discussion?. I don't see a reason to block anyone. I do see some good reasons for certain editors to step way from interacting with each other, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I must confess I started it (possibly sooner than helpful); I've simply seen enough comments where it appears BHG is defending their personal attacks by repeating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is quite unpleasant to be a participant in any conflict with BrownHairedGirl. She insists she is right, she is quick to assume bad faith and rarely backs down from that, and she is absolutely terrible at de-escalation. The fault is always with others (who "goad" her). She seems to have learned nothing from the Portals case (the discussion surrounding a block preceding that case is quite comparable to what we have today). I tend to avoid her if possible (fortunately our interests don't overlap much). BHG has gotten away with bullying and incivility for a very long time because she has many supporters, and ANI in particular has historically been spectacularly useless with respect to BHG, who has been allowed to continue and repeat her behaviour here. There is not a problem of Piotrus/BHG or one of SQL/BHG or one of QEDK/BHG (or earlier NA1k/BHG) that could be solved by mutual voluntary or involuntary interaction bans, it is a problem with BHG. She could end these conflicts by disengaging, but either chooses not to or is unable to. Both are bad for a collaborative environment. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has had a somewhat heated disagreement with BHG about renaming some categories or other (something like that), I really can't say I recognise that description of her. She stands up for what she believes in, and she challenges bullies. She has never shewn any signs of bearing me a grudge for our disagreement. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl:: There are many examples of personal attacks by you, above (and elsewhere). It would really be helpful if you could acknowledge that, and agree to moderate your behavior. Paul August ☎
    • Well said Kusma — Ched (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kusma and others said it well. Uncivil, rude and abrasive behavior creates a toxic environment on enwiki and already drove many good editors out of this project. Sadly, BHG has a history of repeatedly assuming bad faith and being quite rude and uncivil towards others. Unless something changes in her behavior, I am in favor of adopting sanctions towards her. - Darwinek (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Late, for sure. I haven't felt like being on Wikipedia much, and I really didn't want to go back through this, but I thought it might help give context from my point of view. Should this be in it's own section?
      • This started when I came to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 8. This was the page when I arrived: [43]
        • There appeared to be two editors (BHG (not pinging, BHG seemed not to want further contact from me - and I will respect that), and The Rambling Man) having an argument about things unrelated to the BRFA at hand. This can be very disruptive, and I felt that I was in a good position to stop it early on.
        • I went ahead and collapsed the argument: [44]. The message I left was "Arument between editors irrelevant to this request. Please take behavioral issues, accusations of trolling, and complaints of personal attacks to the appropriate venues.".
      • Immediately after, I was contacted by AAW and TRM [45].
        • I actually feel in hindsight that maybe I didn't do very well here. I was short with both of them, when I shouldn't have been. I also made a mistake and warned AAW that I had asked them not to comment on my talkpage. I was remembering the wrong editor from years ago. They've changed usernames so many times that I had a hard time keeping up. I apologized to them on thier talkpage, as one does when they've made a mistake [46].
        • It is worth noting that AAW and I have not really gotten along in the past - and I had opposed thier unblock a few years back.
      • Shortly after, BHG started editing the collapsed section to take a potshot at TRM (edit summary "reply to troll"). [47]
        • This is clearly disruptive to the BRFA, and is in my opinion a personal attack.
      • I left a message with BHG asking her to stop [48].
      • I tried again to explain why BHG's edits were disruptive. [49]
      • I tried again to explain that the reason I didn't leave messages for TRM was that they stopped at my request on the BRFA page. [50]
      • BHG baselessly accuses me of harassment [51]
      • I asked BHG to rescind her accusation, and stated that I had done no such thing. [52]
      • I informed BHG that I had no further desire to communicate until the false accusation of harassment had been retracted. I asked at this point that she stop pinging me. I was clearly watching the page, and did not require a ping with every message. [53]
      • Not getting a reply from me at her talkpage, BHG started a thread at my talkpage [54].
      • I asked BHG to stop contacting me again. [55]
        • I plainly stated "Leave me alone.", and indicated that I was starting to feel harassed.
      • BHG contacted me again, and indicated that she did not believe her baseless accusation of harassment was a PA. [56]
        • BHG claimed that I had gone "several rounds" at her. I was just trying to reply to her messages, until it appeared that no matter what I said, it would be twisted, and I would be attacked.
      • I ask again to be left alone. [57]
      • I'd had enough. I hung up a wikibreak/frustrated template, and nullrouted wikipedia. [58]
      • After being repeatedly asked to leave me alone, BHG felt the need to get the last word in. [59]
      • I'm sorry for the long read. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I initially commented on this thread it was far shallower. I see now just how deep this rabbit hole goes. I do not intend to read all of this. I will just say that I am no longer confident in my opinion and don't have the time or intention to give this topic the research it deserves to make a confident statement. Apologies to anyone I offended if I got things wrong, that being said I am also not confident I am wrong(or right). HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    • BHG can't really respond now that she has been blocked for a week. I was so stunned I had to make an uncomfortable trek back to ANI to try to find out why and how this happened. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not defending BHG's abrasive style of interacting with editors she believes are incorrect about interpreting Wikipedia policy but I have to say that when it comes to categories and understanding how they are and should be used on Wikipedia, she is never wrong. And that's my POV. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose action against BHG, I can't believe I even have to say this but nothing here rises to the level of a block. Not every ANI discussion needs to break into a support/oppose discussion. Rumbling for a block because someone is a "power user" is not part of the blocking policy. Christ the things we let certain users get away with and then people try to bring the hammer down down relatively minor venting because of who they are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand I see GeneralNotability has gone ahead and done it already. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a whole load of respect for you HighInBC, but excusing behaviour (like this?) as "relatively minor venting because of who they are" is a fairly substantial understatement. I don't believe expecting base civility is really that much to ask ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was saying her venting was minor. And I was saying they are being targeted by some for who they are, ie a "power user". I have seen truthful statements about serious harassment that has resulted in the user doing that harassment IBANned from the community and later blocked indef. And I have seen minor comments like referring to editing as trolling. Not giving anyone a free pass because of who they are, but I also think they should not be targeted for who they are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a troll is not minor. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is if they are trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on. So it's ok to call someone an asshole as long as you think that's what they are? Every personal attack can be justified that way. Paul August ☎
    Ever heard of a duck? DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... WP:NPA says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." It doesn't add the caveat: "unless of course they deserve it." Paul August ☎ 00:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull the other one... DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what that means. Are you trying to be rude? Paul August ☎ 00:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: If I were trying you would surely know. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pull the other one, it's got bells on" is a traditional extension of "you're pulling my leg" in British English. Don't you have this in America? Perhaps Peppa Pig's missionary work will get round to it. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill With all due respect and to avoid confusion, since BHG has called several editors trolls here. Do you believe I was trolling? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Well you started this dismal thread, make of that what you will. What I do think is that 99% of the criticism here wouldn't have started without AAW's baiting. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, Duncan, I don't know AAW, I don't believe I interacted with them nor that they participated in the deletion discussion that me and BHW did. If your comment was about AAW only, so be it, but since as you say, the tread has been started by me and concerns comments directed at me, and since you didn't answer clearly above, I ask you again: do you believe I was trolling, or not: yes, or no? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I think most of the editors calling for BHG to be blocked are (presumably unknowingly) being triggered by AAW. Now, It's perfectly possible to have a legitimate discussion about "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who dislike her", but this discussion ain't it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill While you may be right about some editors not being familiar with AAW, my question to you, for the third time, is whether you agree or disagree with BHG calling me a troll. Seriously, a simple yes or no is not that hard here; and if it helps, here's the exact diff in which she called me a "troll".
    As for the word dislike you use, I'd also like to note that it suggests some folks (like myself) dislike BHG. I'd kindly suggest refactoring your statement, as for one, I don't feel it's fair or correct to describe me as an editor who "dislikes" her; so may I suggest the phrase "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who disagree with her" instead? Bonus points for changing emolliently into something that most spellcheckers will recognize, like "positively" or "less combatively" or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly sorry you have an inadequate spell-checker. I will flagellate myself accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: I would also like to know if you think it was ok to call Piotrus a troll? Not answering Piotrus’ question seems to imply you do. If you don’t it would be helpful if you said so. Paul August ☎ 01:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you want me to say? DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Self quote: my question to you, for the third time, is whether you agree or disagree with BHG calling me a troll. Seriously, a simple yes or no is not that hard here Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the cock crowed three times? DuncanHill (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus please consider disengaging from this absolute train wreck you have caused. I will AGF that you didn’t know the background but must know by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am DuncanHill and I endorse this message. DuncanHill (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie Please note that my dispute with BHG has NOTHING to do with any misbehavior by some AAW (if this it the background you are referring to, no, I didn't know about it, still don't know it, and it is not relevant here. I, therefore, quote this right back at you: "I will AGF that you didn’t know the background" - so please read my OP to familiarize yourself with it). Please tell me how I caused any problem? I was called names, including troll, in a discussion totally unrelated to any "AAW", and I find being called such names quite offensive. I have stated my case (I don't like being called a troll, and if someone calls me that, I expect them to apologize, or have their conduct subject to scrutiny by the community). Nothing more, nothing less.
    I will nonetheless disengage myself from this sub-thread, which is indeed hardly constructive, and ping User:Paul August who asked the same question, and is clearly a less involved and neutral party than I am. Whether they want to pursue this in the capacity of an uninvolved administrator or not is up to them (as well as other uninvolved parties). For the record, I find the behavior of editors who are empowering others to call people names, or otherwise clowning around, quite unbecoming of the proper wikiquette, and worthy of admin's attention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: or otherwise clowning around. And now I'm sad. Honestly, though, Piotrus, I did ask for you to make your OP more legible (diff), but I guess didn't want...? El_C 04:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @El C: Responding to direct ping. I will strike that out, if you find it less than ideal of a descriptor for edits like [60] (I mean, isn't it a reference to the jester's hat? c'mon), [61] or [62]. The emotions are getting too heated in this and as I said, I am leaving this subdiscussion to more neutral parties. I am nonetheless disappointed that you find the quoted part to be the most objectionable part of the comments here. As for my OP, I thought blue makes it easier, not harder, to read. I mean, green is ok for quotes but blue is not? Personally I find blue more readable than green... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: (ec) I can assure you that [63] has nothing to do with a jester's hat. Even a jester does not wear his hat on his leg. DuncanHill (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought you were insulting Cow Man's integrity, so I felt compelled to retaliate. The thing is, though, it isn't about the colours per se., but the way lengthy hyperlinked text is displayed. Just letting you know that I kept waiting for you to fix it, and greatly delayed reading it as a result (and I really am trying to work on reading reports from the beginning, see "fundamentalist" thread above for more on that). I am nonetheless disappointed that you find the quoted part to be the most objectionable part of the comments here — I think my comment here shows that not to be the case. El_C 04:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I hope this is what you wanted. If I totally misunderstood you and this is worse, feel free to revert, and/or show me a report or such formatted in a way that you think is best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: 👍 El_C 05:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps. One more note. Having reviewed the "AAW" incident more, it seems to me that User:DuncanHill has been subject to some harassment from that editor, if I understand this correctly (I apologize if I am wrong). I am still not sure what BHG has to do with this case, or how the "AAW" incident became a part of this discussion. As someone who has been subject to serious harassment myself, I want to assure DH that I am not defending any editor who might have harassed him or anyone else, and I express my sympathy for any harassment that occurred that the community did not stop promptly enough. My disagreement with BHG had nothing to do with anyone called "AAW" or their alt account/sock. To make it clear, I feel a victim of harassment here, as in, a victim of personal attacks from BHG (such as her calling me a troll), originating in a discussion that, to repeat myself again, had, to the best of my knowledge, nothing to do with anyone called "AAW". I certainly do not defend any harassment aimed at DW, and all I am asking is that he extends the same courtesy to myself. I hope this clears most, if not all, of any misunderstanding here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some harassment" is an astounding understatement. BHG was one of very few editors to have the decency to stand up to AAW on my behalf. She is an editor who lays into bullies, not is one. DuncanHill (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, As I said, I am not familiar with your case. If BGH helped you with your problem, that's commendable. But the topic here is something else (her less than helpful comments towards or about other editors). If someone helps you, that's good, but it does not make them an infallible saint beyond reproach. If you are on good terms with BHG, I'd suggest you try to talk her down and help her moderate her behavior, so she can continue helping others without hurting them (as she did to me, and yes, I consider myself quite hurt by her comments). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say to block her because she's a power user. I said to block her because's she's chronically incivil, and that the fact that she's a power user shouldn't make her exempt. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block or any action — FWIW, BHG is an extremely productive editor and a net positive. Some (or most) of her comments are acerbic and abrasive(I’ve run afoul of this, so I’m no saint myself) Her obnoxious comments(incivility) are what largely led to her de-sysop. I find that BHG is always more often than not the cause of their own calamity for example BHG claims she wants a reasonable outcome from this ANI(closed as action needed) but her refusal to see or claim some responsibility to what this is spiraling into is very contradictory to the aforementioned stance. @BrownHairedGirl, could you just apologize to the relevant parties even if you feel you ought not to do so? That is, if you indeed want a reasonable outcome from this ANI, I for one would never support a block and I’m not sure why, how or when that premature proposal was made. Believe me, i know first hand what it feels like to be “correct” and still need to apologize, that way you show maturity and a sincere wish for all this to be over and you return back to normal editing. Like I always say at ANI's I’m saddened when productive editors are at loggerheads with a potential block looming, whilst there are real and more serious problems affecting the encyclopedia. Furthermore can you learn to not to edit when in a sour mood? Also could you learn to use less abrasive words (which can be seen as PA's) when addressing editors like I stated earlier, there isn’t any universe in which I’d ever support a block, you an extremely productive editor, don’t let ego get in your way. Celestina007 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block responses to baiting initiated by AAW were remarkably restrained. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sit it out While BHG is indeed a net positive editor and a main contributor to this project, I hate rude editors, so even though I would never have supported a block proposal, perhaps she should sit this one out and understand that being rude and refusing to back down from a conflict situation is not good practice on a community editing website. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur Debresser, just sit it out. Right now, the emotions are high. BHG should not have used such language (troll, etc.) but, people have bad days sometimes. I'm quite certain that BHG, in a day or two, will agree that she made a mistake. Will you BHG? That's all lacked here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG is not bullying and that isn't her intent at all. When she doesn't feel listened to, she gets increasingly frank and blunt, up to and far beyond the point of rudeness, and she doesn't get when it's time to drop the stick. (Piotrus isn't so great at dropping the stick either: that DRV is, by word count, about 40% comments by him.) Piotrus is able to disagree without so much incivility and that makes him more pleasant to work with. Unlike BHG, Piotrus also has the social skills to de-escalate conflict. He hasn't chosen to use them in this matter, and I'd like to know why not.
      Although I'm confident that Creffett's block was intended as preventative, I think there's an opportunity for him to read the room and reflect on whether to reduce it to time served.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wowsers, does WP:DRV usually create so much frustrations all around? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No. That DRV is supposed to be a review of User:Fayenatic london’s XfD close. That DRV has gone crazy of the rails. That does not usually happen. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    • I am involved in this only insofar as trying to prevent a long-term Wikipedian from being prematurely sanctioned. I, for one, am still trying to understand what the basis for all of this is. I respect both Piotrus & BHG; for the record, I have met Piotrus in person, but never have BHG, so if I favor any party in this it would be for the OP. When two long-term Wikipedians clash like this, we need to understand exactly what has happened. And waiting for a consensus to emerge here is hardly an unreasonable expectation. Lastly, I will abide by the decision made by whoever closes this thread. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, llywrch, but that's a pretty weird explanation. Undoing another admin's block without attempting to engage said admin 1st is not great, as far as admin conduct is concerned. El_C 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) BHG had requested an unblock, I responded to that request. Had there been no request, of course I would not have unblocked her. First I knew it was a firm rule to discuss a requested unblock with the blocking admin first. As I have written, all of this is moving way too fast. -- llywrch (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Llywrch has unblocked on the basis Active & ongoing thread in WP:AN/I about this user. No action should be taken *until* that discussion is concluded, which is not a reason I've ever heard of to reverse another admin's actions without consensus. Llywrch, you should self-revert. This is an inappropriate circumstance to unilaterally unblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) typo corrected 00:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I've a prejudice against presenting a sentence first then verdict afterwards. If any sanction is needed to protect the Wiki, it can wait until we've come to a consensus here. -- llywrch (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, I would've written something endorsing that block until it was lifted. And I agree with Tamzin says above. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Llywrch: Unblocking in this way, without first attempting to seek consensus or discussing with the blocking administrator, is highly irregular. See WP:RAAA. I strongly encourage you to self-revert until a consensus has emerged. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with Kusma. I have never even interacted with BHG, but just seeing the vitriol she is allowed to direct at other editors again and again dampens my enthusiasm for the project. (And no, I don't believe it can all be explained as "fighting back against the trolls". SQL did nothing that begins to approach trolling, and was still treated very badly.) When we allow this kind of incivility, it emboldens would-be bad actors and scares away editors who want to work in a respectful, collegial environment. If she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, I see no solution other than a block. Colin M (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a big discussion and disagreement, I don't think any admin should be taking action until there is a consensus here to do so. Yes the rules allow admins to act unilaterally, the rules allow admins to reverse such actions. That is where it stops though. Perhaps we can finish the discussion and let the community decide, or not decide to take action. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what the fix is but this is not a one-off issue. In addition to all the stuff above and Kusma's list, I also remember hatting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#RfC:_usernames_in_signatures (Praxidicae/BHG); there was also this ANI (RexxS/BHG) which was largely the same stuff. There are probably many others. They occur frequently, and go back years. It's demonstrably led to editors retiring. I think the gist of it is that BHG forgets she is talking to real people when she feels passionately about a content dispute. I suppose the community has the right to decide what it will and won't tolerate. And if it's willing to tolerate calling fellow contributors "vile thugs" etc, without even assurances of a change, then so be it; that's the culture we sow and enable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the personal attacks, yes calling someone a troll is a personal attack. If we blocked users everytime they did that then there would be a LOT of blocks given out. Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning.
      If you want our NPA policy to have more teeth then go to WT:NPA and propose that, I may even support it. Until then we should enforce the policy as it is written. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC, Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. I think it has been suitably demonstrated above that this has been part of an egregious, ongoing issue that has not been corrected by warning. I seriously believe a warning would've done next to nothing, given the history here. I don't get your point about calling other users "trolls"; that is usually a phrase reserved for vandals/obvious not here cases, so In my eyes, calling an established user a troll is essentially comparing them to a vandal- which I would imagine some would find offensive. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighInBC: Interesting. Do you really see the issue here as a one-off incident that is correctable with a warning? The evidence here and at places like the Arbcom case suggests otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. That sounds like exactly what happened here. BHG has standing unretracted PAs against what, three editors right now? Piotrus, AAW, and QEDK? Most editors would have been blocked at one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: BHG's comments about AAW are entirely justified, and anyone objecting to them is defending one of the worst trolls we have ever known.DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the comments referenced in this thread were not about AAW. ST47 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But resulted ultimately from his triggering. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, calling an asshole an asshole still violates WP:NPA, and does no good. And objecting to calling an asshole an asshole is not the same as defending the asshole. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it in a way you may find appealing: "Those are not the comments you are looking for". (And for everyone else: "Those are not the comments my complaint in the OP were about"). I complained about comments directed at me (and also noted comments directed at TRM and SQL). I never said anything about any comments directed at someone called AAW. I hope this clears part of the misunderstanding we seem to be having? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Four. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Colin M above: if she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, then we have a serious problem. Paul August ☎ 00:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, was napping. HighInBC, while I personally wouldn't have endorsed a block at this stage, I agree with my learned colleagues above that this is a bad unblock. P.S. I see that the diff I asked was was provided (thanks, TNT). And it is from Aug 2020. See, this is why we can't have nice things (and why Cow Man runs over refs, probably). El_C 00:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the Wild West days of Wikipedia were over. The block was at best premature, & at worst a vicious action that will drive away one more valuable, long-term volunteer from the project at a time when we need experienced contributors. When Piotrus opened this thread, there had been no discussion of anyone being blocked; then 力 announces out of the blue "Support block"; & less than 3 hours later BHG is blocked to the surprise of all. This is moving so fast, that I'm having trouble not only keeping up, but typing explanations without encountering edit conflicts. (And I touch type.) If everyone wants to block her, then make it clear that is what is being discussed. Otherwise, let's proceed on this much slower. -- llywrch (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The declared intention to block was for being honest about a troll, and had been objected to, and those objections had not been answered. We could add GN's failure to act on a personal attack by AAW to our understanding of this. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duncan, you keep bringing that point up as if, merely by virtue of being an admin aware of the issue, GN somehow inherited an affirmative obligation to personally clean up every aspect of another editor's disruption to the complete satisfaction of every observer. That's just not a reasonable complaint. GN blocked (in fact, indeffed) Chris for their blatant harassment: how is that a "failure to act"? I just don't think this nitpicking grievance has legs, and (with so many moving parts her--concerns for the community to consider, and interests to weigh), that this is helping things. Indeed, I would like to suggest that you're being a little too vociferous in your defense here in general, and maybe not doing BHG any favours with that approach. It really does seem as though your shared experience with regard to Chris has bonded the two of you together in a sense of outrage--which is absolutely understandable, in the circumstances. But there are absolutely issues here which the community needs to resolve which are quite independent of the nexus of the disruption related to Chris, and a lot of your commentary above seems to evidence that because you perceive some of the events that fore-ran this discussion as unfair to BHG, you're just going to go full-throated on defense of her on every point.
    Again, I'm not sure that's in her best interest, even just in the short run with regard to this thread. If the community agreed that the circumstances around this dispute completely obviated the need for this thread, it would already be closed. Clearly there is a perception that the situation is not that simple. And I'm frankly a little concerned that some of your behaviour here could be perceived as stonewalling and that frustration with that could get transferred to BHG, and your efforts here could have the opposite of the effect you intended. SnowRise let's rap 02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think I shouldn't point out the background of the case? Well, fair goes, it's a position. Not one I could ever take with regard to anyone or anything at all, but a position none the less. GN had an obligation (as any admin does) to act decently and transparently, and they failed so to do, as far as I can see. Also, and I dare say this is a cultural difference, I find it hard to deal with anyone who uses the word "nexus" in cold blood. DuncanHill (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cold blood? What on earth are you even talking about, now? A nexus is an area overlap, nothing more: it's a completely innocuous and neutral term without anything remotely approaching prejudicial or pejorative subtext. How are you taking offense to that? For the record, this is precisely the point I was trying to raise with you: these little "don't back down in the slightest" fights that you are picking throughout this thread are going to antagonize people who are on the fence here with regard to BHG, and then she is going to reap the "benefit" of being associated with your approach, while you pat yourself on the back, convinced you are her number one friend and ally in this. As someone who would rather see an outcome that doesn't involve BHG blocked, I am asking you sincerely to reconsider your attitude and approach here. SnowRise let's rap 07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Needlessly obscure and high-falutin', that's what I should have said. You don't care for my attitude and approach, and I don't care for yours. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference being, I haven't posted in this thread 27 times in the first day. It gets disruptive at a point, you know? Any necessary "background" you felt you needed to add, you've had every opportunity now. The need to register a (often aggressively confrontational) response to every facet of the discussion is not helpful to BHG's case: best intentions for her benefit not withstanding, you're adding more heat than light, and all you're going to accomplish is to harden positions and exhaust patience, which is not the kind of mood we need prevailing here... That's my second and last effort to rephrase this for you in a fashion you can accept. You can just immediately dismiss it out of hand again if you must, but if you are really here for BHGs sake, and not for some need of your own, you'd at least consider the possibility that showing more restraint is the best way you can help her at this point. SnowRise let's rap 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember a very astute remark by Colin (on an unrelated issue). I will quote it since it's particularly insightful: I wish [X]'s friends had been this keen to remark on "extremely ill-considered" comments posted by [X] over the years. [X] might have learned to moderate things, if his friends had a wee word with him about it from time to time, and ask[ed] him to strike some things like we see here, or apologise. When [X] ... showed persistent hostility to those he disagreed with, those actions hurt other editors, real people, who are what Wikipedia is just as much as article content. The arbs have to consider those people too. "[X]" may be substituted with the name of anyone who finds themselves in this position, with vocal defenders. If people put the same amount of energy in getting through to their colleagues, to encourage them to make some changes, perhaps we'd never find ourselves in these unpleasant dilemmas at all. What a pleasant time that would be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for repeating that, it echoes my thoughts for a long time. Often when these sort of disputes arise there a number of editors opposing a block or asking for an unblock etc, and offering support on the editor's talk page, re-affirming the view it was a rogue admin or the editor got unlucky etc. While I understand this and it's often reasonable, from what I've seen too often even when they recognise the editor's behaviour is a problem they don't make this clear enough to the editor concerned. Depending on the situation, it may be reasonable to wait a while for the editor to have time to calm down from the situation or maybe do it in some other case, but IMO it's important that the editor get a clear message even from supporters that their behaviour needs improvement. Noting that putting aside harm to the community if the editor doesn't improve, it likely harms the editor themselves since it means they have to deal with more of these threads, and worse will suffer escalating blocks. It isn't something those who are opposed to the editor can do, both because it won't be received the same way but also because in a number of situations it will be seen as grave dancing or trying to provoke the editor which is fair enough. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One finally comment that in this particular case, one thing I find particularly harmful is the way there seems to be a focus on AAW. There seems to be no question that AAW's behaviour has been terrible. However AAW's behaviour does not explain or excuse BHG's terrible behaviour, especially not towards other editors editing in good faith. Even giving some leeway for BHG losing their cool given provocations by AAW and unfortunately lashing out in all directions, this does not explain why BHG continues to defend their terrible behaviour on this thread. I would add I'm pretty sure that AAW was not involved when BHG showed terrible behaviour in the way they dealt with QEDK. And AAW was still blocked for a lot of the time BHG was showing the same terrible behaviour during the portal mess. I personally wish this hadn't been the case which become this sprawling thread since it means there's way too much talk of AAW and a risk BHG may escape sanction which means the next thread will likely get less attention because people are sick of it until finally one day it ends up at arbcom or BHG does something which breaks the camel's back and some action results we which may have gotten here if there wasn't the AAW mess confusing things. In any case, if the result is short of an indef or cban, I strongly urge BHG's supporters to make it clear to her that while she has all of our strongest sympathies, particularly her friends and supporters, for what she went through with AAW, it does not excuse her terrible behaviour towards others, especially continuing a few days after AAW was blocked and she really needs to cut out that behaviour if she wants to continue to edit here. Because, I think nearly everyone here desires a situation where BHG continues to productively edit but without the behaviour that keeps getting her in trouble. If she has the chance to do that going forward, and she needs to take that chance because it's not going to last forever. While that's on her, her supporters should go beyond making sure she has that chance, they should make it clear to her in no uncertain terms she needs to take it if she gets it rather than making her think it's all okay, it was nearly all on AAW who is gone now. Because if she gets the latter message instead, it seems far less likely she will take the chance given. Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch, Your unblock felt very much like a "Wild West" thing. You did not consult the blocking admin, and your assertion that the block was "premature" seems like a premature thing to say in itself. I get you were trying to de-escalate maybe, but I believe your actions have only caused more issues. On your point about "Driving away long-term productive editors"; I can name at least two users (Not AAW) who fall into that category who seriously considered leaving/did leave upon negative encounters with BHG. But yes the edit conflicts are annoying, this is why I hate getting into these discussions. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, to take just one example of a civility thread still on this page, was #MjolnirPants incivility a warning, but this was a block? I understand why those two situations should be treated the same (whether warning or sanction), but I don't understand why we treat them differently. Levivich 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In my observation it seems to be because some members of the Wikipedia community are biased. It's ok to let MPants be incivil because Wikipedia wants his enemies banned from editing, but User:BrownHairedGirl does not get that same protection because the opposition are treated as valuable contributors. 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️[reply]
      Jesus fuck, dude, get off my dick. Go do something that isn't about me, for fuck's sake, or I'm going to start a new ANI thread with your name in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The community should be aware that there was a comment here added by MjolnirPants [65] which was then removed by Moneytrees [66]. 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
      Instead of removing this obvious taunting I'll leave it up and strike it. I should've struck/redacted Mjolnir's post as well instead of removing it, so I will re add and strike it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on this AN/I discussion, it seems that one of two conclusions can be drawn -- either enforcement of WP:NPA is bizarrely inconsistent, or I am utterly incapable of understanding what constitutes a personal attack. jp×g 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Is enforcement of civility policies inconsistent? OMG, let's alert the news media! Who would have thought?! But whatever the outcome is here, gratuitously bringing up another thread, about someone else, makes the logical error of assuming that both situations were the same. That, and WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then let's start making it consistent. Let's come up with a set of rules and apply them equally to BHG, me, and everyone else. There are multiple open incivility threads on this page right now, let's deal with them together. Same rules for everyone. Same consequences for everyone. Whatever they may be. Levivich 22:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, a good topic for its own discussion, and one that should be framed as applying to everyone, as opposed to highlighting a single editor, who was not otherwise a topic of this discussion. Oh, and do you remember when you accused me of "clutching my pearls" over a personal attack against me? (That's a rhetorical question, and I'm not really interested in your answer.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but remember that in that thread, Cow Man was at the helm. And he's kind of a wuss, ultimately (sad but true). El_C 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm curious why Cow Man supports a block here but not there? I mean, sincere question, I don't perceive the difference. (For the record, I think either a block or a warning would have been a justifiable outcome in all three threads.) Levivich 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question, Levivich, and the answer is that the peanut gallery protects its own. Some people are just too popular to block. In response to your question we see the user make another personal attack that an admin, rather than warning or sanctioning in response to, decides to remove without comment. And this is one of the admins I have a great amount of respect for. — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand why Llyrch unblocked in the middle of this discussion; there was no obvious need for an urgent unblock, and there was an ongoing discussion about the block. I agree with the original block, as BHG has made multiple personal attacks which she has not rescinded or apologized for .Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a reminder, I asked for a refactor and an apology, not a block. If those were to be provided, I'd see no reason to issue any block, as I dislike the punishment post-fact aspect of this for people who have reformed. Unfortunately, no apology or refactor has been forthcoming, even after the recent block-unblock (see BHG's latest comments where I see no indication of heeding any warning or reading the room here: [67], [68]). I'll stress again that I neither seek a block of BHG nor that I consider it to be the best outcome. The best outcome, IMHO, would be for BHG to acknowledge she has lost temper towards me and several other editors on several different occasions, and that she has problems adhering to WP:CIV, apologize for those occasions and promise to behave in a more civil fashion in the future. This would be the best, win-win, outcome of this situation - nobody is blocked, and WP:BATTLEGROUND-like language and behavior becomes (hopefully) a bit less common. However, if no apology/refactor/promise of improved behavior are offered by BHG, the community does have the unpleasant but sadly not first-time choice to make: are going to shrug off this behavior (saying that repeated calling editors vile, obstinate, aggressive, trolls, etc. is ok - "grow thicker skin, Piotrus, being called a troll is perfectly normal on Wikipedia") and move on closing this as no action, or are we going to enforce CIV and related with some form of a stick (which sadly does include blocks, both as a form of preventive action - as in, preventing BHG from making more personal attacks - and correctional, as in, telling her that such behavior is not tolerated). Again, however, I once again hope we can deescalate this without the need to (re)block, but the choice for this is entirely up to BHG (apologie, refactor, promise to behave better - and seriously, these are not hard things to do, are they?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: I've always liked you; whenever I see your name, I feel comfort, knowing a brilliant editor is on the scene. However, I implore you to see reason, as to how you have misconstrued Piotrus' contributions. I know it has been quite personal with your dispute with Chris.sherlock, but I do not see Piotrus as being a manipulator - or victim of manipulation. If you could simply apologize, it will resolve this whole nasty affair. BOTTO (T•C) 20:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Botto: thanks for your kind words, but the reality is that I was falsely accused by Piotrus of having "inventing" the fact that the political status of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers was a POV issue, and of thereby creating a "straw man".<br /.I will not apology for questioning the scholarly credentials of someone who makes such blatantly false and malicious allegations, unless of course Piotrus withdraws those allegations. I was basically called a liar, and I do not find that acceptable ...but of course I would accept Piotrus's retraction and apology if it was offered.
          I find it very very sad that so many editors seem happy to accept Piotrus's personal attacks on me without criticism, but to pile on me for questioning the credentials of an editor who tried to sway the debate by presenting me as a liar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl: I see your perspective. @Piotrus: How do you feel about that? Would you be in favor of issuing an apology in return, regardless of you offending BHG being intentional or not? If we could bury the hatchet over a misunderstanding, that would be ideal. BOTTO (T•C) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the DRV, you focused on Bobby Sands and what a huge problem it would be on that article if the category was not deleted. Piotr said You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial bold mine. You are framing it as being accused of inventing historical facts, and that's not what he said. It takes a bad-faith contortion on my part to read it as you being called a liar. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Schazjmd: I invented nothing. The articles on Bobby Sands and (as far as I have checked) all the other on the 1981 Irish hunger strike and the wider dirty protest take no stance on the question which side was "right" in the dispute over political status: both POVs are presented.
              However, if we have categories where individual prisoners or groups of prisoners are categorised as "political prisoners", then there has to be a binary choice between either putting them in the category or omitting them from the category. There is no half-way house, no possibility of a note to accompany each article title in the category, no means to attribute POV.
              That means the category system will reflect one or the other POV on the central issue of that dispute. Deciding which side to choose will inevitably be highly controversial, and anyone with any knowledge of the history and politics of northern Ireland in that era can attest that would be highly controversial. If you want confirmation of that, we can raise the issue on WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Northern Ireland.
              It's bad faith contortion to claim that I "invented" any of this. A good faith, civil editor who was ungfamiliar with the topic would have asked for evidnece or third opinions; but Piotrus instead make a a direct accusatio that I was fabricating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an ANI thread with so many experienced editors and admins has no clear outcome yet, blocking is, IMO, inappropriate. The unblock can be called inappropriate as well, but righting a wrong in the wrong way does have the net effect of righting a wrong. I will add that I do think many of the comments directed at Piotrus are pretty plain personal attacks, and I'm sad that BHG chose to make them. Calling a troll a troll because they are, supposedly, a troll is just not a good thing--and it is clearly not that obvious that P. was trolling. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Always worthwhile to agree with Drmies: absent an emergency it's rarely helpful for people to rush about blocking and unblocking over the top of an active ANI thread. Let the ANI play out and then act on community consensus: it's the best way to make the outcome stick. We've had a full block/unblock cycle: can everyone now just back away from the admin tools for a bit and let the conversation proceed. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have blocked; the problem with blocking is that now everyone is talking about the block and unblock, which is adjacent to the actual issue. On the actual issue, this isn't a new problem: a vested contributor behaves badly and then refuses to be held accountable. Accountability can take different forms, such as acknowledging the mistake, or submitting to the judgment of the community. BHG hasn't done the first, and the problem with the second is that there are a fair number of users who--whether that's their intention or not--will frustrate that aim. If this is a one-off incident, then it's one of many. What's the plan here, folks? Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was maybe too early, and the unblock was similar, although neither was objectively wrong. Like some other veteran editors and former admins, BHG is nearly unblockable (and I say this as an admin). A regular editor would have long been sanctioned for far less. Part of why she was desysopped was behavior toward others, and that hasn't improved in the intervening time. While I have not directly been the target of her name-calling, I have seen it unfold in a predictable manner each time someone edits against what BHG believes to be "correct", which may or may not actually be so. She has done good editing work, there's no doubt about that, but I question whether the encyclopedia is actually improved by the endless arguments that come out of many discussions and interactions. Regardless of an IBAN and now indeffed editor, the page he edited is going to lead to more heat than light as well. Struck: page has since been deleted. Star Mississippi 02:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rushed block made while the discussion is still ongoing being reversed does not make one unblockable. If there is a consensus here for a block, then a block will occur. The community has the ultimate authority in this matter. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this point is that the block was for (rightly or wrongly) policy violation (NPA), and had nothing to do with "consensus". — Ched (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kind of where I land, Ched. HighInBC, unblockable not in the sense of this discussion, but if other editors behaved this way (specifically at the moment thinking of a recent signature discussion, and the edits that led to the recent BRFA), they would have been blocked. BHG is held to a different standard, likely out of respect for her tenure. I hope this discussion achieves consensus as to whether that's acceptable, or if it needs to change. Star Mississippi 13:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry (because I have not really been following this), but aren't blocks supposed to be preventative rather than punitive? Was there any ongoing incivility/personal attacks etc.? If so, the block was likely warranted, though not for 7 days (24-48 hours to have a break would have been enough). If not, then the block was not warranted. GiantSnowman 10:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In my judgment, there was indeed ongoing incivility to several different editors. I opted for a week knowing because, as the diffs above indicate, this is an ongoing issue and BHG has been warned about civility in the past (particularly at her ArbCom case). GeneralNotability (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      @GiantSnowman: Being blunt, any sufficiently long block against BHG is preventative against incivility and personal attacks and it probably doesn't have to be that long, and BHG's responses in this thread sadly suggest it isn't going to change. To some extent you can say that about many editors, but in my view BHG is one who's comments takes it to another level. Anyway I don't want to get heavily involved in this so I'll just leave this quick (for me) comment. I said something fairly similar ~2 years and others have said similar stuff above.

      BHG, doesn't seem to understand that the language she use is harmful to the community and especially to herself. She used too say her fellow editors have "low intelligence". I don't care how justified she thought that comment was, or whatever she talked about the Dunning–Kruger effect etc; it was never acceptable. I told her she needed to cut that crap out, as others did, maybe she moderated her behaviour slightly but not enough and it eventually it's what lead to the arbcom case and her desysoping. I know some were angry at arbcom for desysoping her because it wasn't her administrative actions that got her into trouble, but as I said, we cannot have administrators who behave so poorly in disputes even if they don't use administrative tools to do so.

      At some stage, whether before or after the arbcom case I don't know, I think she finally stopped saying her fellow editors have "low intelligence", but it's clear from this thread, her language is still a major problem. I saw the quote above about QEDK. I only check the diff to check the time stamp. What she doesn't seem to understand is I don't care about the diff. That language is not acceptable, it's very unlikely there will be a context (other than it was clearly a joke) which makes it acceptable especially not against an established editor who I'm confident was not acting in bad faith. When I see that language it makes me want to oppose anything she does. Frankly, I feel so strongly about it that it's very difficult for me to get involved in such a dispute since even if she is right, it will be difficult for me to see it.

      Okay that QEDK thing was over a year ago and calling someone a troll isn't quite in that league for me, still it's very far from acceptable language especially when an editor insists on the right to do so. Most agree BHG often does good work. And it may be the case, that she's often right too. However the language she uses alienates many editors and makes it hard for even editors without strong feelings to agree with her, let alone those initially opposed. As long as she keeps at it, it's hard for her to continue to do good work when there is a dispute.

      At this time there may be no consensus for a block. But while it may be true that it's very hard for some editors to be blocked, I don't think there's any such thing as an unblockable. If an editor's behaviour is bad enough, eventually they will be blocked. For that reason I'd urge BHG once again to think about how she can avoid these threads, and no it isn't getting everyone else blocked. I'd also urge those who are friends or supporters to call her out when she make unacceptable comments rather than let it fly because she do good work or because of the times BHG has defended someone.

      Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I guess I should really stop commenting without reading the opening comment properly. I just noticed that I was too generous, BHG is still saying similar stuff to what she was 2 years ago with her comments on another editor's thinking skills. Maybe she's avoiding the phrasing "low intelligence" I don't know, it doesn't make it better. Her making it an either/or doesn't make it much better either. This affirms my belief even more that this is only going to end up with a BHG eventually indef blocked. As I said below, personally I feel that time is now. Still I'd much rather it didn't have to be that, as I think the vast vast majority in this thread. However as I also said below, I think our ability to do anything is very limited. It's ultimately on BHG to drastically change the comments she makes about and to other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't we at least consider a shorter term block first? Mind you, I still haven't given up on the hope that BHG can avoid a sanction altogether, but I do acknowledge that is looking less and less likely, because of the large number of contributors who have implied or outright said that they consider that an option only if BHG owns up to an issue here. And I'm just not certain she wouldn't rather fall on her sword first, to use the old idiom. But even if that does end up being the case, shouldn't we attempt escalating blocks? It would seems from the block log that BHG has never had to wait out more than a few hours of a block: maybe a month would be enough to emphasize that the community's supply of WP:ROPE has been completely exhausted here. Even 3 or 6 months (with an express possibility of appeal on acknowledgement of issues) would be better than indefinite.
    You and I are both community members who tend to take CIV violations particularly seriously--and between you and I, I'm glad to see the uptake the community once again taking this pillar policy seriously of late, after a number of years of what I would call relatively lax enforcement, to the detriment of the project. But I think the community has enabled this particular situation to some extent, by never exercising the necessary will to take action before (at least in the form of a block). Now there are two ways to look at that situation: we could say that BHG has benefited too much from patience in the first place and that the standard response that would have been metted out to a novice editor acting in the same way by this point ought to be applied. But I'm inclined towards the second view: the blame lays with the community for whatever earlier hesitation it operated under, so, if there must be a sanction, we should consider starting with shorter sanctions, and figure out how much is needed to be effective. But I'm really hoping it doesn't come to making that decision: no sanction would still be my preferred approach, though I understand the obstacles in the way with regard to that outcome. SnowRise let's rap 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The hidden hand?

    Can't help but wonder, if somewhere off Wikipedia, this Chris.sherlock/AussieArticleWriter bloke, is having a giggle. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite.DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat my question above, which was ignored: Should their other accounts, including Chris.sherlock, be blocked?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they should be , and of course they won't be. DuncanHill (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a conversation with this person on a Facebook page yesterday, where he was trying to understand the revdels, the suppression and his block. I tried to clarify while being quite firm. He was a major influential figure in the early years of this encyclopedia but has been in poor personal health for quite a while. His behavior has often been reprehensible but I do not think that he is fully in control of that behavior. So, "having a giggle" is probably inaccurate and not appropriate, I think. "Suffering" is probably more accurate. That does not mean that I support disruptive editing, no matter the cause. But some compassion for the long term editors we must block indefinitely is also appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IBANs all round

    I have seen a tiny amount of the background to the impressive but unread walls-of-text above and am very sympathetic to a couple of the participants. However, this is Wikipedia, not the Justice Department, and it is time to bring the bickering to a close. There should be no further blocks. Instead, if the turmoil continues there should be indefinite two-way interaction bans to separate the participants, such as TRM/BHG, BHG/CS, DH/CS and any others that can't let it go. Instead of an indignation competition, it would be better to demonstrate who is most resistant to being poked without taking the bait. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please try to read a little bit before you propose something like this. You would recognize the BHG DH / CS IBAN already exists, and if properly enforced would have prevented this entire thing. I would like Arb to explain why they didn’t indef AAW when they posted that Arb request. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My feeling at the time was, and it continues to be today, that the ARC fell under WP:BANEX criteria 2. Also to the best of my knowledge, AAW/CS had a 1-way iBAN only with BHG but no DH/CS iBAN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:RESTRICT shows CS has a one-way iban against BHG but doesn't mention DH. I suppose this might peter out eventually but I don't see why anyone at Wikipedia should comment further about CS. I suppose we can wait until the BHG/TRM issue arises next time. My post was intended as more of a hint than a firm proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I did say AAW didn't have an IBAN against him in respect of me, despite him accusing me of (Redacted). DuncanHill (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The interaction ban between AAW and BHG does not appear to be related the the issue that started this discussion. Just because one editor (AAW) breaches an iban with BHG does not give BHG carte blanche to be uncivil to another editor whom they are in dispute with.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An IBAN is what we use when two editors can't play nicely together. I feel that it's the wrong remedy for this case because we know that there are quite a few editors that BHG can't play nicely with. I also think that:-
    • The editors above suggesting an apology and retraction from BHG are going to be disppointed. She has never retracted or apologized for anything, and when asked, she has always said that she stands by her words.
    • Therefore we can't characterize this behaviour as a momentary loss of temper. It's not that.
    • The behaviour is repeated. BHG is a prolific editor who's not averse to conflict and she's done this quite a few times.
    • Nobody is unblockable. Strong contributions to the encyclopaedia are not and shouldn't be a shield that protects an editor from civility rules.
    • A forced apology is no apology at all, and any attempt by us to force one is therefore worthless.
    • Inaction is wrong. If we don't act on this, then we're showing contempt and disregard for her targets.
    • IMV the decision is between a last and final warning and a community-imposed sitewide ban. BHG has had several warnings without the slightest effect on her conduct, and this one would have to be pretty clear that one (1) more incident of incivility would be the end.—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we don't act on this, then we're showing contempt and disregard for her targets. Yes, and I would also add "If we don't act on this, then we're back here at ANI in a month or two with the same issues surrounding the same user." - Darwinek (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, this is the best solution. We'd just be acknowledging that this group of editors don't collaborate well with each other. No good or bad editors labels being placed. Merely encouraging each one to avoid the other. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do about BHG?

    I agree with Mackensen above: I wouldn't have blocked; the problem with blocking is that now everyone is talking about the block and unblock, which is adjacent to the actual issue. On the actual issue, this isn't a new problem: a vested contributor behaves badly and then refuses to be held accountable. Accountability can take different forms, such as acknowledging the mistake, or submitting to the judgment of the community. BHG hasn't done the first, and the problem with the second is that there are a fair number of users who--whether that's their intention or not--will frustrate that aim. If this is a one-off incident, then it's one of many. What's the plan here, folks?

    So what do we do here? Paul August ☎ 11:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My immediate impulse is to prefer a warning, so as to prevent wheel-warring in the administrative sector with back-and-forth blocks. With the exception of AAW, there are valuable contributors on both sides (it sickens me to use that term of phrase but there's no other way to say it). Of course we should all be concerned about WP:CIV and we know this is not BHG's first rodeo here. But there is no point in escalating to another block, since - if you don't go by counting heads - consensus does not exist for that. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go with what works. BHG's Arbcom-imposed topic ban from portals and 1-way IBAN with NA1k have been very effective in preventing disruption while allowing her to edit. Perhaps we can craft something where BHG is prohibited from commenting on editing skills and motivation of any other editor, with escalating blocks for any assumptions of bad faith? —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen those type of restrictions to be effective. A similar restriction was imposed on The Rambling Man a long time ago. The effect that ended up having was a net negative - it simply led to "gotcha!" attempts by his antagonists and a lack of clarity as to what constituted a reflection on an editor's competence or motivations. That sanction was eventually rescinded. From that episode, one could be led to the conclusion that sanctions based on behavior or civility for high-volume contributors tend to be ineffective or detrimental. WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult to make such restrictions effective when the restricted party doesn't agree that there's a problem and doesn't make a real effort to remove the source of the problem. As a community, we've often bent over backward to retain "net positive" editors, accepting the negative as part of the deal. The problem here is that we are implicitly privileging their contributions over those of whoever is on the receiving end of the "negative" behavior. Further, we're privileging their contributions over all the other editors left to pick up the broken crockery. I have no objection to issuing a warning, but my question stands: assuming the warning is unheeded, and past behavior suggests that this will be the case, what next? Mackensen (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Kusma, I'd support that although I have doubts it will work. The trouble is it's IMO not something easy to follow and likely to lead to a lot of wikilawyering discussions about whether BHG violated it. I'm not saying I have an alternative, I don't which is why I support that and frankly nearly anything else to try and restrict BHG's behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether there is anything short of a siteban that could work. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if your responses was particularly directed at me, but for clarity: What I'm trying to say is, I'm not convinced this will work; but if others feel it might, I'd support it. If it comes down to a choice, sadly I'm leaning towards a site ban as my first preference given my doubts and how long BHG's incivility and PA problem has been going on. I'm not sure if I'll check out this thread again, but if someone else has another suggestion and I see it I'll of course reconsider but I can't think of any. (P.S. I wrote my initial response before WaltCip posted and didn't modify it when I read their response but it also sort of is a good contrast to my POV. It sounds like WaltCip is close to opposed whereas I feel it's still worth a try in the absence of anything else, also noting that it's not clear there will be consensus for a site block.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community decides it is unwilling to do anything here, then we only have two options. Either we tell the editors on the receiving end to 'learn to live with it', or this is kicked upstairs to the Committee in their capacity as the final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. But I really do think it's an indictment of community dispute resolution if we can't even figure this mess out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior isn't going to change. I need to reread the ArbCom, but my recollection is that her behavior isn't appreciably worse now then it was then, so if they didn't find it block worthy then, they won't now. Possibly though with a new committee who can see it through the lens of ongoing despite the de-sysop. IBANs are one thing (and I don't know the detailed history with AAW/Chris, so staying away from that), but when it's multiple people, I don't think an IBAN will solve anything. There needs to be something that indicates the behavior needs to change. Star Mississippi 14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented in the DRV, and I (like some others) tried to inject some humour there. but after what I have read above about escalating agf blocks or potential banning, I'm thinking that it just isn't fair, so I just thought I should comment.
    My guess is that she'll be mildly surprised that I am defending her here, but whatever.
    In my time editing at CfD and elsewhere, in my estimation BHG has an uncommon understanding of the category system and the various policies and processes thereof.
    And as long as we don't talk about (in my estimation) her seeming bias when it comes to UK/British isles/Ireland-related stuff (among a few others), I think she's been a real asset, and a very diligent editor.
    Now something I've been noticing more and more as I look around the various corners of Wikipedia, editing content just more and more seems to becoming a battleground. I don't think it's what any of us wants, but it's what it happening.
    And in my estimation, BHG is someone willing to wade into those discussions with a full throated defense of policy.
    However, when you start seeing everything as an apple, when an orange comes your way, you may mistakenly see it as an apple.
    And "battleground-experienced" editors who know policy can get sneaky with saying things in certain ways, etc. So it's not surprising that someone in "battlefield mode" might mis-read an intent in this type-written environment, and following that, say things based on the mis-read. (Yes, I'm being charitable here.)
    So yes, things several people said should not have been said, and things should be apologized for. (I'm not holding my breath.)
    But if we ban everyone who is trying to defend policy and our processes, we may find that there is no one left.
    So anyway, the short of it is that I don't think issuing IBANs to BHG is a successful solution in this case. In my experience BHG doesn't typically hold "grudges" from discussion to discussion (though she may use other discussions as "evidence" in the process), this is all about "winning the battle" of the moment.
    So all you are doing is setting this up to where she will be IBANned with others one-by-one over time.
    And another warning is just more additional "words", a speedbump to work around for the next "battle". (I was thinking of adding diffs, but I don't see them as helpful at this point).
    I'm not sure what the solution is here. But I'm not sure we have the ability at AN/I to solve the greater battleground problem at Wikipedia. - jc37 13:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been following this thread with interest but haven't said anything knowing it could end up at ArbCom. But to answer the question Paul asks I think the following are the options I can think of:
      1. Community handles it
      A. Do nothing: the community could decide that there is nothing which violates our policies and guidelines (PAG) and so no action is appropriate.
      B. Warn (or issue a Final Warning): the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and warns BHG against further instances.
      C. Interaction ban(s): the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and to prevent future instances passes an interaction ban (perhaps 1 way, perhaps 2 way) with BHG and some combination of Piotrus, SQL, and QEDK
      D. Short term block: the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and to prevent continuing disruption a short term block (of length TBD) is necessary
      E. Indefinite block: the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and the only way to prevent further disruption is to pass an indefinite block. Indefinite of course does not mean infinite but this would require the community to accept an appeal from BHG before she could return to helping the project
      2. The community doesn't handle it: the community is too divided about the issues, the thread is too sprawling, and nothing is ever done
      3. An editor could send this to ArbCom:
      A. File an WP:ARCA: As BHG was party to a case in 2020 an editor could ask for ArbCom to revisit the issue through this venue. From there ArbCom will decide what happens next (likely some form of nothing, sanction through motion, full proceeding)
      B. File an WP:ARC: As the other people involved are substantially different than the 2020 case and there are other issues raised a new case request could also be filed. From there ArbCom will decide what happens next (decline the case, accept and resolve the case by motion, accept and open a proceeding)
    I would add, only briefly because this is the what to do about BHG section, that options 1A, 1B, 1E and 2 could also be applied to AAW. Obviously this list of options will not contain any wisdom not already known by the editors here but I find sometimes the laying out of all options helps me to gain clarity about what I think the right option is and why. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by a relatively new, non-admin editor: Strewth, I'm nearly lost for words. Back when I was in primary school, and the equivalent of Administrator's Noticeboard (Incidents) was the dinner-lady, whose Word was Law, life was simple. She'd have told us all to stop arguing and find something more useful to do instead. If I'm understanding correctly, this whole of this wall of text is based on a very simple foundation: Piotr says that BHG called him a troll and must apologise, and BHG says that at the time he was being a troll so she won't. In dinner-lady terms, is it time for someone to tell everyone to stop arguing and go back to lessons? Isn't there an encyclopaedia round here somewhere, that needs attention? Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely disregarding these comments BHG made toward Piotrus:
    • I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus?
    • Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations.
    • your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality
    Those are unacceptable. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed above, it is interesting to see how thoroughly Schazjmd ignores the fact that i was falsely accused of inventing historical facts and/or controversy.
    In Schazjmd's approach, it seems to be entirely acceptable to make a thoroughly bogus and unfounded accusation of fabrication ... but entirely unacceptable to respond forcefully to such smears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus is also not the only person who has been wronged here. If this had happened once or twice, sure, everyone could be slapped on the wrist and sent back to work. It's apparent that there is a larger pattern of behavior here, and if BHG isn't willing to even acknowledge it (I asked her to address this on her talk page, and she said I was being incivil), then I expect that this will keep happening, unless we do something about it. If this is to be addressed in some way other than with a block or arbcom case, then we need a good proposal to discuss. It is unfortunate that we don't have any good way to deal with long term civility problems from otherwise productive editors. ST47 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps BHG could be prohibited from using adjectives, second-person pronouns, or mentioning any other editor's name except to identify a comment that she is agreeing with. Yes, I'm being facetious. I think. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something to be said for banning all adjectives from article space except for indisputable descriptive ones (unless sourced). Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ST47: This is the sort of thing that really makes me despair of en.wp's dispute processes.
    You refer to a post on my talk, but without linking the diff to facilitate others to scrutinise it.
    So here is the diff: [69]. A you can see, the reason that I described your posts as uncivil was that you were completely ignoring what I wrote: You are entirely ignoring the fact that GeneralNotability explicitly promised to block me for criticising Chris.sherlock,[70] and you are responding as if that never happened and had never been mentioned by me. Why?
    You are also ignoring the fact that I was in the midst of a situation where CS had set two other editors out to wind me up.
    You have not responded to that question ...but instead you take my words out of context, and post here to use them against me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: I apologize for not including a diff to our side conversation, thank you for doing so. I headed to sleep after my post last night, and upon reading your reply this morning, got the distinct impression that you didn't want to talk to me. I think that we are at an impasse: I share your frustration with Chris Sherlock, and if every offensive comment linked in this thread was about him, we would all be ready to close the thread and walk away. However, multiple users have spoken out in this thread, and unless I am missing something, your only response has been that those users had been "set...out to wind [you] up". This is not a one-time thing.
    It's still my work hours, and I really only intended to log on to check some bot things. I will try to follow up with this thread later, but I wouldn't be surprised if I don't have much time to. Busy Monday. ST47 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ST47: Thanks for the civil reply, ST47.
    However, it seems that you still miss my point. That was a discussion on my unblock request, but you ignored everything I wrote about why I had made a request in that form.
    You only seemed to want a fork of the wider discussion, and I don't see it being helpful to fork that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the community is perfectly capable of handling this and it isn't necessary to involve Arbcom. The evidence is all on-wiki and there's no need for any of that secret squirrel stuff that we need Arbcom to handle. I think the killer question is Kusma's: whether there is anything short of a siteban that could work. We need to focus on that question and come up with a genuinely workable alternative... or bite the bullet.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with S Marshall the community can (and should) deal with this. And so far at least, there seems to be a consensus for some kind of sanction. Paul August ☎ 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are so many separate issues here, perhaps a structured sub-page would help? The conflation of the AAW issues, the Piotrus v. BHG issues, and various other BHG diffs makes this almost impossible to follow. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Please keep this on the main noticeboard as long as possible. Subpaging drastically reduces the number of neutral watchers. —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG is one of the most productive editors on this project. She is also somewhat easily triggered, which makes her an appealing target for trolls (like AAW) seeking drama. I would imagine that such a troll would find it particularly satisfying to poke and prod two or more easily-triggered editors into conflict with each other, or to exacerbate such a conflict when it arises. I would also imagine that such a troll would find it particularly satisfying to get the community involved in the high drama of blocking or banning an overall productive editor. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @BD2412, the thread here was started by Piotrus, an editor who is at least as productive as BHG (BHG has so many edits that it isn't easy to tell how productive she is) because he has been subject to personal attacks by BHG that do not seem to be connected at all to the banned user you mention. We shouldn't easily excuse personal attacks against such a productive editor. Whether our reaction makes some banned user sad or happy should not influence our actions here. How do you suggest we protect Piotrus against these attacks? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm aware of how we got here. Neither participant in the original dispute is a cupcake. BD2412 T 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether an editor is a cupcake or has been desysopped for cause has very little to do with repeating personal attacks after being called out on them. Do you really think that is acceptable? —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read through much of the thread above, and many of the linked diffs. The conduct of several users here makes me despair; there's just so much needless escalation, as several others have pointed out. I thoroughly endorse the indefinite block of CS/AAW; their conduct was appalling. For the record, I was the admin who implemented the one-way IBAN against them, and so I have some familiarity with this situation, and no reason to take their side. However, their conduct, and that of the others in this dispute, does not in the least excuse BHG's utterly needless aggression, and complete inability to self-reflect following conduct that many many uninvolved and experienced users have described as sub-par. Sniping at someone when you're upset is quite understandable. Returning to the conversation hours or days later, and declaring that the other parties deserved your rudeness, is neither understandable nor excusable. Besides which, at least a few of the many users who have been targets of BHG's hostility in the last few days, at least a couple did nothing to deserve it; SQL was making nothing more than a good-faith effort to defuse the situation, and absolutely did not deserve the rhetoric they got.
      As I see it, we have three options here. First, we can just drop this, and provide more evidence for the commonly-held belief that different rules apply for experienced contributors. I'd rather we didn't do that; IMHO more experienced contributors have a greater responsibility to be collegial, not lesser; but I suspect I'm in the minority there. Second, we could try to fix this via escalating blocks for violations of WP:CIVIL. To anyone who argues that a block would not be preventative, I'd point out that BHG wasn't rude in the heat of the moment, but came to this discussion many hours later, repeated her rudeness, and defended it at tedious length. Third, we could attempt a restriction along the lines of "BHG may not comment the behavior of other editors", but really I'd be fine with anything similar. I know the community hasn't had much success, historically, with such bespoke civility sanctions. This would nonetheless be my first choice, because I believe it's the most proportionate response that is directly addressing the problem, and also because there are far fewer editors here who are likely to game such a sanction to persecute BHG (the person most likely to do so has an IBAN and an indef block). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an editor who is personally acquainted with the behavioral issues that led to BHG's desysop, I'm dismayed to find that there are still some people willing to defend this kind of behavior. Yes, I'm aware that BHG is a very productive editor who does a lot of good work. And yes, I realize that we can find examples of bad behavior on the other side of the dispute. I've seen these excuses/justifications before. The behavior isn't changing and at this point it is blindingly obvious that it will never change. No, I don't pretend to have an easy solution, but can we at least acknowledge that we are dealing with an intractable problem that we can't just explain away by only focusing on the specifics of the most recent fracas? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear that BHG's orginal desysopping was one of the worst decisions ever made by an ArbCom (I have voted against every ArbCom candidate who voted for it, and will do for perpetuity) and whether we need to go into the details of whether that decision would have been the same had BHG been male is quite another issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You have your opinion. I, as a target of some of BHG's problematic editing, have mine. I think the record reflects that the ArbCom in question was also willing to desysop influential male admins when it was necessary to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but let's face it, the "Findings of Fact" against those male admins were indeed factual, as opposed to a number of the "facts" in BHG's case. Can't think why that might have been. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You should probably save that line of reasoning for people who didn't experience BHG's chronic incivility firsthand. I had formed my own opinions on the matter long before any findings of fact were posted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is another reason why we should make a decisive intervention here instead of kicking it upstairs to Arbcom, and I wonder whether Black Kite has any thoughts on what the remedy should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say no to indef block/ban. No articles have been vandalised (to my knowledge) & zapping editors off this project, because of words, isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      BHG's words have resulted in editors leaving the project or reducing their activity levels (for example, see the Portals Arbcom case). "It's just words" does not mean there is no damage to the community, or to the encyclopaedia that is created by the community. WP:CIV is a policy. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why we shouldn't treat this case with the seriousness it deserves. The diffs show that this is a rather extreme case of bullying and harassment by BHG against users who did nothing whosoever to deserve it. Presented with Vandamonde's options, I strongly favor a preventative block, with a note that the blocks will escalate if more violations occur. DIACHRONY (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this?:

    We have made a finding that BrownHairedGirl's method of interacting with other editors is too often and too severely uncivil, too often includes personal attacks, is too pointy, too seldom deescalates difficult situation, too often escalates difficult situations. We find that it is important that this situation be improved. For a period of three months, BrowHairedGirl is completely prohibited from commenting on other editors. This will be strictly and quickly enforced with escalating blocks if violated. If BHG is subjected to any behavior by others that requires addressing during this period she is let someone else handle it on her behalf. The community hopes and expects that this will help establish a new pattern of behavior which includes a substantial reduction in the amount and severity of the discussed issues after the three months have expired.

    It's only 3 months because this does create a behavior "minefield" for BHG. It is hopefully long enough to express the finding that improvement in these areas is needed and important and to show BHG a different method of operating that is more enjoyable for her and others while continuing to be productive in her contributions to Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the sentiment, but what this proposal calls a "behavior minefield" is what every other editor calls policy. I would prefer this be indefinite and require BHG show good cause to the community before it is removed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "minefield" referred to is that this remedy bars any comment on any other editor, which is overbroad and, in my opinion, untenable. How is someone supposed to participate in any discussion with this type of restriction on them? "X is a vandal" is a "comment on another editor". So is "A is a sockpuppet of B". I think it is better to create explicit penalties for actual policy violations, than it is to create a bespoke remedy that is as broad as this. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is one comment saying it's too lenient and one saying it's too stringent. Maybe that means it's just right  :-) ST47 So BHG can't say those things for three months. Remedies preclude all kinds of this that are otherwise OK. By definition, remedies almost always prohibit things that are otherwise OK. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have AIV and ANI where problematic conduct can be reported so that it can be handled by others. Further, per WP:BANEX, this would not apply to obvious vandalism, so I don't believe "X is a vandal" would be a problem except when it was vexatious. To be clear, I agree that the restriction is broad and perhaps untenable, but the disruption is broad and untenable. How many person hours have been wasted on this incident alone? I'm open to suggestions, but it needs to be made clear that this is indeed the end of the rope. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I have not made ANY finding! This was merely an attempt at a middle of the road proposal, derived from this ANI section. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you ought to make that clear, then. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I see how one might imply that from my proposal but it was not intended or stated. To reinforce, my proposal was merely an attempt at a middle of the road proposal, derived from the discussions and diffs in this ANI section. I have no memory of ever having interacted with BHG. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't read every word above this one but thought I'd just say that the only action I would support is a "incivility ban" with escalating blocks for personal attacks which I think are more identifiable that a fuzzy "incivility" which I think is subject to interpretation. Today, an editor called my actions "lazy" on my talk page, a comment that is not civil but I wouldn't consider it a personal attack. An enforced civility hasn't worked well in the past but it's a possible solution.
    I think the ambivalence towards BHG that some editors here seem to despair about is because aside from some toxic personal interactions, BHG is a brilliant defender of policy and the project. Her knowledge of categorization and its history here is encyclopedic and so I value hearing her opinions in disputes. If she could step away from these interpersonal feuds, well, she'd still be an admin. A ban on incivility, as imperfect as it would be, is a way to retain keep her and her contributions but let BHG know there are consequences to lashing out at editors and admins she finds herself in conflict with (I'm referring to other editors besides Chris who went out of his way to provoke her). Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for anyone to respond to my stance with diffs and examples of unpleasant things BHG has said, I've been following this dispute and am familiar with them. There is no need to repeat personal attacks in this thread yet one more time which I think just causes pain to the targets again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking only for myself, I'm well aware of the reasons underlying the ambivalence. At this point, I simply don't care and I've lost all patience with the community's failure to resolve the issue. Again, that's just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if others feel the same way. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But we're all already banned from incivility. Levivich 01:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in practice... — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "may not comment on other editors except by linking diffs, or escalate discussions"? Enterprisey (talk!) 02:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given my experience, I'd want to make sure that BHG leaves someone alone when they ask. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 10:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a bespoke and strong sanction of this type is what we need. I don't know whether BHG will accept it; it would certainly make her more productive if she could stop posting pages and pages of argument. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The difference in my proposal compared to others is that it sets up what will hopefully be a 3 month "transition" which might establish a new pattern and BHG enjoying/preferring that new pattern. It's also a vague "too much nastiness" finding without saying that specific cases violated policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal proposals

    Censure

    I see overwhelming consensus that BHG has been repeatedly and egregiously uncivil to many of her fellow editors. Therefore I propose the following:

    Censure
    Wikipedia's community of editors formally censures BrownHairedGirl for repeated and continuing incivility.
    • Support as proposer. I think this is the minimum action we should take here, and it should be taken independently of whatever other measures the community decides are appropriate. In particular, in addition, some sort of probation (such as suggested by North8000 above) enforced by escalating blocks might be worth a try (see below). Paul August ☎ 12:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paul August: Please can you clarify whether I have understood your view correctly. It seems to me that in your assessment you take no account of:
    1. the fact that my brush with TRM and SQL was caused by sustained disruption caused by the IBANNed editor Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer who had pursued several vendetta vendetta who had been stalking me to find a point of contention in which he had no other involvement, and who broke his IBAN multiple times to try (successfully) to stir trouble at three venues: see [71],[72],[73].
    2. That the spat in which QL became involved derived from me making a minimal oblique reference (with no name attached) to disruption of a discussion by TRM, conduct which TRM himself described[74] as boorish behavior. TRM then posted twice to the BRFA to add nothing of substance, just disruptive snark.[75][76], which for brevity I labelled as trolling.
    3. that when I uncovered the fact that this incident had been instigated by a lot of work by an IBANned stalker, I was understandably exasperated by SQL's complete lack of interest in the fact that the whole thing had been set up as yet another calculated act of disruption by a serial trouble-maker.
    4. that in the DRV, Piotrus falsely accused me[77] of inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial, and that it was a straw man[78]. Note that I was not accused of being mistaken or exaggerating, but of "inventing" the fact that this is highly controversial topic. That is effectively calling me a liar. My view on its relevance was later endorsed[79] here at ANU by User:力,who is otherwise a harsh critic of me: BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered
    5. that my harsh responses to Piotrus at the DRV were in response to those blatantly false statements that I was inventing a controversy, and that I have offrered to withdraw an apologise for my comments if Piotrus withdraws and apologises for the false statements about me: see[80]
    6. that reason I called Piotrus a "troll" when I reverted[81] his post on my talk was because a) he was complaining amount my response to him falsely accusing me of inventing controversy; b) he did so by posting in a discussion section with SQL which was about the disruption successfully instigated by Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer, and I was at my wits end with all that drama and was utterly exasperated.
    I want to understand your position, so please can you clarify: have I understood you correctly that in all of this, the problem is that I responded harshly to a sustained round of attacks from several quarters? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal reflects my reading of the community's opinion as expressed above. Presumably any possible extenuating circumstances have been considered. And, by the way, extenuating circumstances do not relive one from the obligation of being civil. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, extenuating circumstances absolutely can relieve one of the obligation to be civil. We can all imagine circumstances where someone tells someone else to "go f themselves" and it's absolutely OK. I don't think it's helpful to say that extenuating circumstances are irrelevant or don't excuse incivility. More helpful is to talk about whether the extenuating circumstances in this case excused the incivility in this case (my answer is mixed, in some cases yes, in others no). Levivich 15:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My part in this has been mis-represented here. Please see the contribs and timeline that I posted above with diffs included !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regretful Oppose This proposal has no teeth. Additionally, This has already been tried. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 12:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If a community member is genuinely behaving in a habitually incivil fashion, then a half-measure is half of a measure short on appropriate action. If a community member's conduct does not rise to that level, then a half-measure is half of a measure in excess of appropriate action. "Censuring" someone (particularly with language which expressly acknowledges the problem is ongoing) without applying an approach that has a chance of correcting the issue (and without getting a commitment from the party in question) equates to little more than posturing. Worse, indeed, because it is basically an admission that we found this editor's conduct to be in error but we were effectively unable to hold them to account: it very much sends the wrong message to the community at large. I get the impulse that it would be nice to have something that is sterner than a warning, but this is not the way to go, imo. SnowRise let's rap 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Snow Rise, who put it very well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Snow Rise.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A formal censure by the community, as far as I'm aware, has never occurred. This kind of measure has the virtue of clearly establishing the community's displeasure with BHG behavior. Such a thing might well have more effect coming from the community of fellow editors, than from Arbcom. It seems worth a try. As for "teeth", this measure is not intended to be the only measure we take and does not preclude other additional harsher measures. The opposers seem to think that I've proposed this in lieu of other proposals. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I for one noted that wording in your !vote: it was well articulated. I simply believe the solution, non-exclusive of other approaches though it may be, is (forgive me again my bluntness) counter-intuitive in its own right and does not justify itself. SnowRise let's rap 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, at least in principle. I recognize Snow Rise's concerns; this is not sufficient, as it doesn't directly address future behavior. But, I think BHG has yet to realize that there was a genuine problem with her behavior, and if there's consensus for this outcome, it may help with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Oppose. I had forgotten that BHG was admonished for incivility by ARBCOM. This isn't the first time this has been tried, and a second admonishment is meaningless, IMHO. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, not really dealing with the core issues presented above. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose BHG was already admonished once by ArbCom. If she didn't listen to them, I doubt she will listen to us. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Snow Rise who put it better than anyone ever could. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for structural reasons per my "Resolving the math / mechanics issue & last chance before Arbcom" section even though this is insufficient. Also with addition to the next "probation" proposal. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Probation

    In addition to the formal censure above, shall we impose some sort of "incivility probation" (or "civility probation"?) on BHG? Paul August ☎ 12:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support, with indefinite duration, on the basis that the community pre-authorises sysops to block on repeat of this behaviour (such blocks to be reviewable on AN/I).—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, in these terms. This is far too vague a proposal: indeed, even if we did all uniformly agree to this, we'd still need another !vote for any particular format for the ban, since consensus to the idea in these extremely broad terms could never be enforced as consensus for any particular prohibition on behaviour. Additionally, I'm skeptical that there even is an option in this direction that is workable: without meaning any offense to the good faith editors making these proposals above, attempting to finesse a solution in a difficult situation, all those variations on this theme have some rather substantial flaws with regard to how difficult it would be to monitor, interpret, and/or enforce such a behaviour-specific TBAN. The potential for gamesmanship (by the party covered by the ban and parties they come into conflict with) is substantial, and even if BHG were to make every effort to comply with the ban, they would probably have a hard time knowing the contours of what is or is not permitted under the terms of such a ban.
    Furthermore, the subjectivity of assessing whether there has been a violation of the "civility probation" imputes the exact same principles as we are trying to sort through here, as an a priori matter, so I don't see how such a sanction would do anything but add another convoluted procedural layer to controlling any disruption in the area. Taking all of this together, I have extreme doubts that any sanction in this vein could accomplish anything but to further complicate and extend any disruption resulting from behaviours that the ban is meant to address. And that's how I feel about a speculative "ideal" version of such a ban that is as good as it gets, nevermind this undefined, nebulous notion of one. SnowRise let's rap 13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as it stands now, this proposal is too vague. What I was trying to suggest is that we try, together, to craft a more specific probation proposal, along these lines here in this section. Paul August ☎ 14:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and I hope it goes without saying that my strong rejection was not meant to be a knock on you. I very much recognize this as a good-faith effort by someone trying to find a solution fit for purpose here. That said, fleshing out the details is the part of the discussion that definitely needs to take place before the "formal proposals" stage: any sanction proposal that invites an !vote should have relatively well-defined terms, scope, and detail. If the objective was to work out those terms, it's ineffective and problematic to do that simultaneously with the actual voting--if nothing else, it voids any possible declaration of consensus at the end, because it would quickly devolve into people discussing inconsistent ideas. SnowRise let's rap 15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Well I started this section by asking a question: In addition to the formal censure above, shall we impose some sort of "incivility probation" (or "civility probation"?) on BHG? I did not invite a !vote. My apologies for not making this more clear. Paul August ☎ 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, surely no apologies necessary! :) But merely as a rhetorical-procedural matter, I think you want to avoid precisely the formula in that quoted section ("Shall we", followed by a proposed sanction) if you don't intend to invite an !vote: that's ANI/community speak for "Append your !votes (and occasional comments, but mostly !votes) immediately below." ;) SnowRise let's rap 18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for structural reasons per my "Resolving the math / mechanics issue & last chance before Arbcom" section even though this is insufficient and not my first choice. There is also a clarity issue; it implies that the censure proposal is included in this but that is not what it says. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Usedtobecool's last ditch effort

    Obviously no one's going to like this, but I bet we'll like ArbCom less, so let's see if we can agree on at least one of these (assuming everyone has not abandoned this and gone to ArbCom):

    Proposal 1: BHG restricted

    BHG is restricted from making more than one replies per editor per discussion, unless explicitly requested to. Restriction may be enforced by uninvolved administrators with escalating blocks, appealable to AN. Restriction appealable to community after six months without blocks. Note: Explicitly requested refers to one of (a) a direct talk page message (b) a direct reply to her comment that contains a question for her (c) any independent comment that mentions her. In each case, such request will mean one more reply. The restriction does not apply to her user talk page.

    Survey
    • Support as proposer. I am proposing this because discussions between editors who disagree seem to deteriorate with each back and forth, including in the diffs presented in this case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This gets to the root of the problem for me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is still treating BHG as a super user who is not subject to the same rules as mere commoners - if an IP or a non-vested editor had made those attacks then they would have been indef'd long ago.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Discussions deteriorate when one disregards the policy WP:AVOIDYOU, whether it's the fifth or the first reply.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very hesitant conditional support, if and only if proposals 3 and 4 below fail to reach consensus. This might help, but I think the problem is a tendency to personalize disagreement with anyone and everyone, and a failure to self-reflect; not just a failure to drop the stick. But this is preferable to doing nothing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Nigel and Vanamonde. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: draconian, but this is the only one that stands a chance of having an impact. Is BHG allowed to tell somebody "I'm only allowed to reply once and I need you to say if I can reply again"? Or is BHG supposed to take borderline cases as invitation to reply? We hit a problem when someone doesn't know about the restriction, replies in a normal way that doesn't explicitly ask a question and thinks the discussion is stalling/abandoned rather than that it's been mandated by editing restriction to stop. In any case, I think most reasonable people would be perpetually frustrated if they were under this restriction, so I'd only support it if BHG's behaviour is so bad that the alternative is an indefinite block. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The problem is not that she posts too much to discussions, and as others have said, she may well have legitimate reasons to do so, if only to explain her position. The problem is her incivility. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Even though it is a good try.North8000 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 2: BHG restricted

    BHG is restricted from reinstating any comments of hers, or parts thereof, which have been removed as violations of WP:NPA. Restriction may be enforced by uninvolved administrators with escalating blocks, appealable to AN. Restriction appealable to community after six months without blocks. Note: BHG may append a note to the effect when she believes a redaction has been wrongful, and appeal to an uninvolved administrator. The restriction does not apply to her user talk page.

    Survey

    V93's proposals

    I've read through Usedtobecool's proposals above. I appreciate the intent, and they may indeed do some good, but IMHO they do not address the problematic behavior directly enough, and may prove a hindrance; there are legitimate reasons why BHG may need to leave multiple replies. The problem isn't just her inability to drop an issue, it's that she personalizes issues unnecessarily. Hence the proposals below. For clarity, these are independent proposals, that do not need to both be enacted, though they may be if the community so chooses. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3: BHG subject to escalating blocks

    If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, BrownHairedGirl violates WP:CIVIL, she may be subject to escalating blocks, beginning with a 12-hour block. These blocks will have the weight of a community-imposed sanction, i.e. they may not be lifted without a successful appeal to the community at an admin noticeboard. The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN in six months.

    • Support, as proposer, and as a first choice to any other proposals presented thus far. I personally prefer a more directly tailored sanction, but historically speaking, bespoke behavioral sanctions on experienced editors with a lot of wikifriends tend not to be successful. I think the second part (this is a community sanction) is necessary to circumvent the "unblockable" issue; we've seen too often the cycle of a sanction-enforcing block being followed up by a rapid unblock that cannot be reversed because of WP:WHEEL. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I wrote a much longer-winded version of the same idea. Folks, this is the best BHG can hope for, if this gets to the committee, I can't see any way they don't at least impose such a thing. And it's much better if the community does this. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - avoids the "unblockable" issue, and escalating blocks is the normal way of dealing with persistent severe incivility and personal attacks. Of course the community will have to keep its eyes open for attempts to bait her, either by those (like AAW) who have a specific problem with BHG or by people who just like to generally cause trouble and may try and pick on a target just because they can.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as otherwise there will always be a sympathetic admin willing to unblock, as we have seen.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I had a similar idea and agree with Vanamonde's rationale. It removes the second-mover advantage provided by WP:WHEEL by requiring a consensus that the block was inappropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Something needs to be done about this, and better here than at ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Short of an ArbCom case, this is the community's best option, and the problem has gone on long enough that this is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this rather lousy but frankly plausible compromise, if only to avoid a trip to ArbCom!--WaltCip-(talk) 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer enforcement short of blocks as the first course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind? Paul August ☎ 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, if it is a comment, enforcement measure by admin can be through reversion, and if that comment is reinstated without being adjusted to the satisfaction of the admin who reverted, then a block can be imposed as proposed here. The onus on revising text and obtaining approval for re-posting will be on BHG. It forces policy compliance more effectively and any inevitable discussions which follow the enforcement action is likely to be more constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - What happens to an admin who disagrees with the block and reverses it? Can we say the block can be re-imposed without fear of wheel warring? Is the unblocking admin then subject to sanctions? I'm not trying to be awkward, it's just that when somebody gets an Arbcom sanction like this, everybody knows up-front that you don't touch it unless you want to be desysopped - but the community doesn't have the authority to set criteria to desysop anyone. So how can we ensure this proposal has "teeth"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, first choice to proposal 4 (below). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seems specific enough to me. Fine with this and/or proposal 4. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, works for me, my concerns have been addressed. I'm still a bit of the mindset "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done" but if this can avoid a depressing Arbcom case, then let's do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, on condition that BHG acknowledge her conduct issues and agree to try to improve although 12 hours seems inappropriately short as this is not a new problem nor a new editor. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is the only remedy presented here that at least solves a problem. It adds further enforceability to WP:CIVIL (setting a lower bar than the policy requires for enforcement), and prevents the issue of blocks being reversed for something like "time served". It may well just be kicking the can down the road, but this could work. Re Ritchie: It should be made clear that overturning such a block is like overturning an AE block or unblocking a site-banned editor. If there's still a teeth concern, then it could help if ArbCom 'endorses' the remedy by motion, so any such blocks are AE blocks. That would also make it easy for ArbCom to review this if it isn't working (as per the jurisdiction clause of the arbitration policy). Separately, I would cut the "beginning with a 12-hour block"; if an admin only sees a thread after several comments of higher severity, then they should have the discretion to set a higher block length. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposed. I see zero problem with escalating blocks which start at one hour. The issue isn't so much that BHG can't control their own behavior as that they have a hard time seeing their own behavior (and I'm plenty guilty of that charge myself). They are also somewhat easily baited (and I was watching these recent interactions in real time). I predict that given a regimen of potential blocks, BHG rarely trips the wire. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would only somehow request that BHG is protected from the needless and unhelpful sniping of the sort they experienced here, which was itself inspired by an editor IBAN'd from exactly such behavior. I feel like this may encourage further needling and goading, but as a sanction it's probably the best option so far. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support trying this. Community-based sticky blocks are an interesting idea, let's hope it doesn't have unintended consequences. (One problem is that many admins have been in past conflict with BHG and are not "uninvolved", so many people will still need to report instead of acting). —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - which is the first constructive thing I can say in this thread. (As one of the possible few uninvolved administrators...). To @Mr Ernie:'s point, I'd only say that any general "this applies unless 'goaded'" specification would be wikilawyered to death (and part of the point indeed is that there are better ways of responding to provocation than rising to it); however one hopes that administrators would apply judgement in particularly clear cases where someone is having a go at her. The Land (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but this is de iure unnecessary This is already regular policy. Any editor who persistently violates behavioural standards can be issued with escalating blocks, without the need for a visit to the dramaboard to confirm this. If there are issues that the editor in question here is a WP:UNBLOCKABLE, then what is more appropriate is taking a stand right here and imposing a community block for some time period, since obviously previous sanctions haven't gotten the message through and the problematic behaviour is continuing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RandomCanadian, common practice is to let a good bit of incivility slide; I don't like it, but it's true. Additionally, though, this would make the block something an individual admin could not lift, and that is quite different from how an ordinary civility block would be treated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this is probably our best shot at resolving the issue at the community level. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose after further reflection, it seems to me that if this is the most decisive action that we can take in response to years of repeated incivility, the community is simply not able to handle this matter. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as first choice, and my understanding of this proposal is that blocks starting at 12 hours is to be read as a community-mandated minimum. It is not a cap, so behaviours that warrant a longer block should receive one.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My only issue is that 12 hours is rather short for someone of BHGs tenure - 24h would be better but than again this proposal is a start and is better than nothing/Arbcom. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oppose: I'm stumped. Is the subtext of this "in exception to our usual practice that long-term editors are not blocked for blockable offenses..."? Why is blocking someone for 12 hours for incivility not an action normally available to admins? Furthermore, WP:NEVERUNBLOCK bullet point 3 makes no odds when a rogue unblocking admin would insist that the premise When the block is implementing a community sanction ... is not met because "Actually, no violation of WP:CIVIL occurred". — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Bilorv, As I said to RandonCanadian above, the difference is these blocks can only be lifted after a community discussion. I appreciate your concern about gaming, but it really isn't an issue here; the proposal doesn't say "if WP:CIVIL was violated"; it says "if, in the opinion of an uninvolved admin, WP:CIVIL was violated". The former has endless potential for wikilawyering, the latter, not so much. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, your proposal does actually ward against my gaming concern (good job on the specificity of wording), so I've struck that bit. However, I don't see that this restriction is different enough to the status quo (users can be blocked in escalating lengths for incivility) to be worth enforcing, which comes with it a number of confusions and technicalities (enough people have to be aware of the sanction; future discussions have to be had over whether it's been made redundant; and so forth). I think I now understand the impetus, but this is not how you show that an unblockable is not unblockable (you do that by blocking them here and now...). All of that is just my theoretical objections, and in the specific case of BHG I can see even more reasons this is not the right move. So I'll regrettably have to oppose this. — Bilorv (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My preference would be that this debate had reached consensus to reblock BrownHairedGirl indefinitely; her conduct has been way beyond the pale, we are all required to suck it up and be minimally civil with each other in order to edit here, no matter how strongly we disagree with another editor's position, having been harassed does not give an editor infinite permission to behave miserably, and rudeness does drive aditors off the project, as BHG has demonstrated. I would have expected her to have filed an acceptable block request by now had she not been given the rope to tie herself up like a Christmas present. But it seems that a commitment to apply an escalating series of blocks, starting extremely small as if this were a new editor who could not be expected to be familiar with policy, is the best to be hoped for, so this is the proposal that I support. (Also, far better than Arbcom, for all concerned.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but not for the reason you might expect. I believe that by passing this sanction, we will inadvertently undermine our civility policies. Those policies are fundamental pillars of Wikipedia (literally!), but I feel that by passing community authorization to impose escalating blocks for civility (something that admins are already fundamentally empowered to do), we aren't setting penalties for BHG - we are instead setting a precedent that some editors need community approval for administrators to enforce the civility policies in the first place. On a more practical level, even if the block cannot be undone by another admin, I expect endless arguing every time it is invoked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I 100% understand this. This would prevent the situation that we just went through where a block, such as the one you placed, being undone by a single admin. I'm unclear on how that would set a precedent that some editors need community approval for administrators to enforce the civility policies. I mean, where we are now that is how things work. This would at least remedy the problem of a single admin unblocking for one editor. Seems like a strict improvement. I'm closer to Tamzin's view: this isn't how things should have to work, but it's an improvement over where things are. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hobit, I agree that this would remedy the problem in front of us, and I also agree that this is how things currently work. In terms of setting a precedent, I'm imagining a future admin blocking an "unblockable" for personal attacks and subsequently being castigated by the community (or at least friends of the blocked) for "not establishing a consensus to block" or something like that, citing this discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @GeneralNotability: I can see how it might be worse, but as you are intimately aware, that happened anyways. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support : First, that the same treatment (escalating blocks instead of outright blocks) should also apply to other editors that are violating WP:CIVIL but still here to build the Project. We can't have different treatments for some editors, all editors should be subjected to similar treatment. Second, 12 hours for a very experienced editor is not enough. If you are more experienced, you should get more time off, as you have understood the rules better than most people. 24 hours should be the bare minimum. SunDawntalk 01:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my stance to Oppose. After thinking more, I think that if the community let WP:CIVIL issues with just a slap on the wrist, it will set a really bad precedent. First, it would undermine our policies about civility. We stay civil because there are clear consequences when we continue to act incivilly. People behave because there is a clear threat of indefinite blocking if you are stirring trouble. If a very experienced editor can't be trusted to act in a civil manner, surely the less experienced editors will behave even worse? Editors with more experience are expected to act in a more civil manner. If you are more experienced, you should not be given more "room" to act incivilly. What happens if the editor with less than 100 edits do the same thing? Will the community treat them similarly with BHG? Second, I see that the enforcement will not work at all. Who will do the enforcing? If the next "target" is someone who is just starting up, will they know that BHG is under sanction? Will they know that they can seek recourse in ANI? Will they have the boldness to open an ANI case against an established editor? What if they have limited English? Third, I see a lack of remorse. During every unblock request I see, most admins wanted to see that the person realizes their mistake and promises to not do it again. The same thing should apply to BHG. Bottom line, the rule must be applied to all kinds of editors - the one with 100,000 edits to the IP editors with 10 edits.SunDawntalk 04:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm tempted to oppose per GeneralNotability. I don't want to set a precedent that any editor is entitled to unblockability. That said, as a practical matter BHG has proven above unilateral admin blocks even in a situation where any other user is subject to them, and if it says something bad about the community that we need to say this, well, maybe that's a bad reputation we deserve. Also, as has been noted, this isn't quite the same thing as standard policy. The "weight of a community-imposed sanction" aspect of this is significant, and will remove the second-mover advantage that has so long been an issue in cases of users who some admins are willing to unblock out-of-process. Thus a somewhat reluctant support; but would that this were a wiki where this weren't necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I just want to stress that this !vote is not an endorsement of the notion that ArbCom should let the community handle this. This is the community meeting the bare minimum when it comes to holding an editor accountable. ArbCom can and should include more serious sanctions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on principle that we need to jump through hoops and hurdles for some WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. A bigger problem is with the community. Admins honoring WP:WHEEL have their hands tied when quick reversals happen, whether it was inadvertent or WP:BEANS.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in the absence of any better options. Really the only thing this will do is prevent other admins from unblocking; it won't prevent admins from pussyfooting around and refusing to block in the first place when she's being uncivil, which is the standard admin response to incivility by unblockables. I'd vastly prefer an indef, as her comments here, on various talk pages, and at ArbCom suggest that she does not recognize having done anything wrong, and blames absolutely everyone but herself for her egregious conduct. She keeps repeating that she was "goaded into it" as if she has no control over her own actions. But I can see that most other people are taking her side, so I guess this proposal is better than nothing. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what? Screw this, I oppose because anything short of an indef would be unjust. BHG shows no introspection and no remorse. When her transgressions are placed directly in front of her, she tries to make excuses. Most of these excuses boil down to "everyone is out to get me" and "I have no control over my own actions." The former is both untrue and demonstrates that she does not have the proper mindset to collaborate with others. And as for the latter, if it's truly the case that she simply cannot help but respond in an uncivil manner to others, then she does not deserve to be here. I would vastly prefer an ArbCom case over these slap-on-the-wrist community proposals. Mlb96 (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get your reasoning. Mine is that I see three possibilities: 1) BHG improves wrt WP:CIVIL and we keep a strong editor. 2) BHG doesn't improve wrt CIVIL and after a few blocks, she ends up indefed, or 3) we end up back at ARBCOM because the drama just goes through the roof (e.g. someone closes a discussion to unblock her against strong numeric consensus or each person blocking her is called out for being "involved" in some way). I think the possibility of "1" justifies the time and potential pain of "2" and "3" as I think it's at least a 20% chance we get outcome #1. But yeah, if you think the chance of #1 is quite low, I get why you'd oppose. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't see the promise for #1 when they were uncivil during the last arb case, and now after it.—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but I'd add a clarification that such a block should be unnecessary or is otherwise immediately liftable if BGH apologizes for such a comment and refactors it or promises to do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Piotrus: How is this acceptable - we don't let everyone else walk away from blocks just if they apologies/refactor. They are obliged not to make problematic statements in the first place, not merely fix them Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nosebagbear I have always been a believer that we should be less harsh in our sanctioning (and note that I am involved here as the OP who was targeted by personal attacks in question). Anyway, I think we should let everyone else walk away from blocks if they apologies/refactor. That said, there's of course the issue of reateded offense to consider, so maybe apology/refactor way should be limited somehow, to "twice a year" or such? Or "twice total"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support along with 4 This is necessitated by the unblockable popularity of BHG. Undoing GeneralNotability's BHG block was deplorable. Perhaps this way we can keep a good editor and help her with her interpersonal issues. ArbCom should adopt something similar to these remedies by resolution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Keep a good editor if we can do it without destroying the civility pillar. BHGs comments at the arb case indicate she does not feel it will go well for her.--GRuban (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Suitable consequences. William Avery (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the bare minimum required if the community is unable to agree to anything more substantive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have as good of a consensus as we are probably ever going to get, for option 3 at minimum and a weaker consensus for option 4. There's pretty much nothing to indicate that people have not been given an opportunity to weigh in since this ANI thread has been large enough to sink Manhattan. Given that ArbCom is waiting on the community to make a decision prior to determining if a case is required, I would like to make a call for closure, or at least the start of a 12-hour countdown prior to implementation. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Determining consensus requires patience. It is preferable to avoid giving anyone a reason to later say that discussion was cut short while it was still ongoing. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (ecx3)Mainly per the cautious optimism from many that it might work. My third proposal, which I decided against in the end, was going to be a non-binding resolution for admins to make, promising not to badger the uninvolved admin unless the sanction is so wrong that they are prepared to go to AN, then ArbCom (which I guess shows my inexperience). Credit to Vanamonde93 for finding a binding remedy that might actually address WHEEL-gaming. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The rules are for everyone, and from reading this she doesn't seem to have any insight into her problematic behaviour. Secretlondon (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I prefer my "how about this?" idea but support this to try to bring this to a resolution. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Because indeed “better here than ArbCOM” although I remain unimpressed that BHG is yet to take full responsibility, that is, I want to see “I take responsibility for xyz and I’m sorry” and not “I take responsibility for xyz and I’m sorry but had they not....” no, no, that is partial responsibility & is equivalent to taking no responsibility at all. Furthermore I want to address comments such as “if it were an ip editor or a new editor they would have been indef’ed long ago” whilst that is arguably correct, this add credence to the philosophical stance of some editors that the collaborative project is neither black or white and scenarios such as this substantiate and proves they are indeed correct. Philosophical speaking, Are we going to lose one of our most competent and extremely powerful productive contributors just because they refused to say “sorry”? Feel free to internalize that and answer the question yourself. Celestina007 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is the best proposal laid out here, though I wholeheartedly agree with Yngvadottir on this matter. - Darwinek (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a bare minimum. I would really prefer, given the long history of BHG's incivility as expounded here and even within her posting on this very ANI thread combined with the total lack of insight into her part in all this, that the first level should be 30 days and the next an indef. Just how many second chances do we give? Yes, BHG has been a long term valuable contributor to the project but she has also been a long term toxic presence here and as much as it would be sad to see her gone, unless she can demonstrate that she can rise above her perceived antagonists and stop the "he started it" nonsense I believe that over all we would all be better off without her. - Nick Thorne talk 03:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Recently I had a really difficult time with a discussion on Signature policy which BHG used as a tool to act UNCIVIL to a lot of editors, badgering and bullying, and in the end I had to request that they did not interact with me. I found it very difficult to understand how an editor, and one with a chequered history as discussed here, could be so rude and belligerent. I support this section very much and apologise for not being part of this discussion earlier. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support just struck me that there was literally no need for the oblique personal attack at the BAG request, I had attempted to apologise previously yet the snark continued, and was completely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per GeneralNotability and Bagumba. This is little more than stating what should happen anyway with disruptive and uncivil editors and I don't see the need for it to be stated as a remdedy. I've long despaired at this habit we have on wikipedia of pandering to individuals who are popular and have a lot of wikifriends. Were they true friends they would be hitting them with a clue stick about their behaviour instead of condoning it. Incivility is toxic in a collaborative editing environment and should be avoided. For all the drama it will generate I feel that arbcom is better suited to tackle this than ANI. WCMemail 12:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reluctantly, as the minimal likely outcome. Bhg does fantastic work here, but sometimes gets too wound up. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, although it is almost certain to pass, because I just don't see what this does that cannot already be done under existing policy, and I don't think it will do anything to solve the underlying problems.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To your first point, this permits blocks for a violation of the civility policy, whereas the policy permits blocks for Immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing. It also prevents reversal of the blocks. Those two aspects already make this sufficiently distinct from what can be done under policy. Personally my biggest concern is the favouritism this remedy provides to established editors, and the fact that editors here seem to be trying harder to prevent stronger sanctions against BHG than even she is… ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It also prevents reversal of the blocks: That already exists at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests: Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. The community is strange, at time blindly siding with "admin discretion" and other times completely disregarding it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no word in our policy that basically screams "I dare you" to the cowboy admin more than the word "should". WaltCip-(talk) 15:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Honestly, this proposal is the only one I see with a chance of passing. If a block is unwarranted, then the unblock request will make its way to WP:AN where an unblock can happen only with community consensus. I sympathize with the concerns of the opposition here, but I would rather restate existing policy than allow for the current situation to continue. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ~ reluctantly because this is pretty much policy anyway and no one (least of all a long-term editor) should need to have such a restriction put on them, and because it is very clearly and sadly needed for BHG to continue to participate in the community. Happy days, LindsayHello 19:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. For want of anything better. It may not work, but it might. It's worth a try.
    WP:5P4 is written in good plain English, and is both common sense and good manners. It does not include exceptions such as "unless they've done a lot of good work", or "unless they've been here for decades", or "unless we're mates". It applies to everyone, from a single-post IP upwards. It shouldn't need an appeal to teacher or to a supreme court to explain or to enforce it. There is no reason why behaviour which would not be tolerated from a new editor should be acceptable from anyone else.
    Before launching into an enjoyable ARBCOM case over an issue of WP:INCIVILITY, the editing community should step back a couple of paces, take a deep breath or two, and get a grip. It's not the sort of thing which needs close analysis of legal texts, or superpowers. It's something we should be able to decide. WP:UNBLOCKABLES are a serious (though fortunately rare) problem; but are a community problem, not an ARBCOM one. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - In reading the comments, I'm not sure everyone supporting is clear on what they are supporting here. Yes it is escalating blocks (which is already policy), but it also means that once a single admin blocks, only a community discussion can unblock. To me, that says more about a lack of trust in individual admins than in concern about BHG. - jc37 21:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Which individual admins are we more concerned about than we are concerned about BHG? And how can people both be unclear on what they are supporting, not realizing that it expresses a lack of trust in individual admins, and at the same time be more concerned about that than about BHG? I for one am concerned about BHG's behavior and seek some way to address it even in the face of possible problematic admin behavior. It's not about a lack of trust in individual admins, it's that I don't blindly trust all admins to always do the right thing. Jibal (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sadly, I think this case is an example of where things are broken. The block here was somewhat questionable given the ongoing discussion. The unblock was straight up wrong by policy. It's not unreasonable that the community has concerns about the same thing happening again. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - there is truth to what Jc37 says, and it should carry with it a great weight. As I said in my Proposal 4 oppose: it is not a good idea to start creating specific rules for individuals. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally here - and these proposals circumvent that. — Ched (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ched: What do you propose then, for equal treatment? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That we follow the rules, procedures and best practices that the community has put in place. — Ched (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How does that translate to this ANI? (i.e. what would be a proposal you would support, or do you believe no action is required?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as pointless. This is already stated in our blocking policy and admins should not be wheel warring anyways. Enacting this proposal is a tacit acknowledgement that BHG is one of the Unblockables, something we should not be encouraging. -FASTILY 22:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a huge copout, but in the face of a large number of editors who refuse to enforce policy due to invalid excuses like "long time productive editor", it seems to be an effective way to address the problem at hand. Productive editors who aren't toxic will always comes along, especially if a consistent stand is taken against toxicity. -- Jibal (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with others that this is already policy for the most part, but if this is what it takes to stop WP:WHEEL unblocks, then so be it. – Rummskartoffel 09:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is by far the most viable option of those I have seen presented here. Several reasonable objections to the feasibility, advisability, and value of this solution have been made above, which I would like to address by way of explaining why I think it is still a viable and worthwhile option:
    • First, some have argued that the proposal does not enact anything other than what is already embodied in our civility and banning/blocking policies. But that's not strictly speaking true: the condition that no admin may reverse a blocking action taken in enforcement of WP:CIV (and presumably related policies WP:PA, WP:HARASS and so forth) without community assent, is a substantial (if also quite novel) wrinkle in the procedural formula.
    • Second, and related, others have argued that this sanction seems to be oriented towards administrative conduct as much as that of the BHG. Well, sort of, but not really? Conditions on the actions of admins might be imputed here, but it is really BHGs conduct which we are seeking to effect and which this proposal ultimately reacts to--albeit as a matter of prospective community consensus. And even if atypical in the foresightedness of community resolution, I think it is also perfectly consistent with WP:EDR and WP:CBAN. We are essentially just putting in a triggering mechanicsm here which will force community review of any forthcoming inappropriate conduct which an admin judges worthy of sanction, before such sanction can be rescinded. Is that in some sense a redundancy? Yes, in some sense of the word. But it's a redundancy with possible concrete function in some circumstances.
    • Furthermore, the impact from BHG's perspective (and thus the potential to influence her outlook on disputes) is not trivial: this would make reversing any civility blocks exceedingly difficult. The sanction might prospectively constrain administrative action to accomplish this outcome, but it is ultimately oriented toward BHG's conduct. Now, can we be certain it will have the desired effect? No, of course not--no more so than any other time we apply a sanction short of an indef. But it's about as strong as any measure likely can be, short of a block. And I think it says something to the issue of alternatives that, despite the massive amount of community involvement in this discussion, an indef has not been proposed by anyone. Lastly, there's one additional (and in my view, significant) advantage to this sanction: of all of those proposed, it's conditions most clearly signpost the community's diminishing patience: this action makes clear that WP:ROPE is not just running out, it is now thoroughly expended.
    I'd like to append a personal appeal here. BHG, in this discussion I have so far gone out of my way to avoid discussing an indef. But if I am honest with myself, there is a factor in addition to the usual policy analysis which has had some influence over that decision. In the last year we have lost both Flyer and SlimVirgin, in the manner that no amount of administrative action or community will can reverse... The idea that, in the shadow of those two loses, I might also have to support the indefing of yet another one of our most active woman editors on the project, it fills me with an emotion that blows right past displeasure and into revulsion. Now, some here might think that opinion is wrong-headed, even biased, and not consistent with the "blind" manner in which our behavioural policies should be applied here. So be it: I can't refute that perspective altogether, I suppose. All I know is that I feel like if I had to make that !vote, I would be sick. At the same time, I've been very vocal in recent years with regard to the need for this community to shore up it's support for CIV as a pillar policy, so I can't very well argue too laissez-faire an approach with regard to you--not with a straight face, anyway. So I'm pleading with you to recognize the depth of the community concerns here and use this as an opportunity to evolve your approach. Please help me avoid a conflict between my ethics and my stomach on this one, because an indeff discusion is probably where this was headed, if not for this alternative that we've cobbled together here. My apologies to everyone for the inordinate length of this !vote. SnowRise let's rap 11:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been pointed out, this proposal prevents even the blocking admin from unblocking, and it's doubtful that any admin will want to make a block that they would be prohibited from undoing, and thus this proposal will make BHG more difficult to block, which seems to be the opposite of the intended effect. Levivich 13:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The idea that even the blocking admin can't unblock is nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Black Kite: That's a fair comment. That said, do you really foresee a problem here? Is it at all likely someone will block, citing this discussion, and then turn around and say "eh, I was wrong" before the community has overturned the block? I have a hard time seeing how someone could make such a big mistake. If the blocking admin quickly *does* conclude they were in the wrong, their voice at the discussion would probably settle it quickly. However, allowing for a self-overturn would potentially put a ton of pressure on that one admin during the discussion. I think this is the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched to oppose - It is ridiculous, per Black Kite, for there not to be an exception for the blocking admin to reverse their own block. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposal per Vanamonde93. VV 13:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upgrade to Support. While the Black Kite objection remains concerning, this seems less of a risk than an Arb case, so may as well make the consensus for this a bit clearer. As it's escalating blocks the first 2-3 shouldnt be too long and could be waited out if BHG doesnt want to make the sort of unblock request that could lead to community unblock approval. Plus the blocks might never be needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There's no perfect solution here, but I think this does the best job of balancing BHG's history of positive contributions with the need to keep her behavior civil. I am concerned with her continued refusal to apologize in any way, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this needs to be closed and enacted soon. Arbcom are threatening to circumvent their role and take on a case despite the community arriving at a conclusion. I know the community have been patient and waited to allow as many comments as possible here, despite unnecessary pressure from some Arbcom members, but now is the time to close/enact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This has gone on too long and we need to take some form of action. We can't control Arbcom, but we can close this discussion and enact proposal 3. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great, but where to we find an uninvolved admin who is comfortable closing drama board stuff? I'd suggest Roy, as I don't think he's weighed in and AFAIK has no significant interactions with BHG. Anyone have other names or other ideas? I've posted this to the closures noticeboard, but I don't think that's a wide enough net. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone would do. Frankly, if those odd members of Arbcom who are all in favour of over-ruling community consensus do so because we can't find an uninvolved admin in a very short time period, then we will need an RFC to re-consider how far-reaching Arcbom should be. They are a tool designed to help when the community can't make their mind up, not an egg-timer self-designated to make over-arching decisions, nor a supervoting capability empowered with the ability to tell the future and thus dismiss the community out of hand. The votes of some members of Arbcom right now speak highly to their own self-importance and misguided position in this community. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, enough with the polemics about ArbCom, TRM: as I recall, you are well on the record about your opinions on the body in general, and this discussion is not the appropriate venue for this kind of commentary. If and when you have a proposal to put before the community regarding ArbCom and the boundaries/contours of its remit, you know where WP:VPP is. But using their stance on the BHG situation as an excuse to launch broadsides at arbs is not going to advance the discussion we are trying to have here in a helpful fashion, but rather will only cause disruption and "drama" of the sort you say you dislike about ANI. And even if this were the place for that discussion, the fact that some of the Arbs and other community members at the case request have voiced a desire to make you a party to any potential ArbCom case arising out of the issues presented here means you have vested interests in their not exercising authority over the situation, and thus you are not the ideal candidate to carry the argument that they are over-reaching.
    As for a good admin to close: has Drmies commented here yet? SnowRise let's rap 20:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "polemic" here, and your commentary seems designed to prevent commentary against Arbcom. My commentary here is exclusive to this situation. Your extrapolation is neither needed nor warranted, and hopefully you can stop doing it. My understanding was that Arbcom was the last resort. Apparently you see it differently and encourage Arbcom to accept a case even when the community are working out a solution. Your position is peculiar to me. But of course, you're entitled to your opinion. I just think Arbcom is a function of the community, not that the community is a function of Arbcom, and you clearly see it differently. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not looking to shut down criticism of ArbCom: I don't think it's a body so perfectly formed that it should never come in for scrutiny. But the purpose of this poll is to either endorse or reject a particular course of action with regard to one editor's conduct, not to extol at length about a tangential issue that you perceive as a power grab by ArbCom. Again, if you have concerns in that area, there are forums set-aside on this project to discuss their mandate. ANI is not one such forum, and it's one thing to discuss those issues (as you see them) in passing while you comment on the advisability of a close here, but it is another to go on to make drawn out criticisms of ArbComs behaviour, punctuated by observations about "their self-importance and misguided position in this community". At that point you are deeply off topic for this poll/thread and outside the scope of this forum generally. That said, I agree ArbCom serves at the discretion of the community, in the broadest sense. SnowRise let's rap 20:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's curious how this is now totally deflecting from the matter at hand. Your interjection drives the discussion off-course, and sadly your rhetoric does nothing to help the matter at hand. I understand there's a need to keep commenting until this gets to Arbcom, but seriously, all this is doing is misdirecting the matter at hand and empowering the rogue Arbcom members who now appear to just feel they can completely ignore the community and predict the future. So objective achieved, this has totally derailed the discussion at hand. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the point: ArbCom's powers are not remotely the "matter at hand" in this poll, which is meant to solicit !votes on the question of whether or not to apply a specific sanction for BHG. You're quite right that we are now getting distracted by an irrelevant tangential discussion, but you're the very editor who took us down that fork in the first place and then protracted that discussion by not dropping the stick. Not everyone who criticizes the colour or direction of your commentary is out for some Machiavellian obstructionism; I not only !voted in favour of this proposal, I specifically defended it against criticisms at length and I just now, before your eyes, pinged one of the community's most respected and proactive admins to consider a close. Why would I do all of those things if I was for some reason trying to prevent the resolution's passage? Incidental criticism of one aspect of one of your posts is not the same thing as trying to shut down community oversight of ArbCom. Again, this is just not the right place for those issues, beyond a passing mention. That's all I'm trying to tell you, and I'm not wrong about it.
    By all means, if you want to discuss ArbCom (and what you view as its shortcomings and the need to restrain it), please do not feel discouraged by me: it is your right as a community member, and maybe even your obligation as a concerned contributor, if you really feel there is a need for such a discussion. Truly, and by all means, have at it. But take it to WP:VPP or another forum designated for discussing community consensus around institutional issues. This page is for conducting community review of (and gaining consensus for community action on) the disruption of individual editors. A focused discussion about ArbCom's powers and jurisdiction is just no appropriate here. Again, it's one thing to mention your concerns incidentally to light a fire under the community here and urge timely action on this proposal. That's a fine observation. But it's another matter entirely to dig into ArbCom's flanks and register your low regard for them individually and collectively. That's not an ANI matter, and it was you doing that (and then doubling- and tripling-down on whether it was appropriate) that got discussion off track here, not me asking you to take it elsewhere. SnowRise let's rap 21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use preview. You have prevented a reasonable discussion with your edit conflicts. TLDR. "Tripling down"? Seriously? Arbcom accepting a case when the community has come to a decision. No. Your interjections here when you offer no insight? No. Sorry. It's not useful, you're adding bytes but nothing to work on. I'll happily start a case on Arbcom's "powers" in due course but I think it's pretty clear that we don't expect that group to suddenly usurp the community. Perhaps you'd prefer it that way, but tha'ts not how I see it, nor how I think the community believes it to be. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear that we don't expect that group to suddenly usurp the community. Perhaps you'd prefer it that way, but tha'ts not how I see it, nor how I think the community believes it to be." Well, it was not my intention to present my own perspectives on the matter here, but for the record, my feelings on the question are complicated and run in several directions. On the one, hand, if we are talking in strictly descriptive terms, I don't really think that there is much question that ArbCom is in a position to exercise authority over these circumstances if they choose: this would hardly be the first time that ArbCom accepted a matter contemperaneous with an ANI thread surrounding the same facts. I will grant you that, as a prescriptive matter, there are arguments to be made on both sides of the divide for whether or not WP:ARBPOL justifies that kind of action, because the policy is vague as to how intractable a dispute has to be (or how much patience/deference ArbCom needs to show to ANI discussions and the like) before Committee action is appropriate. That said, ArbCom has operated in a fashion suggestive of broad remit in these cases for some time.
    However, just describing the community role ArbCom has had in the past still leaves another, more fundamental question open: if we are having the a priori argument about what ArbCom's role should be, my feelings are much more complex and (if I am honest) uncertain. I would have to think about the matter at length and hear community feedback before I would feel comfortable articulating anything firm, and I suspect that most community members fall somewhere along a spectrum of uncertainty on that question. But the fact that I don't have a firm opinion on the matter despite the importance of the question is good evidence for the fact that the community asking those questions/seeking clarity is not at all a bad idea. So by all means, not only should you broach the subject with the community if you think the time has come, I will in fact follow the discussion with great interest if/when you do. Because frankly, I've been thinking lately that we need major reform in the area of community systems for responding to disruption, and ArbCom would necesarily have to be a part of that conversation. And yes, I'm definetly less profoundly motivated by concerns about the committee than you seem to be, but that doesn't mean I see no value in the questions you want to ask. On the contrary, I applaud them. The only objection I was raising here was about the time and place where the questions should be raised. SnowRise let's rap 23:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also an unnecessary distraction in closing this thread. It's embarrassing in fact that this has to happen here and now. It feels almost like there's a pressure to get the Arbcom up and running, along with some of their members who are so keen to see this situation litigated despite the community doing their utmost to get a remedy up and running. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not ping people and ask them to close; that's not fair on them and there are excellent reasons why we as discusion participants don't get to hand-pick the closer.—S Marshall T/C 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, so long as the admin in question has no connection to the matter at hand, is well-respected for equanimity in the community, and was not selected on the basis of any pre-existing stance on the matter (actual or perceived), there's no problem with pinging an admin with regard to an ANI thread, and it does happen from time to time. I certainly have no idea which way Drmies might go on this situation. That said, to be perfectly pro forma, we can just post a close request at WP:AN, which should address your concerns about potential bias and TRM's about the advantages of closing this sooner rather than later. SnowRise let's rap 21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's what we've all been asking for. Your special request is nice, but how does it advance the discussion? I'm more than happy to keep the case open and definitely would like to see the conversations between me and BHG examined in more detail if that really makes SnowRise happier. I have nothing to hide. After all, it's all there, diffs and everything. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, would you like me to make the request at WP:AN? Mind you, now that we have been back and forth over the matter, I am not sure I am the ideal person to make the request either. But I would understand why you wouldn't want to do it yourself and risk catching flack for it: technically I think anyone is allowed to make a good faith closure request at WP:AN, but I would very much understand your hesitation if you didn't want to do it yourself, being mentioned in connection with the underlying dispute. So I'm willing to do it for you, if that would assuage your concerns about this proposal stalling out. Totally your call: you can make the request at WP:AN (as far as I am concerned anyway), I can do it for you, or we can wait for someone else altogether.
    And for the record, I have no opinion whatsoever on the question of whether your conduct needs to be discussed here; I am not familiar enough with the dispute between you and BHG to feel comfortable staking a position on that. I only mentioned the existance of that question above to highlight that when you come here saying that "ArbCom definetly should not be allowed to take this case and they are way out of line for even trying", others here are going to note that you have 'skin in the game', so to speak, when it comes to that issue, and thus if you really want the community to take a skeptical view on AbrCom's authority in cases like these, you aren't necesarily the best person to spearhead that argument. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that the argument itself is faulty, or that I think you did something wrong. It's just that making strong statements to the effect that the current ArbCom is arrogant, power mad, and acting contrary to good sense will get parsed in a more critical light when you are involved in the original dispute. That's just the nature of the cirumstances. SnowRise let's rap 23:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 4: BHG restricted from personal commentary

    BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from commenting on the behavior or motivations of other editors except in fora dedicated to addressing that behavior. This prohibition may be enforced by uninvolved admins with escalating blocks. The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN in six months.

    • Support as proposer, but iff proposal 3 above does not reach consensus. This is a more specific solution, and is less of a blunt instrument, but may also be more difficult to administer, per above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as above (to be clear, per the proposer, this is only if proposal 3 fails). Hobit (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to Proposal 3, above. I think that Proposal 3 gives less wiggle-room in term of enforcement. Also, and maybe more importantly, it's a bad idea to set up a situation where "personal commentary" is legitimately needed in dispute resolution, and the dividing line is subjective. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to proposal 3. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Better version of what I was thinking of. Fine with this and/or proposal 3. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on condition that BHG acknowledge her conduct issues and agree to try to improve; perhaps this could be rolled into 3, as in "...violates CIVIL or comments on the behavior or motivations..." Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose history of this specific restriction shows it does not work. (one example). Mackensen and WaltCip above also discussed why it's difficult to make these effective. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I believe these solutions will work because BHG will choose to want it to work. Six months. Far better alternative to blocks or bans. I will trust BHG with their own self-control. I will also flag the editor if I see them start to get iffy. I imagine others willing to engage the editor with good faith messages will also be heard and heeded. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in addition to civility blocks as per P3. Better to have an extra fence here. Ideally, combined as per Schazjmd. —Kusma (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. In principle, I am fine with this. But in practice, I fear that it seems to grant licence to others to goad and attack me (as happened in the cases discussed here). Can it be made symmetrical, so that there is prompt remedy for when for example an editor falsely accuses me of "inventing" a huge POV dispute? My experience of such matters is discouraging, e.g. when I came to ANI after RexxS singled me out and pledged to remove all my posts as "polluting" (cos I used the usual indentation), and when he did delete one post and I came to ANI, nothing was done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a very positive development to see that you are willing to agree to a restriction. As to symmetry: All editors interacting with you are bound by WP:CIV and other policies. However, we should not have extra rules that only apply while interacting with you. I expect there will be people pointing out that you can't respond to certain things, and will help you as per meatball:DefendEachOther. —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The RexxS example shows some suboptimal behaviour on both sides. A way you could have responded differently right from the start is to accept that you (and many other people) have mistakenly been indenting posts incorrectly for some time, and let him make these tiny corrections to the indentation format. Then the whole event would never have occurred.
      In general, when goaded, it's possible to do nothing. You have the option to walk away from trolling without responding. There's no need to rebut insults or statements that are obviously untrue; the people who matter already respect you and will not take the word of a troll as fact. When provoked, I always try to follow the example of the precepts of Wikipedia:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is the escalation. In an interaction between two people, escalation only happens when both are willing to escalate. One eventually goes too far, the other complains, and the accused says, "They started it." Fault is found on both sides. Around and around we go. You can prevent the whole circus by being the one who refuses to escalate.
      The answer to a pledge to remove your edits with a false accusation is "I object to that characterization of my edits." Period. Literally nothing else is necessary. Then when the person acts on their pledge and you come to ANI, there's no fault on your side at all to muddy the waters. —valereee (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the problem is that this is too vague to be realistically enforceable. For example, if somebody reverted a "bare URL" tag and left a post on BHG's talk page "Hey, stop putting these tags on articles, fix the damn problem yourself!", what's BHG going to do? Ignore the problem and let the mild snark stand, or justify themselves by replying "Hey, calm down, we have had success fixing link rot so I don't understand your concerns" and run the risk of being blocked for "commenting on the behaviour or motivations of other editors"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Letting the mild snark stand is exactly what's the correct response in many cases, far preferable to escalating just because you are right and the other editor is wrong. In your example, BHG could explain her actions without discussing what the other editor might want. If the other editor gets personal, she could just say "please discuss content, not the contributor" and then go to ANI if the other editor does not comply with a polite request to keep the discussion on topic. For things where she has a history of personalising and escalating the issues, she will need to rely on others to defend her. Given that she has many admirers and supporters, I find it difficult to imagine her not finding any defenders in cases where she is clearly not at fault. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We are getting somewhere. BHG is here saying "I'm willing, but what if?" Several editors have raised the valid concerns of policing the what-ifs. This is a healthy conversation to hold. We owe every editor a safe and civil editing environment, sometimes even from ourselves. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inquiry would a user talk page be considered an appropriate forum? I support the general principle (I mean, the general principle should more-or-less apply to everyone), and a hard restriction on BHG prosecuting other editors on BRFA or CFD discussions would address much of the disruption that is her fault. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already policy, and what exactly does this address? This looks like a jury-rigged patch which might address the symptoms, but not the root cause. Concerns about the enforceability of this, previous ineffective remedies of a similar nature, and the fact this is also already somewhat within policy (i.e. users persistently accusing others of misbehaviour or similarly throwing discussions off-topic is already covered by WP:BATTLEGROUND) don't seem to help. Nor would it address the issue about WP:UNBLOCKABLE, because if there are grey areas, we'll get the same kind of problem as when previous sanctions were imposed on this editor. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RandomCanadian, apologies for multiple pings. I fully accept concerns about enforceability; but again, we typically allow editors a lot of leeway with respect to discussing conduct in inappropriate fora, and this takes that away, at least in theory. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice, and it's a pretty distant second. BHG's concerns about being trolled or provoked trouble me. "Look what those bad people keep making me do! You should stop them provoking me" is a line I hear a lot when working with people who show persistent offending behaviours, and I challenge it whenever I hear it.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to Proposal 3 - On the fence with this one to be honest but meh what can go wrong .... –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose: I came here to say the same as ProcrastinatingReader—no familiarity with their example, but I've seen this restriction fail in other cases. The problem is the ANI/ArbCom exception ("fora dedicated to addressing that behavior") is where the drama happens anywhere: instead of a snarky comment at AFD you now immediately have to go to ANI and so you're starting a spark in a room full of gasoline rather than a spark in a room full of... not gasoline (bad analogy, sorry). I don't think this proposal succeeding would be bad, per se, but it wouldn't solve anything and we shouldn't run this through and pat ourselves on the back for solving the root cause of the issue here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose only weighing in here once. This is the kind of sanction which is prone to abuse from those who wish to rid the project of BHG. Literally anything can be construed as "commenting on the behavior or motivations of other editors" such as "I don't think you meant to do that". This is the kind of sanction which draws in hawks and is deliberately loaded to destroy a productive editor. Having personal experience of a "waiting crowd" on this, along with "primed admins", this is definitely not the way to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A special exemption from policy that in some ways is more of a hindrance than a help—it's a big project, any editor may come across someone causing problems and for the good of the project, believe they need to draw attention to the fact, or may have a different theory of why an editor is causing problems and believe they should point this out in a discussion, and as many have pointed out above, BHG's judgement is often good—and it's extremely hard to enforce and extremely unlikely to work; plus the problem is not that this editor comments on others, it's her nastiness when doing so. There is no compelling reason to exempt this problem editor from policy, even if this suggested solution were likely to work. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a possibly workable solution. It allows for fixing of issues without disputes getting personalized. I have some doubts about enforcement, but willing to give it a go. Star Mississippi 01:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per The Rambling Man. Too open to differing interpretations, good faith or otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Redundant to existing policy WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Better than nothing, and as the OP of what started this mess, the PAs I've seen have been mostly in the foras which are not "dedicated to addressing that behavior" (i. deletion review and user talk pages). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support along with 3 clearly needed. Please see 3. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as with the other one above. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in favour of 1 which, in my opinion, is more specific, and has less room for being debated to death. Also, echo Euryalus. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't have much comments on the editor, but this is the sort of thing that isn't enforceable, and rife for abuse. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per The Rambling Man above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I prefer my "how about this? idea" and this is a minefield for BHG. Appealable in 3 months or autoexpire in 6 months would have been better. But I support this imperfect proposal as a way to try to bring this to a resolution. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose In my experiences I've found the phrase "There's two sides to every story" to be true more often than not. While these measures address BHG's unacceptable responses, it is still only addressing the "bear in the cage" and not those outside poking at the bear. (BHG - it's a metaphor, I'm not calling you animal names). Most (if not all) of BHG's outbursts appear to be directed towards perceived attacks, and don't just happen out of the blue. I'd be willing to concede that not everything she bites back at is actually an attack (SQL's efforts for example), but some things really do rise to the definition of "baiting". Secondly: We have policies in place to govern our project; establishing specific "rules" for one individual sets a really bad precedent which can lead to slippery slopes and all. It's best to just stick to the rules as they are, and treat everyone equally. — Ched (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — “Restricted from personal commentary”?? I’m sorry this is too vague, quixotic, open to diverse interpretations, doesn’t achieve anything, leaves BHG crippled(metaphorically speaking) potentially leaves BHG open to more bathing and goading, cannot practically be enforced .... honestly it’s an extensive list of why this isn’t an option. Proposal 3 seems to be the only viable option which I have supported. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is vague and likely to become a minefield. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Whilst we are guided to comment on content not editors its not entirely unreasonable to comment on editors when required and it is appropriate. This doesn't require incivility and that being the locus of the problem is what should be tackled. The sanction is too vague and open to gaming by other disruptive editors potentially turning wikipedia into a battleground for opposing factions. WCMemail 12:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is just too broad and impractical. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limited Oppose. However, I disagree with some of the opposition on this. The vagueness of this remedy does not come from Restricted from personal commentary portion of it. Instead, I see the problem appearing with the except in fora dedicated to addressing that behavior part. Whether or not a User talk page counts as such a forum is very much up to interpretation and its use in context. If they don't count, then BHG has to take every user to places like AN/I for even the simplest of concerns ("I think you might have a COI here.") where of course the talk page would be preferred. If user talk pages do count, however, then it means a comment like "You are a Nazi and a bully." would be fine under this remedy if made at a user talk page (where less people besides the target will see it). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Proposal 3 is based on violations of policy. The scope of this proposal is way too broad and includes all sorts of valid and reasonable behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MJL proposes something else

    Proposal 5: The flexible IBAN option
    This proposal has been withdrawn by MJL. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, BrownHairedGirl's interactions with a given user have persistently violated any of Wikipedia's conduct policies, said administrator my impose a flexible one-way IBAN on BHG with that user. The IBAN may be temporary (up to one year) or permanent, restricted to a single discussion, a specific forum, a topic of discussion across multiple different forums, or unrestricted; but it should always be limited in its scope (by time or location).

    Appeals for the IBAN made under this sanction should be made first to the imposing administrator and then to WP:AN. This remedy should be reviewed for its effectiveness at WP:AN after 120 days following its enactment.

    • Support as proposer. This is a bit of a... weird one. I don't exactly expect it to pass this late into the discussion, but I wanted to put it forward as something that deals with the specific way I have seen BHG negatively interacts with other users. I removed a middle sentence reminding the other involved user to disengage and not to WP:GAME this sanction, but I removed it as pretty redundant. I'll elaborate on my thoughts on this as requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Withdrawn and collapsed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the very premise of such a sanction; if an editor manufactures a conflict with a dozen editors per month, we don't hand out a dozen IBANs per month. At such a point it becomes a problem with the editor, rather than a case of a couple of individuals who can't get along. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Nice try, but most of the time, anyone requiring multi TBANs of IBANs should just be indeffed. Wot ProcrastinatingReader sed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Such instances of conflict should be examined in full rather than institute a fait accompli IBAN which would do more harm than good.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the IBAN towards NA1k has been working, I don't think this is a terrible idea per se, but I don't want to imagine BHG working under ten distinct IBANs at a time and others policing these multiple IBANs. If we had conflicts with one editor per year, this could work. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Kusma, I don't think this is a bad idea, but I don't think it's sufficient. As I've said above, the problem hasn't only been that BHG gets along badly with specific people, but that she responds badly to disagreement, particularly when said disagreement may also be expressed in suboptimal ways. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom

    To note that the ArbCom request was filed, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BrownHairedGirl --Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an ArbCom case feels a bit premature. The community was hashing through this, I think, albeit it's a slowgoing process and clearly not one that would be resolved overnight. And of course, if ArbCom does accept this case, the end outcome will very likely be sanctions for BHG just because of the totality of the raw evidence - others might be sanctioned also, but not to the extent that she will be. This is really a fucking shame, but I guess one can't really be surprised? WaltCip-(talk) 14:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just posted an announcement, I did not file the case, and I would agree it is premature at this point. On the other hand, this ANI thread, completely unsurprisingly for me, is not converging to any solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunate. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Was this sanctionable? If so, why are we only considering forward-looking penalties?

    As people are proposing further restrictions, I assume they feel that BHG's behaviour was sanctionable. If so, why are we limiting to purely forward-facing sanctions - it seems to have waive off the most recent set of issues. I struggle to see how a claim of preventative can be made if we just ignore civility requirements - that seems to be counterproductive both here and generally Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • For me, a few reasons. #1 I don't think we'd find consensus for sanctions--too many people seem to think she did nothing sanctionable. #2 Blocks are, in theory, for prevention. I think we're past that point right now. #3 I honestly hope where we are will solve the issue, I very much value BHG's work, if she can avoid the NPA stuff, well, that will really be a benefit to the encyclopedia. But mostly I want to see these problems go away. And I think this is likely to result in that. Not sure if that will involve a lot more drama and an indef, or if things will go smoothly. But I believe this is likely at least the start of the end. And that's good enough for me. I'd have thrown in a week block now for good measure, but I think this is what we can all agree to. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm with Hobit. I think some of the original incivility ought to have been met with a block; but given AAW's involvement, GN's block, and Llywrch's unblock, we're not going to get consensus for a block here; and engaging in a lengthy discussion for the sake of a short block seems a little silly. This isn't a justification so much as a frustrated comment on the realities of behavioral enforcement. C'est la vie. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends on what "this" is, exactly. I don't think calling people "troll", "liar", or accusing them of "harassment", are sanctionable. "Troll" is used so often, right now on this page, search for: Clearly a troll. or This edit summary certainly looks like trolling. What's the difference between those comments and BHG's rv troll? Do we sanction people who call other people a troll only if we disagree with the assessment? Is that the rule?

    Same with "liar". Right now on this page: Endorse indef block: This user is a compulsive liar, has repeatedly called people liars, my response to have been repeatedly called a liar. I agree with recent words of wisdom written on this page that there is no situation where calling someone a liar is going to be productive in any way, but sanctionable? I just haven't seen that before.

    As for "harassment," BHG said to SQL: You posts here amount to harassment and victimisation, and I am sick of it., which SQL has objected to as a personal attack. But in SQL's ARC statement, they write, about BHG, I was starting to feel harassed. [82] and Once you have been asked to stop communicating with another editor - you should stop. To do otherwise is clearly harassment [83]. I don't think either one of them was harassing the other, but what the heck is the difference between BHG saying they felt harassed by SQL, and SQL saying they felt harassed by BHG?

    I think calling QEDK a "vile, gaslighting thug" was way over the top. That rhetoric is too strong for collegial discourse. Repeating it here, a year later, is being intentionally provocative, making a point, knowing that it will upset people. It's planting a flag, and if you get crucified on that flag, it's your own fault.

    One of the comments by BHG about AAW cited as uncivil was exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. But on this page, Iridescent called AAW a vicious and aggressive bully, a comment Iri originally made in 2019 and "doubled down" on by reposting it on this page. I don't think that's sanctionable, nobody else thinks it's sanctionable, so why is it different when BHG says it? I don't see a meaningful difference between vile, gaslighting thug, poisoning wn.wp ... drama and malice and vicious and aggressive bully. I just don't see it. (I'm not suggestions any action against Iri, just to be clear.)

    Generally, I don't think we should allow this level of discourse, but we do. We really do. If we're starting to stop allowing now, with this ANI thread, with these comments, OK, that's good actually that we're starting to take a firmer stand on incivility. I'm really surprised by this, and I hope we apply the rules equally to all editors going forward. Levivich 18:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the broad answer to your broad question (which seems like a lot of whataboutism) is because this discussion was started about BHG, they are the topic of this discussion, not those other editors. As someone who struggles with civility I can say those other comments you note are also uncivil, but if we don't put our foot down somewhere, where does one start? You'd get no argument from me if you wanted to make additional proposals with sanctions against those editors (ARBCOM-esque "warnings" from the community, since I don't think you're making the claim that those editors have the same long term civility issues as BHG). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference in the comments about AAW is that the reality is different there. Stating truth is not (generally) sanctionable. However, calling editors clearly working in good faith "trolls", "liars" or "harassers" is uncivil and should be blockable. We do not see people blocked for these things (very often or for very long) because there is no enforcement of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA to long-term contributors except in the most egregious of instances; instead such editors get less than a slap on the wrist—they get 50% of people !voting for a clear warning and 50% of people !voting against (how's that for clarity). We also quite often see the erosion of what is "clearly working in good faith" because the ill-behaving Wikipedian always bludgeons that it is "clear" that the other editor is a troll/liar/etc. and no-one has any interest in disputing this lie or defending editors who act in good faith. — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are trying to encourage a poorly-behaving editor to improve are pretty constrained in options. They can try pointing out actions that are counter-productive to the goals of the editor in question, but the editor usually feels the actions are necessary as a response to the actions of others. Most people don't want to get others blocked; they just want them to participate more collaboratively. So the easiest path forward is to avoid the problematic editor. Thus the environment selects for uncollaborative editors (up to a point), as it deters collaborative editors from engaging with them. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agreed. — Bilorv (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree, there need to be more options to deal with violations of NPA/civility/harrassment etc. (And no this is not in reference to specific editors, in case someone tries to use this diff as evidence of something.) 15:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    • It's not about the individual word choices, it's about victim impacts and the aggregate effect on the business of writing an encyclopaedia. An ANI starts when someone who's trying to write an encyclopaedia gets unhappy about a behaviour that's impeding them, and it reaches the stage of sanctions when others pipe up to concur that the behaviour is problematic. Wikipedia's like every kind of behaviour management forum from corporate disciplinary procedures through law enforcement to playground monitors: any matter that's unreported goes unpunished because nobody looks into it. This is a good thing because only matters that have an effect on community members ever reach our attention.
      In other words, someone who's occasionally grumpy and rude (or even sweary), but then backs off and takes a break or does something else, never gets to where BHG is now because they don't make other editors unhappy enough to complain. The combination of abrasiveness and stick retention disorder is what's so toxic.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have followed this entire situation from the time of DRV to now having an ArbCom case opened. I am not here and do not care to discuss the sides or who is right or wrong because I believe that is highly subjective depending on whom you speak with. There are facts, based largely on the participants words, within all of this. Editors feel they were harassed. Editors are offended. No one believes they were wrong. No one accepts responsibility for their actions throughout. Few have acted with proper restraint at times. No one wants to apologize for their part in causing a disruption. There may be others. Feel free to discus them. The reality is that, with all of this being based on perception and no one wanting to change their perception ultimately nothing will change because I have not seen that anyone involved feels they need to. I have followed most of the editors involved and had interactions with them at some point. At no time have I ever felt any of them were not genuine or were uncaring. And at no point did I feel that any of them would not alter their actions if they felt they had been in error. Just my observation, but anything proposed and passed by the community will not be followed no matter what it is. The goal of any sanction should be to help correct a perceived behavior issue. If all parties do not believe there is a behavior issue then the sanctions will ultimately fail in their mission to teach and the outcome will be to either enforce the sanction or find an alternative. To me this simply delays the inevitable when neither side is willing to relent. Without acknowledgement from one or both sides this will continue to plague and hurt the community. As one person put it, this is kicking the can down the road. --ARoseWolf 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No can too dented, no road too long. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Levivich's point above; I think a lot of what's missing from your comparisons is the context in which those comments occur. Belittling other users at DRV or at a BRFA is utterly unhelpful. A lot of BHG's incivility, and that of other users that I've criticized in the past, has been in discussions about content or policy/process; not behavior; and in those circumstances ad hominem commentary tends to undermine the discussion. But if you're supporting a community ban proposal at ANI, you're going to have to say things that aren't pleasant; Iridescent could have chosen less blunt language, but the ban discussion only exists because AAW behaved terribly, and folks are going to have to be able to say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for closure

    We have “Proposal 3: BHG subject to escalating blocks” passing with overwhelming support. None of the other proposals are passing. I think it’s time to end this. Could some uninvolved admin please close this? Paul August ☎ 18:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Paul August: Given that an arb case seems to likely be passing anyway, and all accepting arbs say they aren't convinced by proposal 3, and even many supporters here think it's too weak, are we sure nothing 'stronger' will pass such that it's not even worth polling for it in a formal proposal, before this ANI closes? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Propose something. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, okay. I only know of one 'stronger' remedy for these kinds of things, and successful proposals aren't really my thing, but see #6 and #7 above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in a quick u-turn I'm going to withdraw them before anyone else votes, because this section has gone on too long, and if they gain traction it'll delay closure by another week or so, and the arbs seem eager to get moving. Someone else can restore them if they think they're worthwhile (in history). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I say close it with what the community has decided. Arbcom can do what arbcom does, the community can do what the community does. Arbcom can take it into account or not. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Close it, don't close it - this train wreck is pointless. I wish Arbcom well in untying this gordian knot before the rubicon is crossed. - jc37 08:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As it stands, Arbcom voting on the case is 3/3/1 (accept/decline/recuse). Them taking up the case can no longer be assumed. The proposals here may be the only remedy, and proposal 3 is the one most universally accepted by the community. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed editing restriction (BHG)

    Per WP:CIVIL - "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

    "An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment."

    Editing Restriction

    BrownHairedGirl (BHG) no longer may talk about any other editor's behaviour except when posting to a Wikipedia dispute resolution venue for third party assessment. ("Discuss the content, not the contributor".)

    Also, BHG is reminded that conduct policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARRASS will be enforced as normal. At an admin's discretion they may be blocked for violating these policies in excalating time frames, per the normal blocking policy. ("Preventative, not punitive".)

    This editing restriction is considered a type of WP:BAN, and falls under all the applicable rules and restrictions thereof.

    This restriction is to last 3 months. Though the community can increase this in escalating durations (6 months, 1 year, indefinite), due to continued issues. BHG may appeal this restriction just as they might any ban.

    The above restriction will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

    Proposed - jc37 23:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • Support as nom. - This is an abbreviated version of what I proposed here. As I mentioned there: "Yes, this will seem like in school - going to the teacher everytime someone says or does something that the restricted editor thinks needs to be addressed. That's by design. after all, the reason that they are restricted is the community feels that they are not addressing such things civilly, themselves." - jc37 23:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've lost track of what's occurring in this ANI report, overall. It looks like Arbcom is heading towards accepting the case. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Sorry. Well intended, but to weak. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What would you think would strengthen it for you? - jc37 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, in addition to my proposal 3 above. Weak support as worded, much stronger support if it's made indefinite. For such a restriction 3 months is nothing; we're talking about regular, but not terribly frequent, episodes of bad behavior. FWIW, I don't see how this is terribly different from proposal 4, though I appreciate the more careful wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed the similarity too : )
      I actually wrote it several hours before your proposal above - [84].
      And if the commenters here want to start at a higher escalation point (6 months, 1 year, or indefinite) then, I have no doubt the closer would assess that. - jc37 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      3 months is short. Support 3 years. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Three months is not long enough, I would support indefinite with appeal to the community possible after six months.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support And, restating reality, somebody supporting this one does not negate their support of previous ones. If everybody supported only their one most-preferred proposal nothing would pass. 3 months may or may not be long enough. The "may" would include enough time to set a new behavior pattern and even for BHG to realize that it's more fun to edit without such unnecessary acrimony. BTW, this is similar to my informal "how about this?" proposal which did receive support. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which fora are covered by the "dispute resolution with third-party comments" exception? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose It has been pointed out by other users that similar restrictions have been ineffective. For example, user Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs) was indeffed about 3 months into an intended 6-month term after the user had violated a similar restriction no fewer than 3 times. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      So please let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You just said that BHG shouldn't get this opportunity because someone else acted a fool. Since when do we judge a person by what some other person did. Should I judge you by other editors I've encountered who chose to have "pizza" in their username? That's a choice too... I'm sorry, you are of course welcome to oppose whatever proposal you like, and perhaps your words were well-meant and/or you didn't think them through. But I find your comments just now, distasteful.
      You all do as you wish, but I'm starting to think that this is a waste of oxygen. - jc37 08:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Prefer proposal 7, but this seems better than taking a chance with an Arb case, even with the great set of Arbs we currently have. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 7: Do nothing- crystal clear signal the community is fed up with BHG's incivility is enough

    Withdrawn by proposer as unanimously opposed and not looking likely to be helpful.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Here me out y'all. Civility is a central expectation for all editors, yet WP:Civ#Blocking_for_incivility clearly sates blocking should not be the first option in most cases. WP:Civ is policy and codifies our collective wisdom as a community. Perhaps us more casual editors can be expected to be civil almost all the time. But our most valuable high commitment editors like BHG, TRM & Piotrus put their heart and souls into trying to make this the best possible encyclopaedia for our readers. It's inevitable there's going to be some friction when you have folk from vastly different backgrounds working towards this goal, and hence our policy encourages admins to think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues before sanctioning, and to take into account all relevant history. We've done this but not agreed on a solution, so let's recap.

    Fresh look at the incivilty against AAW, TRM & Pitorus

    The PA against AAW was unfortunate, but the fact AAW has just been permabanned with little opposition, despite the undeniably great contributions he'd made, does rather suggest the community agrees BHG had legitimate grievance.

    BHG seems to have been more at fault with the TRM altercation, though both parties contributed. Yet it was BHG who first offered an olive branch near the top of this thread: having slept on it, I am much less annoyed at SQL and TRM... , which while not an apology, does at last implicitly admit she was over harsh with them. TRM accepted the olive branch with grace, and BHG cemented the reconciliation with I wholly accept that.... They've all but kissed and made up, and all credit to both parties for the collegial low key way they de-escalated.

    The Piotorus thing is different. Everyone knows about the The Troubles, but perhaps few fully appreciate the intense emotion it still evokes for many Irish. Back in the 90s before Tony Blair calmed things down, I was trying to understand it and raised the topic a few times. OMG, one time a normally reasonable Irishman literally started foaming at the mouth, screaming "If X does Y, I'll blast his f***ing head off!". BHG is to be commended for discussing this sensitive topic not just with restraint, but like a model Wikipedian. Here for example , BHG sets out both main perspectives with concision & precision, in near full compliance with WP:NOTFORUM, masking her own opinion. (One could say DRV still wasn't the right venue, but that's a minor detail.) The discussion with Piotrus deteriorated but that wasn't all down to BHG. Piotrus did indeed seem to falsely accuse BHG of "inventing a threat" on this highly charged subject. Piotrus is an energetic, knowledgeable and highly intelligent editor who we are very lucky to have. But he does sometimes maybe over extend and get involved in too many things at once, making comments on sensitive issues without seeming to think things through. I told him this risks making him appear a troll 7 years back.

    All that said, BHG went at Piotrus with way too much intensity after the imperfectly thought out remark, accusing him of malice when there was no need. Little wonder he doubled down. And the 3 occurrences here are far from the only time BHG has launched this sort of attack.

    Close to 40 editors have commented on this thread, and while there's division over what to do, the community is almost unanimous that we've had enough. Never before has BHG been sent a signal like this, so perhaps next time someone annoys her, she'll think twice before assuming it has to be due to malice, stupidity or dishonesty. If she doesn't, then its seems unlikely that even one of her admin friends would unilaterally reverse a reasonable length block (unless BHG makes an unblock request where she retracts / promises to try to avoid future incivility .) And if even that happens, an Arb case is all but pre-ordained, with a severe sanction the likely outcome.

    The downside with this proposal is it's far from guaranteed to stop further drama, but the next iteration is likely to be much shorter & less contentious. A mostly fantastic, kind and thoughtful editor like BHG is worth taking a few chances for. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • Support Seems sensible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop. This issue needs fewer proposals, not more.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose As WaltCip said, we do not need endless proposals. It took me over an hour to read through the entire discussion before I felt comfortable voting for a proposal. This is getting way too complicated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • our most valuable high commitment editors No, they're not. How do I know? Each of the three editors you listed have been sanctioned multiple times. There are hundreds of active, 10-year/100k editors who have never been sanctioned. Those are our most valuable high commitment editors. When editors are sanctioned, it's other editors who are often the "victims" of the sanctionable conduct: our most valuable high commitment editors are those raising the complaints, not those being complained about. We as a community need to stop lauding often-sanctioned editors as if they were somehow better than other editors, better than the editors complaining about sanctionable conduct. They're not. And they themselves never claim to be! (Which is much to their credit. It's always others who make such claims.) Our most-sanctioned editors are not our most-valuable editors, they are our most-problematic editors, and we should be honest with ourselves about that. Levivich 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant our high commitment editors are our most valuable editors, not just the 3 I mentioned. And I don't agree about any direct relationship between Sanctions & problematicality, except in the obvious trivial sense. Some sanctions are deserved, but ultimately there is no justice in this world. Those who fully engage trying to make things better risk a few scars, that's the way it's always been. Other than that, you make a good corrective to my post.
    Anyhow, there's more dimensions to this than quantity, but WaltCips point about too many proposals is correct. I might check in later & close this unless it's gone to net support. And unless that happens, I'm fine with any non admin closing this proposal at their discression, at any time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolving the math / mechanics issue & last chance before Arbcom

    There's more than a difference of opinion preventing a finding here. There is a math/mechanics issue which is a large amount of proposals and only a fraction of editors weighing in on each of them. Also some editors declining to support a proposal which they consider to be viable simply because there is another proposal which they think is better. By simple math/ mechanics, this is a recipe for making no determination at all. To solve this issue may I suggest that in the next two days, everybody weigh in on every proposal (support or oppose) as if it were the only proposal. And after that on August 17th a closing admin could review whether any proposal has both significant support and a sufficient number of respondents. Or, which proposal best meets that criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TBH, there's just too many proposals. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. This is a way to work around that problem. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not. It is, first of all, just another proposal, and secondly not feasible. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you could ping every editor who has contributed to these threads, asking them to contribute to every proposal... But even if "feasible", I dunno if I would personally consider that advisable... - jc37 22:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, incidentally, not reaching any conclusion and no action might be precisely what most editors here want to be the outcome of this monster discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of the above is that most editors want proposal 3, which is currently passing with overwhelming support. Paul August ☎ 23:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's worth responding to each one. For example, jc37's is basically the same as proposal 4 but in more words and more restating existing policy. I opposed 4 as historically ineffective, it would follow that I oppose jc's. A good chunk of editors in proposal 3 found even that too weak, so I dunno why we'd propose even weaker ones especially when ANI precedent of similar ones shows they don't work. History also shows that complicated remedies, and stacking multiple novel remedies, is especially ineffective. As proposal 3 - a non-standard remedy - has consensus, it seems inadvisable to mix it with more non-standard/novel remedies. At 300,000 characters of text and evidently decreasing appetite to discuss further, I think the community has considered what has been written and came to a consensus on the best remedy we can. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except they aren't the same.
    When I proposed "something", I posted it at WP:AN so that I could get input on language. Afew hours after I did, V93 posted two proposals that seemed rather similar, but paraphrased less clearly, with p3 adding a feature that I did not. I waited for more feedback, then added a slightly scaled back version of the original text here.
    If you look at the discussion for p4, for example there are those opposing due to "what's a fora? is it a talk page too?" among several other confusions.
    In any case, whether this specific proposal succeeds here or not, we are getting some feedback on its general usefulness as a tool for possible future use. for example, it's starting to sound like people don't think 3 months is long enough for the initial sanction. - jc37 22:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed proposal 4 not due to the ambiguity of fora but because IME these restrictions inherently don't work (with a link to a past example that specified ANI specifically); I've supported them before a couple times FWIW but don't think they're worth trying again, absent specific commitments/acknowledgements from an editor that don't exist here. AFAICS the 'restriction' part of your proposal is BrownHairedGirl (BHG) no longer may talk about any other editor's behaviour except when posting to a Wikipedia dispute resolution venue for third party assessment. This is proposal 4, except it specifically specifies ANI rather than "fora". The rest of the proposal contains reminders that admins may block BHG for violating a policy and listing the formalities of a ban, which isn't really a restriction. As such, the conditions of my oppose for p4 apply to yours as well. I suspect the same probably applies to the reasoning of many p4 opposes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I didn't mention you in my comments. Did it feel good to try to make it all about you? Happy editing. - jc37 08:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for anyone else, obviously. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All that aside, having an arbcom case looming overhead also biases these discussions - there may be those, as debresser notes, who would appear to be fine with all proposals failing, so that Arbcom accepts the case. - jc37 22:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I did not bother commenting on all of the remedies because I feel like this case is so complicated and the editor has such a long history that it is best left to Arbcom.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This was just a way try to bring it to a conclusion one way or another within a few days. And also to solve the math problem. For example, (not implying that this is the case here) if an approach that is overwhelmingly preferred is repeated in multiple proposals, and people only support one because it's their "most preferred" or that the others are mere duplicates, then no individual proposal for that overwhelmingly preferred approach will get broad support.North8000 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @North8000: Honestly, it would be better if the least popular proposals were withdrawn similar to mine. I knew my Hail Mary proposal was what it was and withdrew it as soon as it became clear it wasn't going to pass. My suggestion is to just ping the authors of the least supported proposals just to ask if they'd be willing to withdraw. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mausebru's disruptive edits at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

    User:Mausebru edits at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict started with adding SYNTH and Original research. After I explained to him my concerns over his edits and I recommend he read what is OR and Synth, he instead continues to believe none of his edits fell under this category. He also created a Synth article that has been recently deleted. In Afd his own arguments countering the claim of synth was disproven by what he posted under my delete vote. Another deleted article he created was described by the nominator in the Afd as a "Hoax article that portrays rumors as fact based on deprecated sources such as Anatolia Agency". Not to mention that he has created an alternative account to vote on an Afd on an article he created then nominated for deletion.

    He removed sections of the article I tagged as synth and he removed them without updating or improving upon the sections. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I myself added the tags back on August 4, but today I decided to remove all the synth sections and the OR tag I placed since no improvements had been made.

    Now he has nominated the article for deletion where he wants to blow the article up and start over. He is currently removing sections of the article and is doing edit summaries in all caps.

    Mausebru is a new user and isn't listening to advice on how to be better at editing at Wikipedia. He might need a warning over this, but given his actions a block might have to be considered given all this disruption by one user. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok look. I just want to add as much available info and data as I can find. I just see a source and I add to this wiki. I lose control sometimes due to mental health. I just TRY to contribute when im calm. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mausebru clearly lacks the basic competence to contribute in this topic area, and therefore should be removed from it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, he is writing his responses in part in all caps making his behavior very troublesome. (Redacted) He's not providing a clear rationale in any discussion so far. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to add that I removed his synth of unrelated conflicts from the article's template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that I have oversighted revisions which contained the above {{redacted}} content. The overall meaning of the message has not been significantly altered, though some context is missing. I believe the use of oversight here to be proportional and within policy. Please do not reinstate the content. Thank you ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the AfD. WP:SNOW. @Mausebru: if your disruptive editing continues you will be blocked. You have already violated the WP:1RR restriction on that page, and if anyone had noticed at the time they would have blocked you then and there. ST47 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Olden Creed and persistent disruption

    Olden Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing infrequently for around two years now and still doesn't appear to understand basic policies. They have been made aware of discretionary sanctions, been advised and warned numerous times, but with no changes in behavior or any communication beyond edit summaries. Most of their edits involve spamming inappropriate categories they create across articles and adding poorly sourced material, much of which is a product of original research and soapboxing, along with edit warring over them and inappropriate use of edit summaries. Diffs of some recent examples are as follows:

    Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Olden's userpage was created by a sockmaster named Tubslubeamorepersempre (I am not saying this is definitely a sockpuppet, it's just not very common for someone else (let alone a blocked editor) to create an editor's userpage, so it may be worth checking for behaviour-related links just in case), and Olden has called one of TA's edits as vandalism (which equates not assuming good faith IMO). I have nothing else to say about this. Tube·of·Light 05:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic banned. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    187.87.77.43 continuation

    187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs)

    I'm posting here to follow up on the IP address 187.87.77.43, in which I had previously asked about. The IP has continued to post world tour dates in a studio album article that are related to the band AC/DC. When it is reverted, they revert it back, having verbally attacked me in their edit summary, and deciding to mention me in the same album article in which I reverted the tour dates from. (The article is Ballbreaker.)

    In other tour articles, the IP adds shows that are not part of the tour, and adds unnecessary text in the tour dates. (Examples of these were previous edits in Hella Mega Tour, Rammstein Stadium Tour and Legacy of the Beast World Tour.) In addition, the IP has added unsourced details in articles like Exhibition Park in Canberra, adding in that AC/DC performed there. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update Just added a tag for the IP at the top of my post. In the edits I had to revert, the IP would then add the sentence that I have "no credit" in their edit. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      HorrorLover555 - When filing a report about or against another user on Wikipedia, you are required to notify them about this discussion on their user talk page. I've gone ahead and done this for you. This requirement is stated at the top of this ANI page. :-)
      Now that the ANI notification matter has been taken care of, I'll be happy to help. :-) Looking at this IP user's talk page, I don't see any warnings for adding unreferenced content or for any other violations - just a notice that this IP user was blocked back in July. For administrative action to be justified, we should be warning this user each time that they add unreferenced content to an article, or when they violate any other Wikipedia policy. If the user continues their behavior despite numerous warnings, further action (including blocking) will then be justified. Warning the user is important, as it gives the user the opportunity and a chance to seek help, correct their behavior, and improve their edits. Otherwise, if we don't try and warn the user or at least talk to them politely, the block could be seen as being too soon or too harsh. When warnings are left, the user can't appeal their block and claim that it was unfair, as they were given sufficient opportunities to respond to the notices that were left for them, and they did not do so. This is the best way to handle this situation with this user. Warn the user sufficiently, then report the user if the issues continue despite those warnings being left. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikieditor1008

    Wikieditor1008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    The user was earlier involved in a dispute over content at Ramdev. A section "Kapalbhati" was in great dispute, and is argued by the user to keep, has been removed by Hipal at [85] stating WP:BLP. The user was also given BLP DS notice. The page was also EC protected for BLP violations. Post the expiration of the ECP, Wikieditor1008 (has ~150 edits as of this and is not EC user) has once added the disputed section back to the article [86] citing good faith. (To disclose, I was earlier involved with the Ramdev article. After a request from Hipal to hold editing until the neutrality is resolved, I agreed and recused myself from the article.)

    The user seems to have now moved on to editing Khatri caste article, and removed content stating undue [87], [88], [89]. I'm concerned of the actions from the user, especially after a call to another editor with a caste-promotion message [90]. The first sentence of the message certainly looks good, as the user is asking for help to maintain a stable version, assuming a sourced stable version. But not the following part of the message. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the edits to Ramdev. I've not had the time to review Wikieditor1008's other edits, but this looks overall like a WP:NOTHERE situation. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've requested the article be protected for the third time since May over this content. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the same content. The content you complained about was removed prior to your revert. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not exactly the same, but not changed in the manner that you and I agreed is the solution to this long-running dispute. --Hipal (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not exactly the same because the content you criticised was removed and some rewriting was done. So the dispute is no longer about the version for which you originally requested protection. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've applied extended confirmed protection to the Ramdev article for one month due to ongoing BLP concerns. This should resolve the concerns for now, as Wikieditor1008 is not extended confirmed. If more action needs to be taken, please let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor1008 is deleting sourced academic content from Khatri, especially anything he finds negative. For example, [91] , [92],[93] and today: [94]. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get this editor blocked or banned, or should we take this to ArbEnf [95]? --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If they have been issued the ARBIPA sanctions warning already then any admin can indef etc. If they have not had it then someone needs to post it. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor1008 only had the BLP alert. I just added SASG and would be prepared to act if there is evidence of further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent

    FYI: Account was indef-blocked on meta:, then subsequently globally locked. — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The account is abusing very harshly using vulgar terms and using racism, communalism. The below links I have attached shows the behaviour. Please take immediate action.

    https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tamilianda https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE:Tamilianda

    परवीनसिंहमिश्र4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is name of the account in Hindi Wikipidea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilianda (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has zero edits here. You need to go to the projects they have edited.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tamilianda Ymblanter is correct that there is nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do to prevent an editor from editing in other projects; however, since the nature of those posts is exceedingly disgusting, and since they have been doing it at Meta and at Hindi Wikipedia (making it cross-wiki abuse), I have made a request a meta for it to be globally locked. I can't make any promises about whether the request will be acted upon or how long it will take; that's about all we can do here I'm afraid. I'm sorry you experienced that. Best Girth Summit (blether) 11:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Averroes 22

    (non-admin closure) The reported user has been blocked for 30 days by User:Valereee for disruptive editing and subsequently blocked indefinitely by User:Yamla per request.--Darth Mike(talk) 15:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Averroes 22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I was following a recent discussion in Talk:Armenian genocide#Last edits. I didn't have the time nor the mood to join it, but that besides the point of this report. The user Averroes 22 was arguing with multiple editors for his changes, presumably trying to reach consensus. While arguing, they made some questionable remarks to multiple editors that can be seen as personal attacks:

    you look don't understand what "cultural assimilation" [1]

    You look don't understand well [2]

    You look don't read it well[3]

    Besides their perfect understanding of english language, and at the very least uncivil conduct, they also left a threatening message on my talk page, giving me "only two options" 4. Keep in mind, I only reverted their edit in Armenian genocide: Revision history because I saw no clear consensus achieved in the Talk:Armenian genocide#Last edits page. They were also blocked previously for personal attacks Talk:Averroes 22.

    The user lacks basic civility when talking to their fellow editors, at times their comments seem to be personal attacks and threats. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You look didn't notice this comment. I didn't say that you have "only" two options, you can ignore my messages if you like, but according to Wikipedia's policy, this is not recommended. You seem to assume me very bad faith, for I have not threatened to hurt anyone if my options are not followed, and I have also vowed not to use these terms that might be misunderstood. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a borderline case, it seems to me. On the one hand, I really don't think those diffs strike me as violations of CIV (and for what it's worth, I think I'm on the more proactive side of the scale regarding perspectives on when to act on violations of that policy). It looks very much to me as if this is a language facility issue: Averroes seems to be basically competent in English, but every other sentence there's a syntactic/morphological construction that goes a little haywire. It seems to me that the above diffs are efforts to say something along the line of "I don't think you read the source correctly" and similar statements, but lacking the ability for social nuance in English, they aren't able to frame those observations in a way that doesn't sound curt, hyper-critical, and maybe even bordering on aggressive. But for all we know, in their first language they may have made these statements perfectly civil. On the other hand, I note that the previous block for incivil behaviour apparently involved talk page content that had to be revdelled, so...
    The question of disruption on the topic is equally mixed. Averroes seems to have a fairly decent grasp of (and respect for) policy, and they also aren't pushing an extreme POV on that article (particularly considering the scope of controversy for the topic), but rather are arguing about some nuanced questions. They've been here not quite a year, so they are either a quick study or (I think more likely) a contributor to one of our sister encyclopedias, where policies may not be quite identical--a multiple account situation is another possibility, but I see no evidence of that and there has been no mention of socking or disruption. I personally feel (from this admitedly limited review of their contributions) that they are attempting to contribute in good faith and that there is evidence that they are capable of accepting criticism.
    At a minimum, Averroes needs to be reminded that it is not appropriate to restore content to an article while there is an active discussion of the acceptability of that content ongoing on the talk page--that is to say, they need to be advised to review WP:BRD. But I'm not sure more aggressive action is needed here than that. While their conduct is not perfect in every respect, considering the full context, I don't get the impression of a user who is incapable of adjustment, or even one who is especially resistant to advice. I suspect this is mostly a growing pains/language barrier problem, more than anything, and not one which impinges upon basic competency. I'm not sure there is much to do here other than to advise Averroes to take greater caution regarding WP:edit warring and perhaps spend a little more time considering the wording of their interactions such that they don't come off as incivil. SnowRise let's rap 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Well, thanks for your comment. But I would like to ask two questions: Have you seen this? And how long should I wait to undo the edits if there is no response on the talk pages, or many of points in the discussion are ignored? --Averroes 22 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a subtle and complicated question. Before I get into the nuances and how they may apply here, I'll list three relevant policies, in case you haven't read any of them: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:DR. Now, how you handle a situation where a discussion had died out without arriving at a firm consensus (and I'm not saying that is the situation here, but starting from that point for arguments sake, sine it seems to be your position) depends on a number of factors. If the consensus was clearly against you, or just leaning against you, you should probably do nothing, or at least wait a while before broaching the subject again. In situations characterized by BRD (that is, where you made an edit and it was reverted) best practice is to leave the older, stable version of the content (or absence thereof) in place, until there is some firmer consensus. In cases of marginal consensus or mixed/no consensus, you might also consider utilizing a dispute resolution process (such as WP:RfC) to gain additional perspectives from the wider community and/or try to find a middle ground among the differing perspectives. You generally shouldn't consider being the last person to comment on the issue to be an indication that you have prevailed: if consensus was against you, this will definetly be perceived as edit warring, and even if consensus was unclear, you generally cannot insist upon your version pending further discussion--no matter how convinced you are that it is the correct one--unless it was the older, stable version.
    That last point is particularly important: remember that being convinced you are right (even with regard to a policy argument relating to broad community consensus) and having consensus are not the same thing (WP:CONLEVEL). It's true that local consensus on an article talk page is not determined merely by a headcount of editors supporting one version or another. For example, if an uninvolved editor were to close an RfC on an issue, they wouldn't just count the !votes, but would also consider how the arguments harmonize with policy requirements (a higher level of community consensus). But as a proponent arguing within a dispute, you should never go ahead with applying disputed content unless the discussion has ended in some sort of concrete fashion, with either a formal close in your favour or at least an overwhelming majority endorsing your view once the discussion has petered out. Not everybody has to agree, but there is a significant threshold for declaring consensus. I hope that is helpful: you'll have to forgive me as I am writing this in a hurry as I rush out the door. If anything needs further clarity, don't hesitate to ask a question and I'll respond as soon as possible! SnowRise let's rap 05:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Ok, what should I do if a group of editors are continuing to ignore of many points I make and they using circular argumentation in the talk page, but they insists on undoing my edits for no apparent reason (like this)? --Averroes 22 (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from that edit summary, it is not clear to me whether the other editor is reverting you merely because they felt your re-introduction was premature with discussion still ongoing (that is, a procedural revert of edit warring) or if they felt this change was inappropriate under policy, given the sourcing and content, or a combination of the two.
    However, step back from that edit, I will examine your question in the abstract: that is to say, what should you do when you are convinced that other editors are wrong in their conclusions, but said editors are not willing to engage with you on the matter to your satisfaction? Well, that again depends on the circumstances. In certain contexts, you often just have to let the matter go, at least for a time, particularly if you are supporting a very minority opinion among the editors contributing perspectives to the dispute. But more often, you usually will have at least one community tool available to you for bringing in a broader community analysis. A decent summary of these options can be found at WP:DR. For the type of dispute you are in right now, one option is WP:RfC. You should always try to discuss the matter at length on the talk page first, but if discussion grinds to a halt and editors are still at a loggerheads (meaning, unable to come to an agreement or move past a particular point), RfC can bring in additional perspectives by inviting in other community members who will either break the deadlock or maybe even suggest a middle ground or alternative approach.
    But whatever process you use, you'll need to learn to recognize a lost cause and just let some things go. Don't keep pressing the issues across every space or process you can find, or you may find yourself running afoul of our WP:FORUMSHOPPING or even WP:Tendentious editing policies. If nothing else, trying every possible angle before you accept that you just aren't going to win a the day on a given argument will get you a reputation for being unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is simply the nature of the beast that you will sometimes have to accept consensus going a different way now and again, despite being thoroughly convinced you have made the right call. Even the most experienced editor who knows this project and it's policies inside out, who is contributing in areas in which they have detailed and nuanced understanding of the facts and the sources, and is a brilliant rhetorician/communicator would still have to concede some point or another here regularly. Editors who cannot internalize this fact will simply end up here on this noticeboard over and over again until the community removes them from the areas they can't collaborate in (or from the project altogether)--or else, an admin just blocks them independently. This is very much a "you win some, you lose some" sort of place, and the editors who end up having the most stamina for the duration are those who recognize that early on and do not attempt to die on every hill (that's an English metaphor about picking your battles/figuring out when is the time to let things go).
    By the way, if you do use an RfC here, be sure to read the policy carefully, especially the part about neutrally wording the question. If you need help formatting an RfC/wording the inquiry, please let me know and I will be happy to help. Mind you, as per the previous paragraph, I'm not saying it's necesarily the way to go here--you need to look at the situation, decide how much you feel this one edit needs to occur, calculate how realistic you think your chances are, based on feedback so far, be honest with yourself about whether the RfC would be more helpful than disruptive, and then make your call balancing all of those factors. But whenever you do make your first effort at RfC (or any other WP:DR process) and need any further advice on how to do it as neutrally and appropriately as possible, you can feel free to message me for advice: consider this an open offer. You can also ask for similar advice from the WP:TEAHOUSE and/or at WT:RfC. Best of luck to you, whatever you choose to do from here. And remember: for virtually everything here WP:THEREISNORUSH: it's more important to take things slow and build support and make it clear you are willing to discuss in a civil and calm fashion. Believe me, it will pay off. SnowRise let's rap 11:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Ok, thanks for response, but you look didn't understand what I mean. That revert occurred before the discussion began on the talk page. In the summary of the previous edit, I asked the person who reverted my edit to explain to me what exactly the problem was on the talk page, and then I surprised by this revert with that strange edit summary. Sure, I'm willing to concede a point, but I want a clear reason, why should I concede it? I can't concede it just because it doesn't agree with the personal opinions of a tag team. And I want to add an information, not everyone disagrees with me, there is another editor who agrees with me [96]. --Averroes 22 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you see, you introduced the change to the standing version of the article here. That makes you the "bold" editor in terms of WP:BRD (bold -> revert -> discuss). Once someone (DrVogel) had reverted you, whether you liked their explanation or not, the WP:ONUS (burden) was on you to gain consensus before reintroducing that change. Reverting the revert, as you did, before securing that consensus, was therefore edit warring, and it was appropriate for the third party (Kevo327) to re-revert you, even with an edit summary that made no reference to the underlying content dispute. Does that make sense? This process can feel a little non-intuitive (complicated/not obvious) at first. SnowRise let's rap 12:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: This is my first revert, not this. Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!! Of course, this is don't make sense at all. You cannot solve an edit warring by another edit warring. --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is my first revert, not this"
    Correct. You introduced an edit. That edit was contested, and reverted. You should have then gone to discuss the contested edit (on the talk page, not in edit summaries) and only re-introduced it after gaining consensus for it. WP:BRD; WP:ONUS.
    "Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!!"
    Well, that's not exactly what I said though. Technically editors are advised that it's not necessarily the best move to revert an edit that is itself the first step in an edit war. But it all comes down to context, and I can tell you that it's beyond unlikely that your average editor would find fault or disruption in Kevo's revert there. But my main point was that they didn't revert you without an explanation: it's just that their reason didn't pertain to the content question, but rather a procedural one: basically "this edit is contested; you need to gain consensus before adding it again", which they expressed (perhaps suboptimally, I will grant you) as "stop edit warring". SnowRise let's rap 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Averroes 22, you mentioned a tag team. Who are you referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Averroes 22, I don't think that you have been intentionally being rude - quite confrontational, but not uncivil to the point of requiring administrative intervention. The tag teaming accusation is a problem though - just because there are multiple people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are coordinating their actions - it might just be that you are wrong. It's an accusation of an abuse of process - if you don't intend to provide evidence for it, you should strike it, because casting aspersions is actionable.
    I also think that you have a shaky grasp on what constitutes a reliable source. You have understood that self-published sources are not reliable, which is good, but you should not be describing peer-reviewed academic journals as 'self-published sources'. You gave a couple of links to the pages of Science Direct on that talk page (this and this.) Those pages set out explicitly that Science Direct accept press releases from universities and the like, and that they republish them with only a light copy edit. That is a very different thing from a peer-reviewed academic journal, which accepts research papers from academics, and sends them to other academics for comment. Those academics may reject the paper, or they may suggest areas that need to be improved prior to acceptance. They're not the same sort of thing at all: you need to accept that. Girth Summit (blether) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Science Direct??!! LOL. You seem to copy the comments by Firefangledfeathers, even his misspellings. You can see my responses on Talk:Armenian genocide. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should reply if you have a specific thing in mind, just maybe. And not waste everyones time, directing editors to certain pages. We aren't suppose to dig up your responses and assume which one you mean by "just look at this talk page LOL". Also, what's funny about asking a question? You really should elaborate next time instead of unhelpful comments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I suggest you elaborate on your "tag team" accusations, as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit and ZaniGiovanni: Hi again, if you insist, I will explain again. So do you think that the already peer-reviewed academic research will no longer be academic because a public information officer who published these academic research? Also, why are you questioning the public information officer and not the academics? What if academics aren't really academics? Or if they have prejudices in certain topics? --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors have tried to explain this point – let me see if I can clarify by wording the explanation differently. Science Daily does not publish academic research. It publishes press releases about academic research. Those are different things, in the same way that, say, a publisher's advertisment for a book is a different thing to the book itself. A publisher's advert for a book would not be a reliable source, whereas the book itself might be. Science Daily publishes, in effect, universities' advertisments for research papers. As such, its articles are not reliable sources. Wham2001 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Averroes 22: I don't want this point to get lost amongst the other, also important, avenues of discussion. You mentioned tag-teaming above, and described tag-teaming behavior in this comment at ZG's user talk page. You also edited a policy page to link to WP:TAGTEAM in the midst of this dispute. Three users, including me, have asked for an explanation. My first hope is that you will strike your comments. Failing that, can you please clarify who has been tag-teaming and indicate what evidence you have of that misconduct? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Firefangledfeathers: I was explaining why evidence and arguments are more important than number, but I didn't accuse you specifically. I wanna ask, how did you notice my edit in the policy page, was you hounding me? --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do feel comforted knowing that you aren't accusing me of tag-teaming, so thank you for clarifying. I hope to extend that comfort to the other users involved. Is it true that you are not accusing anyone tag-teaming?
    I did look through your recent contributions to see if you repeated your tag-team comments in other venues. I don't believe that to be hounding. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    simply because any person can bring with him other like-minded people and ask them to support his side in the discussion. diff
    Averroes22's explanations and justifications are starting to get repetitive. Every time they're confronted about their questionable comments, they seem to not have a definitive answer. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that saying "any person can bring with him other like-minded people and ask them to support his side in the discussion" to be just saying "arguments are more important than number". You were already implying that some or one of us presumably has brought like minded people to support their side, which is an attempt by you to hint at tag-teaming or canvassing. And please, read what WP:HOUNDING is before asking ridiculous questions. You're being reported in ANI, it's natural that most editors would probably check your recent contributions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Averroes 22 The question of whether it's called Science Daily, Science Direct or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that press releases are very different from academic research. I don't want to be disparaging, but the fact that I am having to explain this to you does tell me that there is a lack of understanding on your part on how academic research works. Academics produce research, which their peers evaluate, and once everyone is clear that it is valid, it gets published in journals or monographs. Those are reliable sources. University PR departments then write puffed up press releases about the significance of the findings, stressing how important and original it is, to catch the media's attention. They don't lie exactly, but their purpose is to promote the institution not to present findings neutrally, and they tend to simplify things and omit nuance because of the audience they are trying to attract. They are not reliable sources, and I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.
    Now, to the tag-teaming accusations. I'll make this simple: either strike out those accusations, or be clear about who you are talking about and provide evidence, or I will block your account from editing. You may not cast aspersions of that nature here. Let me know if you have any questions about what I've just said. Girth Summit (blether) 21:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, GS, that was an ec. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Averroes 22, you've been blocked multiple times, including for making personal attacks, and you've been asked multiple times to explain your accusations of tag-teaming, which without evidence is a personal attack. Please explain what you are referring to and show us this tag-teaming. —valereee (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Well, thanks for your effort to explain it to me. but I also have a question. You look have mistaken, the ScienceDaily is publishing the reports by public information officer, not "PR departments" (please read this again). After I read public information officer (who known also as "spokesperson") article, the PIO (spokesperson) he's supposed to be officially appointed by the university or any other thing he works for, so why do you think he might lie? --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Averroes 22 They aren't "lying". They are slanting the announcement to make their institution look good. That is what public relations departments do. We do not consider press releases to be reliable sources, and if you can't understand that, you shouldn't be editing. —valereee (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Averroes 22 asked at RSN whether ScienceDaily was a reliable source and was told "no" a week ago. I also said as much at Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry, with a pointer to churnalism. It's the job of university "public information" people to make their employers look good, and ScienceDaily circulates what those people put out. Many other websites do the same. None of them count as reliable, independent sources, because they're all just repackaging what they're given for clicks. This point has been explained enough times, I have to wonder if not getting it is willful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Averroes 22, 'PR' is an abbreviation of 'Public Relations': a 'public information officer' is another name for someone who works in that role. 'Spokesperson' is another such name. I have not said that such people lie; I explicitly said that what they do isn't lying, but it serves a different purpose than the work produced by the academics. Academics produce research; PR teams publicise universities. They report on the same basic information, but they do it in very different ways. Now, I have lost count of the number of people who have told you this: please just accept it. I don't like linking to ALL-CAPS jargon, but WP:IDHT is worth reading. Keep this up and you may very well be blocked as a time-sink. Best Girth Summit (blether) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AlonsoTav User:AlonsoTav11

    These two accounts are obviously the same person and they don't try to conceal it. I warned them in November 2020 and again more recently and asked them to stop using one of the accounts, but they ignore all efforts to WP:COMMUNICATE. --Muhandes (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But what is the problem? They are perfectly entitled to use two accounts, unless they are on two account restrictions, or are using them illegitimately (such as voting twice in the same discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, foul play would have been reported directly to WP:SPI. This is more an issue of failure to communicate. If there is a legitimate reason for using two account (none of which seem to apply), then the alternative accounts should be identified as such. We are repeatedly adding comments on the talk pages of both accounts regarding failure to add sources and using illegitimate charts, without any response. If you believe administrative attention is too early then we can wait until they gather four warnings on both accounts. --Muhandes (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they're the same person, but neither account has edited since the 10th. If they had, and without bothering to respond to these comments, I'd have blocked one. I do think that there is no valid reason given for the two accounts, but maybe, Muhandes and Ymblanter, we should wait a few days? (I know, Muhandes, you warned them a long time ago...) The incommunicado quality of both accounts is a separate matter, but I guess our reason for blocking for those reasons depends on the quality of their edits, or the lack thereof. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to hurry. We can wait till they edit again and see if they start communicating. --Muhandes (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have time to check the edits of the user now, but if they have stopped editing, we certainly can wait until they reappear.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    William Selig

    "@Cwmhiraeth: and @Berrely: trashed all of my William Selig work-in-progress with a admin delete citing WP:OVRQQ (redlink), I want to get a copy of my last revision for User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)"

    no admin responded to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#William_Selig


    all statements are incorrect, no Original Research everything had references, the fair-use quotation was exaggereated two sentences, not two paragraphs. references were added before the content, because documenting a biography can require many resources, and a conclusion can take many footnotes before you can see which articles/books blindly copied a previous lie/mistake, or contradict more reliable sources. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You worked on the article William Selig on August 4th. During the day you expanded the article from 10,186 bytes to 48,399 bytes. Most of it is still in place, with the removed copyvio (with the edit summary "WP:OVERQUOTING") amounting to just 2,187 bytes. Running the current article through the Earwig copyvio tool shows that it is still riddled with copyvios, particularly of this source and this source. Please write the information from the sources in your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused as to what you want out of this. The changes are clearly a violation of our copyright policies. Citing the text taken directly from a source makes no difference. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: What I want out of this. I want to get a copy of my last revision for User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig so I have my research notes, with what was important about each citation. I did not intend to keep all the big quotes but would have reduced them later. Have you done a large write for a pre-internet biography? First you would probably do research first. In olden days, before UNIX, you would probably have used note cards. Well I was using the citations as my note cards, because I had not finished looking for and bookmarking resources. google is not a friend My experience is that the highest SEO-ranked results are usually not the most truthful and it is better to keep looking, since the best resources are found by "iteratively searching around". So I guess what I want is that copy of my last revision copied to User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig and I'll later merge to the article namespace. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any old revisions at that target, is that definitely where it was stored too? In any case, we aren't a webhost to store data. If the text is a direct copyright violation, it has no place in any namespace. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blockhaj making rude edit comments

    There appears to be no appetite for any action over this complaint. Bishonen | tålk 11:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Blockhaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) swore in this edit comment, and their next one is little better. I reverted the edits anyway, but should/could they be deleted so that the swearing disappears? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the swearing? —El Millo (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Facu-el Millo - Steelpillow is referring to the edit summary that was left in their first diff. I don't see where any foul language occurred in the second diff they provided. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I just saw no swearing in that and was hoping the OP clarified what word/s they were specifically referring to. —El Millo (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had to guess, the OP is probably offended at the use of the term "Jesus Christ" in the edit summary. While this language may be offensive to some people, it does not justify revdel, nor any other sort of admin action. As for the second one, I'm honestly not sure what the OP's complaint is; it's mildly sarcastic, I guess, but that's it. Maybe the OP dislikes the flippant usage of the term "heart attack"? I don't know. Regardless, there's nothing actionable here. Mlb96 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The edit summaries could be seen as offensive to some people, but they do not qualify for revision deletion under the guidelines. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if you guys say that what was said is not swearing or overly offensive, this can be closed. (FWIW, all my life invoking Divinity in the context of such negative emotional outbursts has been known as swearing. My dictionary includes in its definition "... an oath or a curse or bad language generally." Every forum I have ever been on regards it as unacceptable language, see also the article on profanity. I guess you Admins beg to differ.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold for revision deletion is very high. It's generally only used for copyright violations, severe BLP violations, posting of personal information, and the absolute most egregiously offensive language (i.e., slurs). Mere profanity does not meet that standard; in fact, there is profanity on this very page (the word "fuck" appears six times, for instance). Mlb96 (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked for revdel once (and got it). An editor had called me the C-word. My skin is thick enough to ignore that - but it was by a second editor on a third editor's TP, and I thought that crossed a line.
    One of the peculiarities of the English language is the use of the F-word as a euphemism for the Deity (in FFS). Bloody, a common mild expletive in many dialects of English, was at one time considered grossly offensive. IMO, it's the plain intention in an ES which matters. There's a difference between a forceful opinion and a deliberate insult. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tomoo Terada

    Tomoo Terada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor seems to be a NOTHERE/SPA concern in addition what appears to be a clear COI. I will also add I think a language barrier may be in play as well which may be part of the issue. They have specifically focused on Chloe Melas, a CNN reporter that in 2018 put out a report that said she and about 16 other women were sexually harassed by Morgan Freeman. This was covered in the month or so it happened, though Freeman defended against these claims and while SAG seemed to clear him, this dented his reputation. That said, Melas did recieve harassment for her reporting (given how beloved Freeman is as an actor), though CNN backed her accusations. Nothing seems to have really come out of that since from normal English-language RS.

    Now, there was an opinion piece that did recieve attention in some Spanish media written by a "Tomoo Terada" around December 2018, see [97]. This piece, published as a blog at a third-party site and not by the papers themselves, accused Melas of fraud and racism, points not otherwise brought up in reliable sources, nor have been commented on since the 2018 events in any wider capability.

    Turning to the user Tomoo Terada here, while having an account since 2011, they only really became active this March with edits to Melas' page, including using the sources that pointed to reporter Terada's blog piece, as well as criticism directed at CNN for not redacting/correcting the story. [98]. After some further edit issues on the page, Marquardtika (talk · contribs) opened a BLP/N on the topic [99]; full archived version [100]. There, you can see the Terada user had taken a very hostile attitude when editors suggested there was a possible COI issue due to the name similarity ( see comment at timestamp 05:34, 31 March 2021 ). Ultimately, Fences and windows (talk · contribs) did some edits around the material in question to try to make it more neutral on Melas' page [101] by March 31.

    Come around Aug 6, and Marquardtika made an edit to remove the material they felt was poorly sourced [102]. Over the next few days, Tomoo Terada restored the material while Marquardtika removed it, but it was disconcerting to see one edit summary used by Terada was "How much are CNN and Chloe Melas paying you?". This led Terada to open a new (and still open) BLP/N [103] and getting F&W's attention about the change to their March edits. Their opening statement on that is already troublesome ( "To fix it or to show the hypocrisy of a supposed way to manage editing here at Wikipedia.", "Because what I did it was answering to the incivility of your fellow wikipedians like Nil Einne (talk · contribs) that even erased the image of the tweet by newspaper El Mundo, that it was erased by the pressure of CNN. By no reasonable reason. It takes no brains to know who pays him for that action.")

    As the conversation goes there with users like myself, Marquardtika, and Nil Einne try to explain the issues, Terada continues to throw out what are pretty close to personal attacks and operating in bad faith: eg "Of course, I don´t have any idea if you´re sincere or being in any payroll like clearly Marquardtika is.", " I don´t have any fear of being blocked or even banned from here because as I already said to you and will keep saying it, some people here obviously are owned by Chloe Melas.", as well as accusing Oshwah (talk · contribs) when Oshwah appeared to accidentally revert a large chuck of oddly formatted text added by Terada, [104], only to undo themselves immediately [105] -the type of accidental undo everyone does once in a while - but Terada has stated this "erased the reference to CNN retribution, I reverted his action. that it was an abuse and it was useless as I have a record of CNN retribution phrase included on the board.".

    After I saw this diff on the Melas talk page with this comment directed to Marquardtika "LOL. Guy claims to be "a former journalist from Houston, Texas." Poor thing, if that´s true then must be hard to swallow to see how the one that he is attacking it had the repercussion he clearly never had.", I issued a final warning about NPA [106] after seeing Nin had placed a first clear warning a few days ago [107]. Terada commented on this on the Melas talk page "So it seems Masem wants to start a polemics that I will be answering. Of course,this is blatant one-sided biased editing through threats (and recently even there was the attemp of the erasing of a CNN reference), but if they want to be so obvious, what can I do?"

    At this point, I don't think there's anything we can really do with this editor unless they clearly back off the personal attacks. However, whether they don't see that issue due to a language barrier or not, they have been warned their behavior here is a problem, in addition to the possible COI issues that may be at play. --Masem (t) 18:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I second everything Masem said about the BLP/N thread. I would add that Terada is not officially declaring their COI but is not hiding that they are in fact (or are convincingly imitating) the real life Tomoo Terada. In this edit they write "I wrote to Jimmy Wales on what you´re doing" and link to a tweet from Terada's account doing just that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd note that although the editor hasn't been particularly active before, their editing has generally been some problematic even from when they first joined e.g. [108] simply that it was too minor to worry about. If someone can get through to Tomoo Terada that would be great but frankly I don't see much chance. They only seem to be happy dealing with editors when they sufficiently agree with them and even then don't properly take on board advice given about how to handle themselves here. Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add [109]. In both cases, even back in 2011, Tomoo Terada was quick to call editor's who's actions they didn't understand or didn't agree with bullies. Anyway one more comment I was reminded of while checking out these posts, if someone does feel it's worth trying one more time to get through to Tomoo Terada, it'll probably be best if it comes from someone who's real name is public. Of course having such a dislike for people editing under a pseudonym is not a good attitude to have here, but maybe it'll help. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that Masem said above shows when the editor interacts with someone they do not agree with it is immediate aspersions. To be honest, it appears all of you have went to great lengths to try and communicate and help the editor along during discussions. I'm sorry but if @Nil Einne is working for CNN they need to be fired because they aren't doing a great job of pushing a CNN only narrative (tongue-in-cheek, obviously). But seriously, WP:NOTHERE jumps out. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I told them I found the CNN thing laughable. This is partially for personal reasons, but also because anyone checking out my edit history will knows I'm often involved in BLP issues, rarely involved in anything to do with CNN. Frankly most of the time there being a CNN ref would make things a lot simpler since one of the common problems is the referencing is far worse than CNN. Yet I'm not even a fan of CNN from a young age finding them a bit too bombastic and excessively promoting a US POV/US is great POV. Given the choice I much prefer Al Jazeera or the BBC, both of which have their own problems but I still find far better. And frankly, I think the current situation in the US has just made things worse with CNN. I also said I didn't and still don't care about the CNN thing, but it does demonstrate the problem. The other editor they accused, left the content they recently removed in for several months I assume because they didn't notice or didn't think about it properly, something Tomoo Terada knows because they brought it up on the talk page. Tomoo Terada is too willing to see COIs or other problems with editors often claims which make no sense and goes against the available evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One more comment, while it wasn't about me, the former journalist thing is the sort of comment I feel is much more disturbing than the CNN-COI ones. Although still silly given the assumptions being made, it has a much more of a demeaning undertone that I find unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my revert was an accident. Sorry! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, you made a mistake? We can't be having this. Completely intolerable. We need immediate action on this. Who wants to make a proposal? ;-) --ARoseWolf 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it was very clear based on timestamps of the immediate edits. I know newer editors may not be aware how that works, but jumping to bad faith isn't helpful. --Masem (t) 20:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I suggest an indef block. I don't know if this is WP:CIR or just a disruptive WP:COI editor with an axe to grind, but edit warring WP:BLP-violating material and making personal attacks needs to stop.
    Was informed of WP:COI on this article [110] when this came up in March. Was warned for edit warring on this article [111] when this restarted. I gave this user a second, third and fourth warnings for personal attacks. I followed up with further messages re the user having broken WP:3RR by repeatedly restoring something that had been removed under the WP:BLP exemption [112] and then explained exactly what the first personal attack warning was for (a post to my talk page) when the user seemed to misunderstand [113].
    The user has not restored the content since having been warned for edit warring, but had already broken WP:3RR by restoring the material 4 times in 5 hours [114] [115] [116] [117]. The first edit counts a revert since the editor was restoring material she had repeatedly added in March.
    The user received a level 4 personal attack warning at 04:55, 9 August 2021, and has been repeatedly told that unfounded accusations of paid editing are personal attacks. I'm not going to provide diffs since almost all of the 20 or so edits by the use since then has contained a personal attack in the content or the summary, for example: bad faith editing, paid editing, wikibullying, lying, gaslighting, hypocrisy, misrepresenting the facts etc.
    A second level 4 personal attack warning was given at 13:45, August 12, 2021‎ but user has continued personal attacks with "Then try to act in an ethical way, Masem", "That editor Marquardtika falsely claims that ...", "I don´t ignore you all are searching for any excuse to silence me.LOL." [118] "blatant one-sided biased editing through threats" [119] . Finally the user says "Hope to be a good faith discussion now" [120]. Too little, too late. Meters (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is unfortunately a not here issue with a user seeking to right great wrongs. The evident conflict of interest is also cause for concern. If there weren't a COI issue, I'd perhaps have more patience to coach the user. But there are only so many text walls one can engage with. I don't know much about typical remedies in these types of situations, but I would be in favor of, at minimum, a ban from this user editing Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman. Also, CNN is late with my paycheck again! For shame! Marquardtika (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW sums it up. Interestingly, the user claims to have been "kicked out from Wikimania15 for attempting to ask Wales on paid editing" [121]. Wikimania 15 was two years ago, so this is not just a recent issue.
    And there's no question that this user is indeed claiming to be the writer in question. The user's userpage states "My name is Tomoo Terada, a Mexican-Japanese writer and journalist. I have a blog: teradatomoo.blogspot.com, so you can check I am the one that I am saying to be." Meters (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This post on Terada's page just now (clearly in light of this), continues various personal attacks against editors. It should be pointed out that I do not believe anyone has made any direct person attack towards this editor, outside of the COI issue (which would be exempt from that); I think this reply this user is not here to corroborate until we direct work the way they want to work. --Masem (t) 20:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikibullying and one-sided editing against Tomoo Terada to cover-up Chloe Melas fraud against Morgan Freeman

    As Masem himself notify me of this procedure, I´ll recognize him but, of course, I´ll challenge the mischaracterization he does of the situation for his own interest. The real "language problems" that exists is, for one side, their (he and others mentioned) blatant ignorance on how to evaluate Spanish language sources what includes the refusing to ask for support from members of Spanish Wikipedia as I proposed months ago; and the bad faith hidden behind "asceptic" Wikipedia burocracy language, on the other side.

    Of the first "language problem" there´s the example of that very recently Nil Einne, that, at first, dismissed Spain´s national newspapér El Mundo as poor source, now says it´s a reliable one. It was me who provide El Mundo as a source.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20210812055202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Melas https://web.archive.org/web/20210812114145/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

    So there´s not a "language barrier." That´s a lie. And that´s the point. If I cannot challenge when Masem and others telling lies to "win" the discussion, because they pretend my rebuttals are "personal attacks" how can I make my case and they being accountable?

    I published in Spanish an investigation on the CNN-Chloe Melas 2018 sexual harassment fabricated report against Morgan Freeman. Masem and others has been miscaracterizing the investigation as being published in any personal blog, when it was published in the website of a Foundation created by Gabriel García Márquez to promote high level Ibero American journalism.

    https://fundaciongabo.org/es/etica-periodistica/blogs/dando-luz-un-fraude-periodistico-morgan-freeman-y-cnn

    And I investigated from Mexico on a level most of American media does not anymore.

    For instance, Masem parrots "Melas did recieve harassment for her reporting" as an statement of fact. But, in fact, it was never provided evidence of that supposed harassment against Chloe Melas for her negative report on Freeman

    That it was an statement by CNN´s General Counsel, David Vigilante, in his letter answering Freeman´s lawyer, Robert Schwartz. He talked about death threats against Melas and family. It was published by Deadline, and quoted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/cnn-response-morgan-freeman.pdf

    https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/cnn-reporter-who-accused-morgan-freeman-getting-death-threats/GQMnpl27gTZfsrhpJeSjZJ/

    But there was nothing more than the words by Vigilante.

    So, I give you this little detail, to show you the depth of my investigation. I´m gonna answer and challenge each statement by Masem, including the COI issue, that´s it´s hypocritical when there´s have been a cover-up of Chloe Melas´fraud here at Wikipedia, since 2018. This is a first deliver, as it has been a whole team against me, a sole person.


    This editor seems to be a NOTHERE/SPA concern in addition what appears to be a clear COI. I will also add I think a language barrier may be in play as well which may be part of the issue. They have specifically focused on Chloe Melas, a CNN reporter that in 2018 put out a report that said she and about 16 other women were sexually harassed by Morgan Freeman. This was covered in the month or so it happened, though Freeman defended against these claims and while SAG seemed to clear him, this dented his reputation. That said, Melas did recieve harassment for her reporting (given how beloved Freeman is as an actor), though CNN backed her accusations. Nothing seems to have really come out of that since from normal English-language RS.

    Tomoo Terada (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

    You have stated that you are the writer Tomoo Terada, thus you do have a conflict of interest in writing about that writers' investigations. You have broken 3RR on material that was removed as a BLP violation (a particularly egregious edit warring violation). You continued to make personal attacks after two final warnings. Doubling down (actually tripling down or whatever) on the personal attacks in this thread is not going to help. This is no longer about the content of the edits. This is about your behaviour. Meters (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomoo Terada's reply demonstrates another problem namely they seem to have trouble understanding what people are trying to tell them. I'm 90% sure I never said El Mundo point blank was a "poor source". El Mundo is a reliable source. What I did say before and I re-iterated recently is the particular El Mundo article they link to is a poor or frankly almost useless source. IIRC all it really says is someone wrote a blog complaining about something. Just because El Mundo is a reliable source doesn't mean all articles they publish are useful for sourcing stuff in our articles. I tried to explain this to Tomoo Terada on BLPN unfortunately their reply suggests they still don't understand.

    Masem (and others) are also trying to explain something I barely tried, namely that if the world has largely ignored their point of view, there's no much we can. (WP:RGW etc.) And that when most sources are just reporting that someone wrote a blog rather than carrying out an independent investigation or at least supporting the claims in their own voice, from our point of view on Wikipedia, then the world has ignored their point of view. Unfortunately Tomoo Terada doesn't seem to be understanding this either.

    Finally, I'm fairly convinced the only editor who has ever used the term "personal blog" is Tomoo Terada. What other editors have said is that it's a blog, and a self-published source. Tomoo Terada seems to think because they wrote the blog and it's published by that above foundation this means it cannot be a self-published source and if people call it that it means we're saying it's their personal blog which I don't think anyone is saying. I personally never tried to explain why they were wrong about this, I'm not sure if anyone else did but it seemed pointless.

    Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay I had a look and I see I did say "I cannot even assess if these two articles are reliable secondary sources" and I think one of those two article was from El Mundo. I cannot recall exactly what I was thinking at the time, but it was probably that it was not possible for me to be certain given that I don't understand Spanish, whether the linked article was El Mundo's reporting or if it could be something else like an op-ed or something else hosted on El Mundo but not part of their reporting. From my comments, what I was trying to tell Tomoo Terada is that we need the help of people who understand Spanish like themselves to assess the sources and work out what, if anything they could be used for. And this would have to happen via discussion on the talk page rather than edit warring to add back contentious material without proper discussion. Unfortunately this didn't happen very well. (Fences&Windows did work on something but Tomoo Terada's contributions I did not find helpful.) I still cannot find anywhere that I ever said that El Mundo is point blank a poor source. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq guy is wrong. The one that wrote and inserted what calls "rubbish" it was Fences. I was not convinced but I accepted it as a compromise, because Fences wrote to my talk page. What guy says it was my recent edit did it was an action to revert to that wording that it was erased now, months later, by someone that didn´t say a word when Fences put it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Melas&oldid=1015279380
    Now someone will warn Johnuniq for personal attacks attack and incivility WP:CIVIL? Or I will keep exposing the hypocrisy here? Tomoo Terada (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC) ‎ Tomoo Terada[reply]
    So Johnuniq being an administrator is for you a licence for abusive threats? Do you have any idea on the subject or because you have the power to block people you decide at whim on themes you don´t know about?
    I have an archive.org copy of that, and you´re really looking bad. By the way, I don´t give a damn if you block me, as long I have evidence the kind of guy you are. https://web.archive.org/web/20210815015440/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Tomoo Terada (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) ‎ Tomoo Terada[reply]
    Since the user doesn't give a damn if they get blocked. let's do it and get this over with. A COI editor who broke WP:3RR on something that was removed as a BLP violation, two level 4 NPA warnings and has made multiple personal attacks since being brought to ANI, etc. Enough. Meters (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DanyloPushkar on a reverting spree

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

    DanyloPushkar, whom I warned earlier this year for nationalistic disruptive editing, reappeared and apparently decided to revert all edits they do not like. They have got five warnings from three different users (and this does not include me) in the last 10 minutes. My favorite edit is this. (Well, my English is indeed not ideal but I hope not to the point as suggested by the edit). Could we have them blocked please? Ideally indef, as they have zero useful contribution, just nationalistic bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can give more diffs, but their last 30 edits all are reverts, some with inappropriate edit summaries. Choose anything you want from their contribution list.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I second that. A while ago Signpost informed us that Ukrainian government called for editing Wikipedia to defend true information about Ukraine. I commented that we will have trouble, judging from the state of uk-wiki, which is approaching to that of the notorious Kroatian wikipedia. And I was right: in my watchlist started cropping up nationalist Ukrainian editors who are WP:NOTHERE but to spill the Russian-Ukrainian war into Wikipedia. (Of course, there were occasional hiccups in the past, such as Kiev/Kyiv name war or removal Polish and Russian placenames from articles about Ukrainian populated places. I only hope that the Ukrainian govt is inept enough to launch a coordinated effort as it was with Israel...) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The first rule of adminship is you do not talk about the "block EEng" button. The second rule of adminship is you DO NOT talk about the "block EEng" button. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1036445150 Pudgy, clumsy valereee (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only your fingers. EEng 22:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this stage pretty much everything is pudgy and clumsy. I'm embracing it. —valereee (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert-sock

    13:00, 12 August 2021 Valereee talk contribs blocked DanyloPushkar talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked)

    Same shit in the same place:

    TomkoChornenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rollback: 1 edit [welcome] (Undid revision 1038474203 by Lembit Staan (talk)) Tags: Undo Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits

    A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Please intervene ASAP. We dont want to waste time to play games of warnings and 3RR and stuff. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Everythingmatters

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

    This editor has a clear POV around Bill Clinton and related topics (Sydney Blumenthal, Clinton Foundation, Al Gore, etc). This user never communicates on talk pages and likely needs at least a partial block or topic ban from Clinton-related topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are a lot of controversial BLP edits with no discussion anywhere. Should definitely be blocked to force communication. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. To be clear: not a single talk page or user talk page edit, despite pings, warnings, and comments at their user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns by Marmandie

    Original poster indefinitely blocked for a variety of reasons. Complaint seems to be without merit. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I point out to you a personal attack that I suffered from User:M.Bitton on the discussion page relating to the Al Mahbes page, on my supposed origin and being called nationalism, I find this personal attack very serious and contrary to the peaceful functioning of Wikipedia. --Marmandie (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Can you be more specific? Thanks.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be this comment: Stop your nationalist POV pushing. Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Talk:Al_Mahbes § Stop your vandalism––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, yes, I try to participate peacefully in the improvement of the content of this wikipedia page, with sources and references but that does not please my interlocutor who constantly suppresses my work without bringing contrary arguments and attacks me " nationalist "which is inappropriate. I thank you for your intervention and am ready to cooperate with everyone --Marmandie (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • They are pushing a POV by turning an article about a region[124][125] (which has been stable for years and is used to refer to battles that took place there) into one about a village in the Moroccan occupied area. I explained this to them, mentioning the eastern and western parts of the Berm, but in vain as they are clearly here on a mission that I cannot ignore, especially given the fact that I dealt with them in the past and that they left a comment on my talk page before this accusing me of vandalism, calling me an ideologue and asking why You remove with impunity our contributions.. Strangely, the IP that turned up in time to revert my edit said the same thing (hence the SPI). They also kept plastering my talk page with warnings. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello @Marmandie, if the Stop your nationalist POV pushing comment made by M.Bitton was indeed what you are referring to, then I fail to see the personal attack. At least nothing so egregious warranting an ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments in question do not attack you as a "nationalist". They only accuse use of nationalist POV pushing, and that appears to be accurate. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The modifications and contributions on the wikipedia page are always accompanied by references to justify these modifications. The suppression without motives and without arguments of my contributions akin to ideology is why I used this term. The personal attack on the term "nationalist" aims to discredit my serious and sourced work. And Al Mahbas is a village[1] which has an elected president of the commune, in the person of Mr. Mahmoud Abidar[2] Hope this case stopped here thank you. Marmandie (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The BS source about a village (which isn't notable) that you added cannot be compared to the serious ones that I added above (about the region where battles took place), nor can it excuse you accusing me of vandalism or calling me an ideologue. It certainly doesn't explain what you and the IP mean by our contributions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusing me of a nationalist because I bring information that you do not like is excessive language, repeatedly suppressing my contributions without justification or opposit sources amounting to vandalism. The journalistic source which affirms that Mr. Mahmoud Abidar is the elected president of the commune of Al Mahbes is serious enough. And other sources claim that Al Mahbas is an inhabited place[3]. I hope to stop there with you for the sake of the wikipedia community thank you Marmandie (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're pushing a POV and contrary to what you're saying, I explained everything to you, but I cannot make you read what you don't want to read. How many times do I have to repeat that the commune is not notable and all the articles that link to that one are about the area where the battles took place (which is cut by the Berm)? If you felt so strongly about it, why didn't just add that there is a village in the Moroccan occupied side? What's with that propaganda nonsense about the planes flying over the sky of so-called "village"?
     Question: What did you mean by our contributions? How many of you are there? M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see. In the meantime bring reliable sources and references as I do, otherwise stop suppressing the serious work of others, it amounts to vandalism. Al Mahbes is a village located in the northeastern part of Western Sahara. It falls under the Morocco’s control as a part of the Morocco controlled Western Sahara. Al Mahbes is situated near the Algerian border. Al Mahbes has some basic facilities like shops, restaurants and is connected to southern Moroccan cities, including Guelmin by direct road link. Stop trying to distract attention with off-topic questions. For my part, I stop here but I remain vigilant. Thanks to the moderators for their professionalism and contributionMarmandie (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see You said it and the reliable sources that I mentioned above are there to prove it.[126][127]
    Stop trying to distract attention with off-topic questions The questions are very much on topic. Now that you brought this here, you need to answer them: What did you mean by our contributions? How many of you are there? M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.mustvisitplace.com/tourist-places-to-visit-in-al-mahbes-moroccos-africa/
    2. ^ https://www.bergaag.com/2020/11/14/residents-of-al-mahbas-commune-support-bold-decision-to-act-in-guerguerat.html
    3. ^ https://www.trackingterrorism.org/chatter/army-neutralizes-polisario-front-attack-al-mahbes-city-western-sahara-close-algerian-border-
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unsourced edits by user Santiago Claudio

    Santiago Claudio (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings about making unsourced edits. He deleted all warnings except my most recent warning. He continued to make unsourced edits after that warning: [128], [129], [130]. Then, within 24 hours of my final attempt to convince him to stop making unsourced edits (after my final warning), he made this unsourced edit. The target article about this list item (Ralph Metcalfe) does not confirm the edit, with or without a source. This is not a competence issue; he has provided some well-formed citations in some of his edits. This user has been editing for seven years and during that time has very rarely made an edit summary despite repeated requests that he do so. His explanation: "Is it practical for me to leave hundreds, even thousands of edit summaries?" He also has removed maintenance templates without justification or explanation. He makes almost no attempt at communication or responding to other editors' concerns. This user has a prior two-week block for sockpuppetry. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sundayclose: I added sources on my recent edit to that list. You didn't scrutinize me in my early Wikipedia editing years. Why did you begin to warn me only in 2019 or 20? Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You added a source only after you were notified of this report. And even then the source you added doesn't verify your edit that I removed. Obviously you made an edit without any consideration of whether it needed a source. If this report had not been made it's safe to say you would have never provided a source because you don't seem to feel that some of your edits need to be sourced. That's a typical pattern for you. Please don't try to shift the blame for your problem edits to me or anyone else. I don't need to explain when I noticed your pattern of editing without sources. Why did you continue to make unsourced edits after multiple warnings? My only goal here is to protect Wikipedia from your problem edits. I hope this report moves us in that direction. It's up to you whether you will learn from this report that you have to abide by the same policies that all of us must follow. It's up to you whether you will finally decide to heed warnings given to you and try to communicate with other editors. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Santiago Claudio, you can't refuse to use edit summaries and also make edits other editors don't immediately understand. This is part of the required communication here. And, yes, it is absolutely practical to leave hundreds, even thousands, even tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of edit summaries. That is what good editors do. Many edit summaries are longer than the actual edit, and many are as or more important than the edit itself. Please start using edit summaries immediately. To the point of adding unsourced content: Stop.
    I'll place a final warning on the user's talk. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Santiago Claudio at their talk is not indicating they'll address the concerns about adding unsourced content and reluctance to communicate. @Sundayclose, come back if the problems persist. —valereee (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Santiago Claudio (talk · contribs) For me, it started with the post, Aftermath. I decided to compile information on past edits of Santiago Claudio. The user has received warnings numerous times & doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia's guideline & policy. This looks like a game for him & never took this matter seriously. He does this on the English language article as well too. @Mutt Lunker: gave the user a warning before. I created a section for species, you can read that information & make comments regarding that matter or user. NKM1974 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    Just noting that NKM1974 has shown quite an amount of WP:OWN behavior for the article American and British English pronunciation differences (513 out of all 819 edits NKM has ever made, since 2009, are to that article, according to XTools). Perhaps this archived discussion from 2018 best illustrates the behavior, where they argued pronunciations that would be labeled A1 or B1 must not be included in the article, even though the labels are explained in the article, [b]ased on old posts & dates back before you & I came to this site. I explained to them that that's not how content disputes are settled on Wikipedia, but their last encounter with Santiago 11 months later suggests they didn't quite get it: If you are going to post anything in the future, bring something that hasn't been done & seen before. [...] Also, do check the old logs from that article why are materials added & removed.
    Santiago's recent edit to the article was nothing but innocuous (and sourced!) yet NKM has, instead of calmly voicing their disagreement with the edit, labeled Santiago a hit-and-run user, and even after Santiago reverted his own edit, went to his talk to say I want your response & don't ignore my message. [131] and The matter isn't resolved. You have to reply on the follow-up question. [132]. It appears that NKM saw other people had issues with Santiago on his talk and decided to nag him to respond to their question about his sourced edit he'd already retracted. NKM's lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines may be explained as owing to inexperience—and I and others could have done a better job explaining them—but the way they've gone after Santiago shows something wanting if they want to continue participating in this project. Nardog (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize NKM1974 was invited to this thread when I wrote the above, so this wasn't so warranted. Nardog (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Britney Spears' conservatorship

    I first reported Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in June after concluding that they were unable to exercise the discretion necessary to document the contentious topic that is the conservatorship of Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A topic ban was proposed, and they supported the proposed ban but deemed it probably pointless as [they] will not be contributing to new material anyway. Since then, they've created Lou M. Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which includes a "controversy" section and cites unreliable, low-quality, and tabloid sources (e.g., TMZ, 'Us Weekly', The Blast, Wonderwall.com, RadarOnline, Showbiz 411, X17 Online). This is especially problematic because Thelonggoneblues themself even said in this discussion that some of these sources aren't appropriate for contentious (and possibly defamatory) claims. I believe a topic ban remains necessary. KyleJoantalk 01:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify part of what KyleJoan already knows: Taylor's notability is deeply intertwined with the Britney Spears conservatorship controversy. "Spears" shows up 82 times on the current version of Taylor's article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I said that. So I am substantiating my point that impartiality vs NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Hence, a controversies section should not be held with such disdain. All sources were accepted by the Wikipedia, and no Wordpress or DailyMail was used. As for possible defamation, you cannot defame someone with many accusations of misconduct. I find it a little troubling that I am held to a standard, based on what I previously believed of the case, as "probably pointless as I will not be contributing to new material anyway". This was all prior to Spears's public testimony. After information I provided 2 years ago was declared too speculative to note despite international media attention (that Spears was allegedly held against her will), finally the information was verified.
    This implication of defamation is especially somewhat concerning, as the subject -- Taylor -- has sent multiple cease and disists to fans even discussing her implication in the conservatorship, as well as removal of articles and buying public domains. In her ceast and desist letter to BreatheHeavy, which I also hoped to source, she would defend herself by explaining she was actually hired during the Circus Tour of 2009, which is legally true. But she uses this to deduce she could not have contributed to the onset of the conservatorship. This is untrue, she was Jamie Lynn's manager; this negates Lynne's commentary in her book, which is sourced, revealing she did in fact work towards establishing a conservatorship. Notably, she was filmed and seen with Jamie, Lynne and Bryan on the night of the 5150, and was a spokesperson for the family for years. Court documents leaked from 2008 also reveal this. Farrow also declares Taylor as having worked with Spears at the time, it is an undeniable fact. And in turn, saying Taylor has made a false deduction would be more appropriate. Notably, Sam Lutfi sent a cease and desist letter in response to Taylor's 2020 claims he committed forgery, on Taylor's Instagram. I have not even mentioned that.
    I disagree on the quality of the sources. Regarding 'Low-quality and tabloid sources', the x17 source from Michael Lohan was an x17 exclusive, he exclusively spoke to them, and it includes photographic evidence of Lohan and Taylor working together. Taylor did not deny the claim at the time either, only later when it was convenient. X17 was held in a different regard ten years ago, as were many Hollywood/Los Angeles celebrity news sources. A news quality source is entire subjective on KyleJoan's part. I did have reservations about TMZ and The Blast as a result of the leaked court documents, shared this with that user, revealing Jamie Spears's paid media expenses, and clickbait headings to frame a narrative of the case a certain way (not in favor of him necessarily).
    I was hesitant to add information last year, regarding the overpaid fee from TriStar, which Ingham actually already addressed due to concern of information-silencing. I do not support the ban, and I believe this article is very important to the conservatorship case. I have not contributed much at all since last time, and only knew to create this article as part of the recent allegations and Brenda J. Penny having a new Wikipedia page.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, Firefangledfeathers (talk). Do you think it should be more balanced to show information of her work with other clients and maybe throw some of the sources to the conservatorship article? --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken the proverbial machete to it, removing all the content from non-RSes. It read like a hit piece to me (like a collection of everything negative that could be found on the internet) and I think the article should be deleted per WP:TNT. No comment about whether the article subject is notable or not. I think a topic ban from BLPs is probably a good idea if this isn't the first time. Levivich 01:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thelonggoneblues has restored a chunk of the content Levivich (rightfully) removed.[133][134] The "Auctioning" subsection is a clear BLP violation, as the one source cited does not insinuate anything about the material being controversial the way the presentation leads readers to believe. And no, this isn't the first time. Thelonggoneblues has repeatedly included BLP violations for about a year, with this being the most egregious. Please topic ban them. KyleJoantalk 14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment about behaviour, but on the sources and policies here I think Levivich isn't wrong. I've restored his revision on the grounds that we should display a conservative version of this content until consensus is reached.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been warned by me on at least a couple of occasions about the use of this "tel:" prefix in linking numbers in this article (one of which is actually not a telephone number) [135]. This has happened a number of times at the article in the past few weeks, at least since mid-June. They contend that they are not adding these links with said prefix. At this point I don't know whether to believe that or not, but adding these where they are is not only against the manual of style (external links don't belong in the body of the article, with few exceptions), but is highly disruptive as this kind of link is intended to dial a phone number from the device where the link is clicked. I would welcome any feedback regarding this.

    My warnings to them are on their talk page at User talk:Animaljamfan123#Sour (album). MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They also don’t appear to u detest and what “debut” means. Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their most recent edit to Sour also violated WP:EASTEREGG, one of the guidelines they don't seem to have been warned about yet. Narky Blert (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Randomly inserting "tel" into edit windows is a feature of some software, mainly on mobile devices. See VPT archive. Such a link should never be in an article (unless illustrating "tel"). It's tough to blame the user for what the stupid software on their device is doing, but we can't block Apple or Google and disruption has to stop. @Animaljamfan123: Sorry but you must not save an edit with one of these bogus changes. Click "show changes" before publishing/saving so you can see what has happened. Repeated disruption will lead to blocks because there is no other way to prevent ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the end of the day an editor is responsible for all edits made under their account, even if they have automated software that does that (I’d fall short of saying it’s bot tool editing). If they have software that does such formatting then it’s their responsibility to turn it off, edit differently or remove it each time. And if this cannot be done, then they cannot edit. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist edit summary

    Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please refer to this. Seloloving (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revision-deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nothing901

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

    User:Nothing901-Addition of unsourced content after 4th warning.----Rdp060707|talk 07:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    82.132.216.21

    HMMMM
    Reported IP has not edited since this report. More questions than answers. Not going to be answered here though... ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    82.132.216.21-Addition of unsourced content after 4th warning.----Rdp060707|talk 08:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you a sockpuppet of Drill it (talk · contribs), Rdp060707? Also see this thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In case I'm not the only one who is confused, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Darkwarriorblake

    Left an extremely rude and abusive post on my page. Really disgusting and not in Wikipedia spirit Urgeback (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've corrected the name of the reported user. Urgeback, you are required to notify Darkwarriorblake as per the instructions at the top of this page. I've done that for you. In addition, you should have included a diff of the offensive post. It's pretty easy; it's this one, and it is indeed out of line. The context is an edit war between the two users at Ghostbusters, which I have not examined.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was edit warring over sourced content. Rather than admit that they were completely wrong or apologize, they've run here looking for the intervention of a higher power. Not sure what else needs to be said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what needs to be said, Darkwarriorblake: Even if that is so, that doesn't give you some magical exemption from the No personal attacks policy. Take this as a formal warning. Please don't do it again. El_C 14:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 , I glanced at it. Article talk page discussion of the dispute = 0. I've fully protected for 3 days. El_C 14:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think full protection is necessary. The disputed information is unequivocally correct and demonstrably so, no more edit warring should be taking place. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The full protection is intended to get you to start discussing at the article talk. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC

    It does not give you the right to right rude and abusive comments no matter how right you think you are? You think I’m going to apologise after what you wrote on my page? You are the one who should apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgeback (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor not communicating

    Pagwghd33 (talk · contribs) - I left them a message earlier asking them to start leaving edit summaries and communicate with editors but since then they’ve made several more edits with no summaries and no reply to me. SK2242 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two possibilities: He's either unaware that he's being contacted (techno or WP:CIR issues) or he's willingly ignoring the messages. The latter would warrant a block, to get his attention. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to leave an edit summary, so I'm extremely against blocking someone just for not leaving edit summaries. That being said, it many cases it's impossible for other editors to understand the reasoning behind the edit without one so they're super strongly encouraged. Canterbury Tail talk 17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lad's been on the 'pedia since July 25, 2021. Likely time, somebody got his attention. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries not necessary but if the user isn't communicating likely there's an actual problem in their edits, somewhere, that cannot be remedied due to lack of comms ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw all the bot/template junk on his talk (User talk:Pagwghd33) possibly a reason for the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blindsocialist: not here to build an encyclopedia

    CLOSED (WITHDRAWN)
    Resolved and withdraw, with our thanks to those who provided guidance and advice. Rev-del things rev-del'd. (non-admin closure) St★lwart111 02:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has made 81 edits to the page Angela Rye and no edits to any other page, including the very same type of disparaging/controversial information that the user has been making on this Internet forum link redacted over the past few days. Initially, most of it was unsourced and removed by me, while issuing warning on the user's talk page. Those warnings have been ignored, and now I see that the user is including external links in the article body to questionable sources. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnnie Bob: A quick sample of user's edits did not disclose a problem. Please provide dif's for problematic edits. I see one place where Blindsocialist responded collegially to your concern. Clarifications all around would be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @johnniebob-- new to editing and have tried with all due diligence to provide sources and links to all of my edits. I see your complaint about the links but those were, in all earnest, my attempts to source my edits. I'm not interested in editing any other pages at this moment. Is that a bad thing? The Angela Rye page is 1) outdated 2) was originally authored by herself and her publicist (with multiple links to her personal site and publicity) and thus is promotional in nature and misleading. Blindsocialist (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Blindsocialist[reply]
    @Johnnie Bob: per WP:OUTING I have removed the link to an internet forum as Blindsocialist doesn't seem to have shared this link on-wiki. Can an admin revdel it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra:, @Alexis Jazz:, @Blindsocialist:, based on your responses, my complaint is clearly without merit. My apologies to all. The complaint is WITHDRAWN. Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnnie Bob, just noting for the record that I haven't investigated Blindsocialist's edits (beyond checking if they had shared that link on-wiki) and haven't really looked into the link that was provided nor checked if there's any relation between the two, though I did notice that the information from the link seemed much older than the stated "the last few days". I'm just following WP:OUTING. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Will revdel unless Primefac or someone beats me to it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mundong Earth

    SOCK BLOCKED
    Mundong Earth has been {{checkuserblock-account}}'d indefinitely by ST47. Many thanks for the report ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unlinked names without explanation in List of former Star Magic artists. Disruptive edits in Juddha Paolo. Added an image to the article depicting an unknown private person. Already tagged the image for speedy deletion in Commons. Carl Francis (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Help undo a complicated messing with a disambig page by a noob

    Sorted out by Malcolmxl5. FYI, histsplits like this can be handled at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, I believe. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Chris_Baker_and_Christopher_Baker

    Basically a noob overwrote a disambig page and then moved it under another title. We decided that we need two admin actions:

    • Split page history and put its top part into the draft space
    • Revert the move.

    I didn't find a good place in "Page handling" list of options: they are for actions of a single type. Please help or advise. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ll take a look at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Malcolmxl5 - I've dealt with things like this a lot. Let me know if you need my help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oshwah, we’re sorted: the dab page is back at Christopher Baker; Chris Baker is a redirect to the dab page; the attempted article is at Draft:Christopher R. Baker and I’ve left a message for Ragnarok861 to let them know that I’ve moved his edits to draftspace (I don’t understand why his talk page is all in bold text though). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A stray '<b>' when he colored his signature [136]. Fixed [137]; pls revert if I overstepped. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fine by me. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no crime, hear no crime... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This same thing happened with Mirikitani. Someone basically hijacked it to write a promotional article about some non-notable businessperson. I guess that's the new spammer technique. ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Malcolmxl5 - Cool deal! Glad it got sorted out. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Flyer22 Frozen SPI opened by Kolya Butternut

    Further discussion at this time would clearly be counterproductive. ArbCom representatives have said that a statement is forthcoming. As my grandmother used to say: "Patience is a virtue." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For reasons that make no sense to me Kolya Butternut has opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flyer22 Frozen. The alleged evidence is from 2012. IMHO this needs eyes on it ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The link you presented is a dead link.CycoMa (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this and was curious about it myself; it was surprising, and I assumed that the statement "Behavioral evidence and off-wiki evidence that Flyer22 is alive have been submitted to Arbcom" would be followed with additional information/evidence. If such evidence has been submitted to Arbcom, I would would expect that an Arbcom member would move forward with the appropriate action, if any. Perhaps the mention of 2012 evidence was intended to establish that there appears to be a history of (alleged/suspected) sockpuppetry. In any case, it seems like a pretty heavy allegation to make without someone from arbcom with access to the evidence weighing in. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this investigation is being done based on private evidence then it should not be posted on-wiki. Arbcom has access to checkuser tools, I see no point in posting on SPI and on the user's talk page if this is based on private evidence. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the accounts at the SPI were blocked by Risker back in April. R has not edited for several days so I will leave a message pointing to this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An administrator has deleted the SPI to refer it to arbcom. I support this action. If the investigation is based on private evidence then it should take place in private. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm discussing with the administrator/Checkuser who deleted the SPI. It was not an improper SPI. I have personally blocked most of the accounts mentioned in the SPI, and had extensive discussion with Arbcom about that (non-public) investigation months ago, after which I blocked the accounts in accord with Arbcom's instructions. Risker (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting I'm aware of this thread, and that I deleted the SPI as it seemed to be something Arbcom was dealing with privately. The ramifications of any outcome of that SPI would need to be handled carefully. No history has been lost, any admin is able to view the deleted content and if needs be the SPI can be restored. I'd welcome a statement/update from Arbcom regarding the situation ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SandyGeorgia: as stated above, the deletion of the SPI was solely due to the specific claim that "off-wiki evidence [... has] been submitted to Arbcom" and the overall sensitive nature of the allegations. I absolutely do not want to be seen to be brushing away the efforts of editors to investigate such a claim, nor do I want this not to be investigated. To the contrary, I absolutely must insist that ArbCom respond to this situation promptly, if for no other reason than to justify (or overturn) my interim action of deleting the SPI ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      TheresNoTime, I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but from my perspective you absolutely did the right thing. There is nothing about this situation that needs to be discussed publicly, and as in any case involving editor privacy, it's better to be safe than sorry. – bradv🍁 04:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      TNT, I did not mean for my post to sound like criticism of your action in such a sensitive situation, and I am sorry if it did. This, on the other hand, seems uncalled for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) PS: I have not seen the SPI; only the post I linked above, and Risker’s post, both of which point towards a legitimate, good-faith filing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The filing may be in good faith and I think MarnetteD could have been better in the wording of their replies, but I think we should remember why there is so much concern. Accusing an editor of what's being claimed here is IMO one of the most serious accusations you can make that relate to Wikipedia. Acting in good faith especially in a case like this doesn't override the tremendous hurt you can cause by being wrong, it just means we generally don't want to sanction you for it. I'm not saying an editor should ignore it if they feel there is sufficient evidence, but considering the ramifications of them being wrong, they should seriously consider if there's a better approach, like keeping it off wiki. And whatever arbcom's failings, and acknowledging I haven't seen the case instead just looked at the accounts accused, I fail to see why it would be so urgent for a resolution even if you're understandably unhappy about it being nearly 4 months without any visible action. Despite being a BLP hawk, I personally feel it's generally the wrong framework for stuff related to on-wiki handling of an editor's onwiki activity. But in this case, I think it does provide the necessary guidance. Especially since the editor has a family member occasionally active here. I don't think "sorry I accused your deceased sibling, and you, of what I accused them and you of" really cuts it if it turns you're wrong. There is simply no apology that does. Noting even without this, we really have no idea whether or when a family member may check out an editor's talk page, so we always should take the utmost care. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nil Einne, ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public. – bradv🍁 05:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the clarification. In that case there's not much more I can say given there's still a lot which is intentionally not public and I don't feel it's helpful to speculate on the possibilities except: for those who were aware of at least come of the background, I strongly feel making this public on-wiki was the wrong way to handle it whatever you knew or suspected and felt about how things had been handled. (To be clear, this isn't a comment on Risker who while I may not agree with all they've said, I understand is in a difficult position.) In other words, personally I would have preferred to just leave this with whatever arbcom had decided although it seems that may be tricky now. If Kolya Butternut wasn't aware of any of this, my earlier comment IMO still applies but putting aside the human issue, this also demonstrates the risk of their approach namely they've evidently unintentionally opened a large can of worms. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I provided new evidence of continued socking, and more off-wiki evidence. The past decision was on past evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the accused, I'm putting this here for others' viewing. The one editor above who says the evidence is compelling because of a pile of sources I listed has left me confused. Others talked about listing a pile, but they didn't, so I did, and it's not as big a pile as the piles an editor listed at Talk:Sex and gender distinction. That editor also used colons before presenting their sources, indentation, and bullet points. Our listing of sources don't look like how Flyer22 Frozen usually listed hers. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, defenses like these for sockpuppetry are not meaningful, because by indicating that you know that something was identifying you are also indicating that if you were a sockpuppet you would have changed it. This is, broadly, one reason WP:SPI doesn't require and even sometimes discourages notifications, since outside of rare situations where you shared a computer or connection with someone else or something there is little defense required against an SPI accusation - either the evidence is there or it is not. Most of the time the best thing to do is simply ignore it until / unless you actually get blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear based on the diffs and comment presented by Newimpartial in that link what they thought identified the editor as a sock. And it makes sense to note that a sockpuppet would change some aspect of their style so as not to be noticed. Crossroads -talk- 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is like an episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order. EEng 03:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng: to whom are you referring to in your edit summary? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ham Burger [138]. For the record: all joking aside, this is very much the sort of thing that needs careful handling, in private (at least until more facts are known). EEng 04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, pitchforks down, my apologies! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we have previously afforded WP:BLP protections to editors before; in any case, we should. I can not fathom why anyone would ever do what is being alleged. So, in my opinion, until ArbCom declares that it is true, it is best that these allegations not be aired or discussed in public. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, this should be closed and archived at minimum if not revdelled. I also find the suggestion that Flyer22 did such an elaborate scheme with no actual benefit in return deeply implausible. Crossroads -talk- 04:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with those who support keeping this offwiki for now. While some of the available evidence is on-wiki, it seems some of it must be private. Let's give arbcom a chance, I'm sure once they've reached a conclusion they will make a statement and we can consider what to do on-wiki. I appreciate it sounds like it's been a while since some oddities were first noticed but I assume the length of time without anything is because of the complexity and sensitivity of the case. Notably, in any case based on behavioural evidence, the possibility of some sort of false flag operation is always there. In most cases, the chances of this compared to the greater likelihood of ducks or horses may mean it's not something we worry about a great deal. In this case, either possibility is troubling enough that both seem to be zebras. So really we need that private evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be kept on-wiki and the SPI be restored. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Because ... ? EEng 04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Because Arbcom has had (almost all of) the evidence for five months? As I have noted elsewhere, my blocks of several of the accounts named in the SPI were done the way Arbcom told me to do them. I get that Arbcom wants to not inflame things, but to be honest I'm not sure being risk-averse to this level is really helpful. It was inevitable that this was going to wind up onwiki at some point; I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long. Risker (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC) NOTE: to be more specific, the SPI doesn't need to be named what it was originally named; it could be named for the first identifiable sock. Risker (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether the investigation is private or public, it appears to be time for ArbCom to address this publicly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Given arbcom is in possession of the private information and we are not then they are probably in a better position to decide that than any of us. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And this is exactly why we should not be doing this on-wiki right now. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I put in my defense above us. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has gone on far too long and gotten far too out of hand. Kolya_Butternut needs to be blocked, and subjected to both a topic-ban from Flyer22 and an interaction-ban from her brother Halo_Jerk1, to remain in force indefinitely should KB be unblocked. We're deep into harassment territory now and it needs to end immediately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I still don't want to be "involved", and still don't have a theory of the case. But I'm having trouble holding in the fact that seems obvious to me, that given the knowns and unknowns in this case humanist metaphysics fails as a way of approaching it and leads to entrenched, value-laden positions on "both sides" that don't help understand the situation, much less resolve it. While this is "interesting" as a kind of phenomenological experiment on the editing community, I see a lot of hurt being done, and I really hope ArbCom is able to take measures this time that are based on more modest underlying assumptions and that are more effective in futureproofing the community than what seems to have been done so far. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Let ARBCOM do their work. That they have taken 5 months so far is neither here nor there. Editors need to be patient. The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. Mjroots (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is upsetting. I gotta admit that it is a bit of a hmm that it's been taking ArbCom 5 months to, what, verify a real person? Are ArbCom that overworked? Do we need for the WMF to hire them professional help of some kind (researchers/investigators)? Was this SPI-leak-of-attention a protest against this delay? Not rhetorical questions. El_C 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, okay, if you see the person Bradv tell him he's not leaving jail, either, alright? El_C 15:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very serious accusation, one that should be backed with serious evidence. Making the accusation onwiki with no evidence (including if the evidence cannot be provided onwiki) is effectively aspersion-casting, as nobody else can determine the validity of the claims. But if ArbCom has been sitting on it for 5 months, then perhaps a discussion needs to be had about how much of the situation, if any, may be discussed onwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then could the SPI be reopened so that I may have the opportunity to present select on-wiki evidence to show that the case has merit? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Speaking only for myself: "it" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in my opinion, in the various places that says ArbCom has been sitting on it. ArbCom received a private SPI and agreed with the evidence that suggested those editors were meat or sock puppets of each other. They got blocked. After a thorough investigation we decided there was insufficient evidence to name a sockmaster. That happened 5 months ago. More recently there was a suggestion of some new sock or meat puppets which has been under discussion. Speaking only for myself it was not, again in my personal opinion, nearly as strong as the evidence we'd received initially. And even more recently, as in basically simultaneous with the public SPI, there was an extensive amount of new evidence sent to us.
    Everything about these allegations, whether true or not, to cause real hurt to individual editors and harm to our community. We see that in this very thread. What I have tried to do as an arbitrator with this incident, and what I see my fellow arbitrators trying to do even when we disagree, is uphold community policies around things like SOCK and DOXING while also upholding community norms around things like transparency. As Bradv said above, "ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader, if I'm following correctly, Bradv is saying that arbcom finished its investigation/made a decision, and that the person(s) who had presented the original evidence didn't agree with that decision. KB is saying there's new evidence, presumably gathered after that decision was made. I'm thinking KB presented that evidence to arbcom, who said, "no, we aren't going to keep opening new investigations every time you find another diff" and KB decided it would be helpful to make this public. And so here we are. —valereee (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above this is basically correct except we are still discussing recent evidence presented to us (which we had communicated to KB) and the most recent evidence came with the decision to go public. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this discussion should be closed down and ArbCom left to get on with it. Personally I find this attempt to prove that FF is still alive and faking her death appalling and know that it will be hurtful to her family. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: the interpretation provided by DW is far from being the only one that would make new evidence relevant to ArbCom. It is also most certainly not my interpretation of events (which I have formed at a considerable remove). Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: which I have formed at a considerable remove — Eep. Not sure just repeating that is gonna convince folks that this is so. I agree with Doug Weller, btw. If you have further evidence [email protected] is that-a-way. Why is this even being discussed publicly? El_C 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kolya Butternut, please explain why you didn't send ArbCom the evidence privately seeing as it involves a (presumably) recently-deceased editor? El_C 18:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on the questioning of my remove, I'd say that six months of not acting on, and trying not to consciously reflect on, these issues for more than six months counts as considerable remove compared to the statements and actions of others. Of course, perspectives inevitably differ. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that, like Flyer22, your main focus on the project has been largely WP:GENSEX in nature (in the opposite camp, lest we forget), so these qualifications, well, they sort of ring hollow. But sure, whatever, this item is a distraction now, anyway. El_C 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason, you seem less aware of my months of category-gnoming and listbuilding, quite unrelated to GENSEX, or my work in WP:N policy development, all during the last year. Largely seems yo be doing quite a bit of work for you here. But whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, for some reason, please stop. El_C 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're planning on giving me an IBAN again? Because the one you gave me last time was not especially merited, as I believe you understood by the time you finally removed it. 19:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    *sigh* El_C 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would also seem ironic to me were I to face sanctions the same week I received more Talk page death threats than ever I have before. But you do you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, stop tarnishing the legacy of the great Kit Duncan! El_C 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm also not Flyer22 Frozen. Do I have to sacrifice my anonymity to prove it? I don't think I look anything like Nowearskirts.[139] I don't think taking an interest in an area Flyer22 Frozen took an interest in and rvting an editor means I should be caught up in this. I can glean she made long posts, and I made a few at a page,[140] but so did EvgFakka, and EvgFakka shares more page history with Flyer22 Frozen at the moment. (I looked when researching these accusations.) Because she was in those areas, EvgFakka and I are going to share page history with her. When I look at the people Kolya Butternut singled out (myself, New Sheriff in Town, Earth's gate, and Nowearskirts),[141][142][143][144] I find the weakest evidence. I can find no evidence. And I assume New Sheriff in Town and Earth's gate were checked back in April. I've also likely been checked by now.
    I would suggest someone contact Flyer22 Frozen's brother, but it looks like he saw this coming and has been through the ringer. The posts on his talk page give an indication he was recently trolled and reveal that Flyer22 Frozen had a line of stalkers who followed her to pages.[145] Doing my own research, I now understand why the user who filed the ArbCom case against Flyer22 Frozen posted to my talk page and to Nowearskirts's talk page.[146][147] The people making these claims apparently held a grudge against the deceased party, and I think there's some cause for concern about bad-faith coordination between these parties. From what I glean from the brother's talk page and SMcCandlish's post in this discussion, Crossroads and SMcCandlish know things we don't. The brother brought up Wikipediocracy. If they also investigated this, what happened there? Including me in this report is a severe disservice to me because now I'm under a cloud of unwarranted suspicion and maybe always will be, which looks like the intended result. Please sort it. GBFEE (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone doubting that something really weird is going on here, I think GBFEE's above comment should prove it, for reasons that I hope are obvious to anyone who's read their fair share of sockpuppetry denials. I won't speculate as to who exactly is behind their account, but there is a 0% chance that it isn't someone already well-known in the GENSEX topic area.
    I think the best thing that could happen right now is for an arb to close this discussion, with the understanding that if ArbCom resolves to not act on the latest round of evidence, there will be a public SPI for anything that can be shown on-wiki—per Risker, not under Flyer22's name, but rather under the name of the oldest known sock. Someone is here to push a vendetta, and something needs to be done about it, whomever they are. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no words. So the best thing for me to do is to not defend myself, which was the advice given to Nowearskirts?[148] I spent nearly three hours reviewing what I could, reading up on ArbCom, etc. and etc., before I finally decided to reply. Checking and blocks were brought up for this case. After reviewing what checking meant, I thought it was pertinent to point out that two of the older accounts Kolya Butternut singled out weren't blocked and that, if the replies from two of the ArbCom members is anything to go on, I've also probably been checked. If a check isn't going to clear me, then it would seem the only thing left is for me to hand over my ID. Unless it's absolutely required, I'm not responding in this discussion again. GBFEE (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If any admin/CU/arb is curious as to why I'm so certain you are a sock of someone, they are welcome to email me. But I doubt I need to spell it out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think that since the cat is out of the bag, it would be useful to just have a basic statement of the facts, which seem to be, at this point, roughly - there is (or was, since current sockpuppet investigations are still being investigated) someone socking using Flyer22's editing style, but it is possible, perhaps even probable, that this is a joe-job. Either way, though, we do have a recurring sockpuppet we need to deal with, and regardless of who they are anyone who falls into that sock's editing pattern well enough to be a WP:DUCK needs to be blocked. Given that, I feel like we should have a (much more cautiously-worded) SPI stating these facts, under a different title, so editors know where and how to report sightings of that serial sockpuppet without it devolving into, well, this. It could instruct anyone who finds information about the sockmaster to hand it privately to ArbCom. Then ArbCom can continue to look at whatever evidence is handed to them, if they feel it justifies another look. This seems to me to be what Risker suggested above. Regardless of ArbCom's conclusions on the latter point it is clear at this point that someone is doing something that needs to be shut down - if we assume that it's a joe-job and agree to treat it as one unless ArbCom says otherwise, then that only makes catching the sockpuppet more pressing. Speaking as someone who does edit in this topic area and is therefore likely to run across the sockpuppet eventually if they keep up, I'd prefer to have a more standard way to report them, even if it comes with some warnings about being cautious in terms of not assuming who they are - lacking an SPI casepage is a huge impedance to dealing with a sockpuppet because it makes it harder to track long-term behavioral information, timelines, etc, all of which are key parts of making an SPI case and deciding whether I am convinced enough that someone is a sockpuppet to make such a case in the first place. I've seen huge amounts of time wasted at eg. Race and intelligence dealing with recurring socks and I don't want to find editors wasting similar amounts of time arguing with a sock that may just be here to play us all as part of some ridiculous scheme. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion should be closed and revdeletedd with a very strong warning that continued public discussion will result in site bans - this is not suitable for discussion in public owing to the privacy and outing concerns and should be left to Arbcom and/or T&S.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question If what Bradv says is correct, and "ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public.", why haven't those trying to make it public been blocked yet? Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know about you, but I'm definitely considering it. For better or worse, though, I wanted to give Kolya Butternut a chance to respond to my query first. El_C 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like I'm getting mixed messages about what I may have done wrong. I feel like I don't know how to defend myself if I am not permitted to discuss even the on-wiki evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you didn't (if so) contact ArbCom privately first was...? The redacted version will do. El_C 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed them the names of two new sockpuppets and asked if they needed more evidence that Flyer22 is alive and socking. They asked me for evidence, and I posted an SPI (of three new-to-me sockpuppets, many new IPs, and the previous alleged sockpuppets) at the same time as emailing them the evidence. I am not aware of on-wiki evidence ever being confidential, but out of an abundance of caution I did not present any publicly, and I wrote that I would let Arbcom decide which evidence in this sensitive case should be made public. Risker said that it was an appropriate SPI.[149] From what ProcrastinatingReader said, it sounds like I should have provided on-wiki evidence. If that was the mistake I can still provide on-wiki evidence to show that the SPI has merit. I'm sorry but I have to step away from the computer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, let me get it right: rather than reply to ArbCom's email that requested further evidence, you saw fit to publish said evidence on-wiki. I don't even know what to say to that. El_C 19:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really saying what to do from here, only that one cannot make an allegation, especially of this severity, without evidence. If it's not possible to make it onwiki with evidence (perhaps because giving evidence publicly would violate our policies, such as those on doxing) then the comment can't be made onwiki at all.
    You don't necessarily need a master in mind to make an SPI report, and unless you have the evidence to show for it I'd personally not have named a master at all in such a case (unless the nature of the evidence requires it, I suppose, but then you have a conundrum). If you do name one, especially when the master is an editor believed to be deceased and thus unable to defend themselves, you should be very sure of your conclusions, because the implication is that an editor lied about their death (a pretty serious charge if true). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a bad idea to provide any onwiki evidence when Arbcom just got that evidence and there's good reason to believe it should be private. I have to say it's kind of mind-blowing that anyone would think it was okay to publicly accuse someone of faking their own death in order to sock simply because after arbcom didn't decide in your favor last time. I cannot figure out what made you think it was a good idea to send this to arbcom and SPI simultaneously. —valereee (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's my point really. At this point, it actually doesn't matter whether the claim in the SPI is true or not, it's the concept of posting it on-wiki that was the issue, which was, at the very least, a monumental act of insensitivity. As Risker said "I am not saying definitively that there is only one answer here, mind you", and she is absolutely right. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If "gender-related issues" is really this nasty a topic area, perhaps we need to consider an Israel-Palestine General Prohibition on non-ECP editors. Or at least ECP a few foundational terms such as gender. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support. I do not know enough about this specific case to comment on it - nor do I want to. However, I strongly feel that no -phobic muck has any place on WP unless supported by RS as a named person's opinion. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As my computer stopped working a short time after opening this thread I have not been able to reply. I saw the SPI notice placed on Flyer 22's talk page and when I checked the report the only on wiki evidence presented was about a block in 2012. IMO the claim as it stood was offensive and amounted to WP:GRAVEDANCING. Considering the situation my responses were more restrained than they might have been. If this happened to any other editor who had been listed as deceased I would do the same out of respect for their memory. As I mentioned if I am wrong (which will be a sick at heart situation) I will most certainly be apologizing to all involved. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Minor edits

    Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was first notified about their tendency to mark major edits as "minor" in March 2019.[150] I sent them another notice in April.[151] They have since continued this tendency.[152][153][154][155][156][157] KyleJoantalk 04:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really worth an ANI? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my personal opinion. Is there a particular administrative action you want performed here @KyleJoan:? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Vjmlhds should not be permitted to mark any edits as "minor". They've misused the minor edit box for long enough. KyleJoantalk 04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every single edit needs a long drawn out disseration in the summary. If I make a major edit, I always explain why. But not every single edit IS a major edit. We're getting into hair splitting territory here. Redoing, half the article - yeah, that's a major edit and needs an explanation. A tweak here or there that doesn't really change the core of the article - not so much. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And something else again...isn't it kinda strange that KyleJoan has been going over my contributions with a fine tooth comb, making a list, and finding little nits to pick about? Wouldn't that be WP:Hounding? Vjmlhds (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of these edits **are** minor. Adding one sentence? Moving some paragraphs around? This isn't an "incident". Please don't drag people to ANI over claims that edits like this shouldn't be marked minor. ST47 (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That particular edit added two unsourced claims to the lede, that "AEW has a partnership" with Impact Wrestling, and that "Impact Wrestling [was] known as Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) from 2005 to 2008." A small change, but not a minor revision. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators don't have a "take away the minor edit checkbox" button. As far as I know there has never been a community ban from using the minor edit flag. I suspect the reason for this is that so far nobody has cared enough about this sort of thing. I don't see any attempt at deception in any of those edits. I don't think this is a serious misuse and I don't think there is anything to be done about it here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know. Thank you for the clarification! In that case, I'll be sure to check the minor edit box more. KyleJoantalk 05:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you are not being deceptive with it or engaging in serious misuse then have a great time with it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A pedant writes - WP:MINOR begins "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Adding sentences and moving paragraphs around are not minor edits. Narky Blert (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Collaboration is required. Thanks to Vjmlhds for responding here, but their "Is this really worth an ANI?" shows a disregard for WP:MINOR and a disregard for another editor who has made a reasonable request. HighInBC doesn't mind but others, including myself, do. No doubt there is some method to how Vjmlhds is (mis)using minor but having a personal rule is not collaborative and should be corrected. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of the cited diffs are adding new sections to articles, which is quite far from "superficial differences". The AN/I issue here is not the instances of misuse, it's the ignoring of two notifications that link to a page which clearly says "What not to mark as minor changes: Adding or removing content in an article". Unlike the lack of edit summaries, it takes more effort to click the minor box than it does to not. CMD (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If another administrator feels this is actionable, then by all means go ahead. I will bow out. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make everyone's life easy. I'll make more of a concerted effort to be more detailed in the edit summaries. As I said before, there was no intent at skullduggery, It's just that I felt that some of my edits weren't that big of a deal enough to go through all the production of doing a big write-up in the edit summary (and it's not like I never write edit summaries, I do so quite often in fact), but if you want me to do more, fair enough, I'll make the effort to do so. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ticking the minor edits box is a deliberate action meant to notify other editors that your edits comply with the description given in WP:MINOR and quoted by User:Narky Blert. Vjmlhds has ignored warnings and shown a lack of good faith. Although it's good practice and something everyone should do to add edit summaries when they make a non-minor edit, that's not required. I've blocked editors before for marking all their edits minor (making it clear that all they need to get unblocked is to show they understand WP:Minor), and either that or a simple ban from using the box would be appropriate if this continues. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Vjmlhds understands the point of this report... KyleJoantalk 12:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then enlighten me, what is the point? Do you have a personal grudge against me where you're looking to get me blocked/banned?. I already said I'd make an effort be pay more attention what is/isn't a minor edit, what more do you want...my head on a stake? Vjmlhds (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be confusion here about the interaction of minor edits and edit summaries. The two are separate actions, an edit lacking an edit summary does not make it minor, and the presence of an edit summary does not mean the edit is major. The issue that was raised in the talkpage notifications and here relates to the minor edit button, not to edit summary usage (although that is good too). CMD (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: I don't disagree with this at all. Sorry if what I said wasn't clear. My point is that it's a voluntary action to tick the minor edit box, when doing that you are meant to be confirming that the edit complies with WP:MINOR]]. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with your point fully. CMD (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Which shows that the whole thing is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. As evidenced by this discussion, a couple of editors agree with me, and a couple agree with KyleJoan. KJ's issue with me seems to stem from a difference in opinion in what makes a minor edit. For the third time, if me being a little more thorough in edit summaries is what's needed to calm some people's nerves, then fine. An ANI over this particular issue just strikes me as looking for drama for the sake of drama and having a big production made out of it. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the misunderstanding persists, so to repeat in another way, this AN/I report is about the use of the minor box. It has nothing to do with edit summaries. Being a little more thorough with edit summaries has no bearing either way on the issue raised. CMD (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):@Vjmlhds: no, what you need to do is to not tick the minor edit box unless the edit complies with what WP:MINOR says. You don't appear to agree with that. And I'm not sure who here agrees that your use of the minor edit tick box is correct. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You know the cold hard truth...I didn't even know there was a such thing as WP:Minor until this discussion. That is because of another cold hard truth...NO ONE reads/knows about every single WP:This or WP:That before they start editing - they just start editing and figure things out as they go. People go on Wikipedia as a hobby, and like most hobbies, you don't go into it thinking you have to memorize 8 million regulations - when that happens it stops becoming a hobby, and starts becoming a chore. Now that I've seen WP:Minor, I know the ground rules and will abide by them, but to go to all these lengths over something like this is WAY above and beyond what the situation called for...I mean really. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems a little disingenuous. No-one is expecting you to understand every policy from your very first edit. But this is a policy that two different editors have previously explained to you clearly and concisely in messages on your talk page. Did you not read them? It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I kind of understand where KyleJoan is coming from. It's frustrating when you go to someone's talk page to remind them about X, and see that they've already been warned multiple times about X. At a certain point it starts to look like a failure to communicate. Just acknowledging these sorts of messages with a quick "Okay, got it" can go a long way. Colin M (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's this little thing called real life. Forgive me if I forgot something someone said to me on a Wiki talk page 2 months ago. But for - the 4th time - I've now read WP:Minor, I know exactly what to do, and I'll make it a point to be more conscience of it, and we can all live happily ever after. When you get right down to it, we're talking about a silly little checkmark here - this isn't world peace or Covid we're dealing with. I just don't think it needed to have all this fuss made about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it. I'll note that the tick box has a link to Help:Minor edit - I guess the trick is making sure that links get read before you tick/whatever something. Doug Weller talk
    The learning curve for WP editors is hors catégorie. (ProTip - if you print off copies of the WP:MOS and WP:GUIDELINES, try not to trip over them, and do not, under any circumstances, drop them on your foot.) The way we all learn is by other editors pointing us to rules we didn't know about. Even if you think a particular rule sucks (I could name a couple) - once you've been shown it, don't argue about it, just follow it. There will never be WP:CONSENSUS to change many long-established rules, and the only practical response is to lie back and think of your native country. Narky Blert (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor is a personal indicator of what one believes to be minor. It has equivalent functional purpose to beginning your edit summary with "minor: ...". Nobody should be sanctioned over how they use the indicator. It is a purely informative signal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't spread misinformation. The editor is being asked to follow WP:MINOR and to stop applying their personal indicator. If anyone wonders why that is so, ask what the point of "minor" would be if it meant completely different things to different people. Anyone wanting to remove "minor" should argue that point somewhere else because this section is about a very simple thing, namely collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not misinformation. WP:MINOR is an info page not vetted by consensus but that's far from the point. I don't think the minor editing functionality should be enforced by blocks. How an editor marks as minor has no effect on anyone else. The only reasonable argument that it does would be the watchlist filtering functionality, but since newbie vandals can (and do) use minor to hide their vandalism, filtering out by minor is effectively a useless feature. Plus there's cases like this with good faith disputes over 'minor'. Given that, I don't see the furore requesting action against a long-time editor in good standing for how they interpret minor. It is solely an indicator to other editors, it has no other useful purpose. It's up to the editors scrolling their watchlist to make of an editor's self-description of 'minor' what they want. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the user talk page history it looks to me like Vjmlhds simply missed the first warning because it was in the middle of a paragraph and never came back to it. I'll assume good faith on that one and call it an honest mistake. For the second one it looks like KyleJoan posted three consecutive edits prior to Vjmlhds responding. The rapid piling on of arguments and diffs, combined with the confrontative tone, is not an effective way of correcting a behavioral error. There's no deadline and article edits can be reverted, post the warning and wait for a reply.
    In my opinion Vjmlhds should perhaps have a read through WP:MINOR (and from the above discussion appears to have done so already) and no further action is necessary. MrPorpoise (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unsourced genres additions

    Already resolved by User:ToBeFree. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Despite multiple warnings on their talk page as well as personal requests from an admin to source their edits, this user continues to disruptively add unsourced genres to articles. On top of that, they have yet to make an attempt to communicate with concerned editors on their talk page regarding their problematic behaviour. Please could I ask for some assistance with this. Thank you. Robvanvee 06:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ToBeFree! Robvanvee 11:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, thanks for the report 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    103.246.39.1

    103.246.39.1. This IP continues to make unsourced edits after I give it a final warning.----Rdp060707|talk 08:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And you continue to forget that the other paragraph has no sources either.103.246.39.1 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rdp060707, you need to stop running to ANI every time you have a content dispute. In this case, I would have reverted the edit (note, you used rollback on a good-faith edit, which is against policy) and said "I can't find a source that says "Simply Irresistible" uses the same riff as "My Sharona"; indeed I've listened to the two back to back and they're not the same". (I can also say, "I've arranged My Sharona for a nine piece soul band with a full brass section, so I know exactly what the riff is", but that's just me). Context is important, otherwise you're just going to annoy people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've listened to both and they have a similar background riff. If I was there with you, I could explain this better, but it's very hard to put this in words.103.246.39.1 (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rdp060707: Did you already put an entry at WP:AIV? jp×g 11:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy about every non-vandalism report that is not added to AIV, the wrong venue for reporting good faith contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: Umm... no on above. Anyways, everyone, ok.----Rdp060707|talk 03:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted this IP again after they supported their assertion with a musicology paper. The paper does not establish anything but a coincidental connection, so it's a misinterpretation of the source to say the two songs use the same pattern, as if it were purposeful. They also use the same notes, they charted on some of the same charts, and their songs were heard by many of the same people. All unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request

    Please can somebody have a look at the farrago at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#RfC_on_adding_a_field_for_historic_county_to_the_Template:Infobox_UK_place and the following discussion?

    Summary: this infobox template appears on every page for every settlement in the UK. A field for "historic county" – a complicated and contested concept open to multiple interpretations – has been added to this template through an unpublicised RfC process that did not reach consensus, but was closed by a likely sockpuppet. This field has then been automatically populated across tens of thousands of settlement pages from a single source, started without discussion and in direct contravention of a denied bot request. With this change now established as a status quo, with misleading or straightforwardly wrong content added on a massive scale and almost impossible to undo, attempts to reach an actual consensus on the subject are being stonewalled.

    Background: this is in the context of a longstanding organised campaign by a group called the Association of British Counties[158] who exist to promote a very specific theory of the history of British counties, unsupported by most historical evidence or mainstream historical opinion. Supporters of this have been trying to get Wikipedia to reflect this theory for over a decade, see [159],[160], [161], [162], as a few examples out of scores of them, and "Wikishire",[163] their own alternative wikipedia reflecting their frustration that wikipedia doesn't follow their standpoint.

    Details:

    • An RfC was set up on the infobox template talk page,[164] by Songofachilles, but no notification was made to publicise it on any relevant talk pages or wikiprojects until five days after the RfC closed.[165] Even this single belated notification was actively resisted by the RfC starter.[166] This technique of engineering "under the radar" RfCs on this subject to avoid the involvement of other interested editors has been used by a similar group of editors pushing this subject before [167].
    • The proposal has the effect of breaking wikipedia content guidelines that have been in place for over a decade,[168] but there was not even a notification made on the guidelines' talk page.[169]
    • An attempt was made to close the RfC, by the RfC starter, after just one week.[170]
    • The RfC was then closed without notice [171] by User:Graham Shipley, for whom this was their only wikipedia edit since 2017, and whose edit history before that date suggested strong views on the matter being discussed, conveniently coinciding with those of the editor who started the RfC.[172] I make no direct accusation at Songofachilles here, but the evidence that the RfC closer is some form of WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET of an interested editor seems quite strong: it seems unlikely that a real user, having not edited wikipedia for five years, would suddenly and spontaneously pop up from nowhere to close an RfC on a infobox template talk page and then disappear again.
    • The RfC closure declared that consensus had been reached on the basis that "Around two-thirds of contributing editors supported adding a field for the historic county".[173] This is clearly not a consensus, particularly on an RfC on a relatively obscure template talk page with widespread repercussions, deliberately unpublicised anywhere else, that would overturn longstanding guidelines. If you read the RfC discussion you will see that there remained a large body of well-argued opposition from many longstanding editors.[174] you can see from subsequent discussion that this remains the case.[175]
    • User:Owain without discussion then started the automated population of this field across tens of thousands of pages with data from the single source that he/she favours,[176] despite the fact that no agreement had been reached within the RfC about what content should populate this field, and no discussion had been had about it being automatically populated. This automatic population continued even as attempts to find a consensus took place.
    • When a bot request was belatedly submitted for this automatic population this was denied on the basis that there was clearly no consensus for this content.[177] This denial was simply ignored by User:Owain who has continued populating this field at a rate of several thousand edits a day (unhelpfully flagged as "minor", despite being highly controversial).[178]
    • Despite immense effort by multiple editors over several weeks to try and find a consensus that could allow this field to be used in a way that could reflect the multiple points of view on a complex and nuanced subject, including at least six separate proposals,[179] no consensus has been reached and the editors behind the original change, having managed to establish their pov as as the staus quo across tens of thousands of settlement pages without consensus, have now declared that it's "time to move on".[180]

    Suggested next steps:

    • The over 10,000 automated edits made by User:Owain, without consensus and in direct contravention of a denied bot request, should be reverted. This has to be the priority.
    • The field that was added without consensus by engineering an under-the-radar Rfc closed by a likely sockpuppet should be removed (or maybe just hidden?) until an actual consensus can be found as to how this field should be used and whether it should exist.
    • Maybe the RfC process should be re-run, but with the widespread notifications required by the guidelines to bring in the proper range of interested and disinterested editors, and proper closure? As you can see from the multiple attempts made on the talk page, most editors involved are happy to try find a compromise here. The sheer scale of the current damage across UK settlement articles does need to be corrected though.

    Sorry if that's a bit long - it's a complicated situation! Thank you for your help. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am afraid this is a total misrepresentation of events. The original addition to the infobox had the benefit of sourcing the data directly from Wikidata. This part was removed, leaving the field to be filled-in manually. The bot request was just a courtesy on my part, as per Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser: "If you will make many or fast automated edits using AWB, you may wish to use a separate (or bot) account for that purpose". There is no requirement to use a bot account to make edits of this nature. The data added was from the reliable source that was mentioned in the original RfC, a completely uncontroversial gazetteer published by the UK Office for National Statistics, namely the Index of Place Names in Great Britain. Editors are free to add additional references if they see fit. The "several weeks to try and find a consensus" appeared to be nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to undermine the RfC. If there are any conflicting sources, this is solved in the usual method outlined by Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. It does not require weeks of bad-faith 'discussion' and then an Administrators' noticeboard incident raising! Owain (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Importing from Wikidata is a benefit? In my experience, it's riddled with errors. Narky Blert (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it was. I was very quickly able to identify a number of errors stemming from its use and questioned the method used (for example, with this diff. For clarity, initially the field was set to automatically populate on every instance of the template without users being able to access the field in any way; this has since been reverted (by Jonesey95 on 24 July) and the field now has to be added manually (or semi-manually at least). One of the biggest issues with the data is that it's complex in a minority of cases and the ways in which the data sets that are being relied upon have been built doesn't reflect this complexity. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Graham Shipley doesn't look very genuine to me. What's he got to say on the matter? Has he also been alerted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a notification on his talk page, along with everyone directly mentioned in the above, and the other main involved editors, trying to keep a balance between both sides of the substantive underlying content argument. JimmyGuano (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, so I see now. On second thoughts User:Graham Shipley may be perfectly genuine, looking at the edit history. It just seems a bit odd to not make any edits for four years and then suddenly spring up and close an RfC. A grand total of seven edits in 2017, three in 2016 and none in 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to respond to the points and the version of events that JimmyGuano sets out above and will aim to do so here as soon as I am able.—Songofachilles (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My read on this is that 1) The RFC closure is dubious, as I would think the outcome was closer to a "no consensus", !votes pretty much equally split between "adding useful information" and "avoiding bloat" (neither having a strong policy win over the other). Participation was low but I'm also seeing names of established WP editors on that so I'm not so worried about how the RFC was conducted (though yes, it should have been notified to the UK Wikiproject). But because it was closed by Graham here as a support for the addition, it made the subsequent edit request to alter the template look legit. 2) Post-RFC and everything else, it seems very clear that what needs to go in the field (if it is to be kept) needs a great deal more discussion (should this pull from Wikidata; is the ONS data accurate; that there may be multiple historic counties for a given settlement, etc.)
    Even if the RFC was a proper RFC with closure, the resulting questions that have been raised tell me that a fresh RFC really is needed there, dealing with both if there should be such a field and if so, what should it contain, with clear instructions that an uninvolved admin needs to close it. Short term, the field should be removed from the template (which will simply mask all the edits by Owain) until a more clear consensus was obtained. --Masem (t) 14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been a participant in the debate and am thus unambiguously WP:INVOLVED, nevertheless I want to recognise JimmyGuano's report as an honest, accurate and dispassionate summary of events. I do not recognise any validity in Owain's categorisation of it as "a total misrepresentation of events". Multiple errors have been pointed out in the source: Wikidata obtained it from the Office for National Statistics, which obtained it from the Historic Counties Trust. The proponents of the change have resisted sourcing from the Ordnance Survey, the national mapping agency that employs professional cartographers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Maynard Friedman This is not true. See, for instance, my comments of 28 July on the Infobox: UK place Talk page: "That said, of course I appreciate that there are other verifiable sources on the topic of the historic counties and I don’t have a problem with those being referred to as well, where appropriate" and "If a discrepancy between, say, the ONS data and the OS data for a place's Historic County is identified (and it's really only detached parts that could bring up any discrepancies): note it in the Infobox by listing the alternative and reference it" and also, for instance, my agreement to PamD's 29 July suggestion (in which they state "Perhaps we should list both the OS and ONS "historic county", sourcing each one directly in the infobox and annotating..."). Unless I missed it, nobody has an issue with any verifiable, reliable source being reported in the Infobox, nor should they.—Songofachilles (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Non-UK admins may be somewhat bemused by all this. Be aware, it is impossible to put into words just how strongly a portion of English society feels about Historic Counties: they will defend to the death the right of Rutland (less than 40,000 residents, and only one 'big' town, which is still so small that no one outside Rutland even knows it exists) to be recognised as an Independent Kingdom, exempt from occupation by the evil forces of McDonalds [181]. Meanwhile, another small portion of English society is utterly certain that those who pursue Historic Counties are all grumpy, middle-aged blokes living in the past, who can't bring themselves to accept the fact that Huntingdonshire was abolished. So live with it. And yes, Huntingdon District Council's first act after being abolished was to have their formerly-blank bin-bags printed with a pretty castellated city-symbol and the words "Huntingdonshire district council", much to everyone's amusement. But the point is: These two groups will never agree, and the remainder of English society will enjoy the battle, as one of those scenic events that happen, a bit like costumed re-enactments of the Battle of Hastings. We have had arguments about boundaries for centuries, millennia (we're secretly proud of it) and at any given time, multiple organisations have often been defining counties simultaneously in different ways; no one quite understands the whole mess, and most people don't really care. But those who do, care very much. The consequences are: (1) You can hold RFC's from now until 2031, and every single one of them will end with whichever side 'lost' claiming foul play and demanding another RFC/consultation; (2) the problem is never going to go away. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would have to agree with that summary. However the ANI is not an attempt to forum shop. It is specifically about abuses of process and should be considered in those terms only. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Elemimele I would disagree with that summary as extreme in its examples and trivialising the issue. As the person who started the initial RfC on this issue, I wouldn't defend this issue 'to the death' (you have no idea how many times I've almost lost the will to live on this since the initial RfC in June), no one (I know) claims that Rutland should be an 'independent kingdom'; just a county - which it is and, lastly, I'm not middle aged (is 30 middle aged nowadays, I don't know, might be?!) and I'm not usually grumpy except for when dealing with this issue on WP :) —Songofachilles (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Songofachilles I apologise for the tone of my summary. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that in a situation this emotive (I believe it is genuinely emotive) there is a risk of a content-dispute getting mixed up with a dispute about abuse of process, because I do not believe any consensus is possible, no matter how many RfC's are held, and I think it quite possible that individuals (few, but it only takes a few) on both sides of the debate may resort to pushing the boundaries of process, opening themselves to complaints that process has been abused, when the RfC doesn't have the outcome that their adversaries would like to see. I feel guilty saying this, because it's close to assuming bad faith, but I think unfortunately it's realistic. As I say, I'm sorry that I put it rather flippantly, and certainly didn't want to cause offence. Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I endorse Elemimele's general remarks. Don't even get me started on Todmorden, historically split between Lancashire and Yorkshire, but since 1888 solely within Yorkshire (and since 1974 West Yorkshire).
    Within living memory, you could only play for Yorkshire County Cricket Club if you'd been born in the county. This raised tricky questions about the status of people who'd been born in a place which had once been in Yorkshire but was now in Lancashire; and possibly the reverse. Dancing angels come to mind.
    Back on topic, the concerns raised by this thread worry me too. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As BAG, I would say the editing in contravention of a denied BRFA [182], and then justifying it under the premise of "semi-automated editing" (above), is concerning alone. The RfC closure here also appears dubious, not least due to the (un)suitability of an account with ~100 edits to close the RfC. Interestingly, it is that account's only edit since 2017. Whatever is going on here is concerning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, just looking at this, the closer had not edited for a long time an has very few edits, as mentioned above. This is the major issue.
    • Another supporter, User:Lookesmiley, had not edited for five years
    • Another supporter was an IP with one edit
    • Two other editors appear to be single purpose accounts purely adding historic counties to pages (i.e. [183])
    • One supporter was a very strange account which appears to have done little but comment on multiple RfCs [184]]
    • Another editor (Cosmicsqueaker) was editing for the first time in four months [185]
    • Another editor for the first time in two months. [186]
    @ProcrastinatingReader This is pure speculation/jumping to conclusions. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? I am the editor who started the RfC (the result of which has now been reverted before I even had chance to make my case on this page) and, although I am now a member of the Association of British Counties, I was not a member of it at the time I started the RfC and during the time the RfC was open for comments. I started the RfC completely at my own initiative. My membership of an interest group is personal information that I should not have to disclose here, although I feel forced to do so because of the baseless allegations being made. Even if I had been a member of ABC when bringing the RfC, or had discussed the RfC with fellow members, I fail to see what difference this would have made. Are editors who are members of interest groups forbidden from discussing the issues around that interest group on WP? Please refer me to the rule or guidance that states that, if so.—Songofachilles (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    WP:COI is rather obvious - such editing needs to be disclosed. Also, irrelevant of that, and purely FYI since you don't appear to have gone through on this, I must also note that your comments stating your were going to close an RfC which you opened and in which you commented in a substantive fashion (indicating your clear support for the proposition) are quite in breach of the usual guidelines around here - see WP:INVOLVED. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing behaviour of several commenting editors (as pointed out by Black Kite), as well as the RfC closer's, suggests to me that offwiki canvassing took place. (Note I'm not saying you had anything to do with it.) The OP says supporters of this campaign have been promoting this for a decade. The latter is a reasonable explanation for the former. I think we need to nip the issue in the bud so we don't run into similar problems again, given that institutional memory sucks. This dubious outcome shouldn't have been able to proliferate on over ten thousand articles, for over a month, before it hit ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, as it is of course often impossible to prove off-wiki canvassing, even if the results make it obvious that it's happened. There may be some socking involved (i.e. the IP), but if you look at the contribution history of a number of the accounts that mysteriously returned from a long break in editing just to opine on this RfC, they're clearly different people (i.e. 3 of them edited articles about places in 3 different areas of the UK). In the end, we clearly cannot allow a clique to make end-runs around process here through canvassing, especially in such egregious ways as this (you may not have noticed, but the result of the RfC was implemented in a manner that way exceeded its remit, even if it had closed properly as Support). How we enforce that is another question. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not a conflicted editor, as I have stated above. @RandomCanadian re. your 'purely FYI' comment, many thanks for that, but the reason I did not close the discussion myself is obviously because I both realised and had it pointed out to me by other editors that this was not the correct procedure.—Songofachilles (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been following and contributing to this wide ranging historic counties debate for several years and my pro-HC views are not in doubt. I had no role whatsoever in starting this current debate that has created the infobox field. I am not and never have been a member of the Association of British Counties or any similar group. What I have seen is a dysfunctional set of anti-HC rules and guidelines that were originally established back around 2003 by what appears to have been a relatively small group of editors who have since treated their original decision as set in stone and not to be interfered with by anyone else. Attempts at reasoned and meaningful discussion have usually been stymied. The complexities of this HC debate have assisted in making any changes difficult to accomplish. An alternative version of what has happened now is that the anti-HC group was caught off-guard and that correct procedure was indeed followed in getting the new/restored HC field put into the infobox, even if that procedure followed more closely the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. I would question whether this wider dispute is really one of those arguments to which there really are two equally valid views, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Many of the references used by the anti-HC people do not stnd up to closer inspection, even the academic works, although at first sight appear sound. That is not to question the indepence of the authors but instead the interpretation of the sources. This is complicated further by a lack of free online access to certain texts. A meaningful discussion on these sources has proven almost impossible to have but woul, I think, go a long way to overcoming the mistrust and antagonism that has become ingrained here. About this specific problem now, reverting the new HC field would be pointlessly unhelpful. Whether or not it should be reverted, it should be left in place while a bigger discussion on how to handle HCs takes place. Leaving it in place with some editors moaning and groaning at their keyboards will be no different from how things have been for many years where some other editors have been doing exactly the same. As it is now it is doing no harm: removing it now will cause harm. This wider debate must take place otherwise there will never be a situation that both sides can live with. Incidentally, JimmyGuano's comments above are loaded with subtle misrepresentions and barely disquised digs at other editors. There is no insummountable problem with the HC field, the meaning of 'historic county' or countless errors with the sources. Most of these so-called problems are spurious invention by a certain group of editors. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like the preceding one are unhelpful "muddying of the water". It however speaks as to bigger difficulties with solving this dispute because both:
      1. They are evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area (something ridiculous to have a fight over, IMHO - historical counties seem to be only ever relevant for stuff like County cricket: which is best enjoyed as a neutral from an ocean across); and
      2. They fail to assume good faith and instead dwell well into WP:ASPERSIONS territory by accusing an unspecified "anti-HC" group of censorship and misinterpretation
    • In short, as somebody previously uninvolved, I just fail to see what the previous comment is but more of the usual "much ado about nothing" and "more heat than light" that comes out of virtually every ANI thread about a wider dispute. If you have evidence against specific editors, come up with it, instead of making vague unsupported speculation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for procedure: no, the closure of the RfC was improper (the arguments that this is infobox bloat that is non-key information and doesn't need going in the infobox, especially since it can be covered appropriately in regular prose, are more convincing in terms of WP:INFOBOX; at best, this could have been closed as "no consensus"; if the discussion had lasted more time - one week is not usually enough for an RfC), and the RfC, which seemingly affects a wide number of pages, was not properly advertised, which beggars belief: this is a collaborative community, and getting more editors involved in discussions that will have far reaching impacts is certainly not a bad idea. As for the issues about the Association of British Counties or similar advocacy groups; WP:NOTADVOCACY deals with that plainly enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roger 8 Roger It is ironic that you characterise JimmyGuano's post as "loaded with subtle misrepresentions and barely disguised digs at other editors", as unfortunately, much of what you have written here is either false, or evidence-free attacks on other editors.
      • The RfC was not widely advertised, so many people without the page on their watchlists would have missed it.
      • There were a number of good-faith Supports in the RfC, but there were also a number of very suspicious Supports as listed above.
      • The RfC was then closed by an account making its first and only edit for four years, and whose editing contribution suggests an interest in historic counties.
      • The RfC was then implemented to add data automatically from Wikidata, which is not only a non-optimal idea but was not mentioned in the RfC at all. The RfC starter claimed that it did, and when it was pointed out that it didn't, tried to claim that the RfC didn't say that you couldn't do it that way.
      • User:Owain then submitted a bot requested to populate the field which ws refused. When it was refused they then proceeded to edit around 10K articles in a semi-automated way to add the parameter.
    • The result of this sequence of events, which frankly is purely disruptive, is as follows
      • The result of the RfC is vacated
      • The change to the template has been reverted
      • The semi-automated edits to add the parameter will be reverted by a bot.
    • I suggest that the small group of highly-involved "pro-HC" editors step back from this subject now, because whether they were or were not involved in the obvious canvassing and other disruption, the optics don't look good here. TL/DR: if you try to force your changes into Wikipedia by disruptive means, you make it more likely that they will not be adopted. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite Thanks for sharing your suggestion, but I won't be following it. You cannot unilaterally silence an editor or group of editors because of unfounded speculations and your view that the 'optics don't look good.' One or more good faith slip-ups in the conducting of, for instance, an RfC, should not lead to that editor or those editors being ‘cancelled’ and having to 'step back' from a subject. I have read the WP conflict of interest guidance in detail (it highlights, among other things, writing about yourself, being paid to write on subjects, etc.) and I am satisfied that there would be no conflict of interest from me continuing to engage in debate around this issue and I certainly intend to do so.
    Although I didn't ultimately get the chance to respond to @JimmyGuano's points above prior to the parameter’s deletion and the reversion of all related edits, I would only have written what I have already stated multiple times on the Talk page for the Infobox:UK place in recent weeks. Among the key points I have made there are that: 1/ The term ‘historic county’ is a defined term (namely, the 92 historic counties of the UK) by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the Index of Place Names in Great Britain (IPN), and, by extension, the UK Government; 2/ The IPN published by the ONS is a verifiable, reliable source for historic county data and one that is suitable for WP, the purpose of which is to report information published elsewhere only; 3/ The RfC, initiated in good faith, showed clear support for this field being added to the Infobox:UK place and was closed for discussion when only one additional comment had been received over the space of its final week; 4/ The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to withhold information because of the risk that readers might be confused, but to present all of the information and give readers the tools and opportunity to inform themselves, especially, as here, on the differences between things which, at first glance, seem alike but are different; 5/ Our job as editors at WP is to report from verifiable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), not to present information in a way we would like it to be presented, or believe it to be best reflected. As stated here, "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.”; 6/ The parameter itself was subject to an agreed compromise, which was that the historic county data would not be added to articles which already have the correct historic county name as a shire_county or lieutenancy; 7/ At least one of the opposing editors who has commented on this page in the past 24 hours had previously stated that they ‘accept the consensus’ that resulted from the RfC; and 8/ Notwithstanding any of the above, no one was ever opposed to multiple sources (i.e. non-ONS sources) being used and referenced, where appropriate, despite constant complaints to the contrary which have now ultimately led to the pursuing of the deletion of the parameter as a point of principle.—Songofachilles (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be having an WP:IDHT issue here. An RfC where multiple deliberate underhand methods were used to force a particular view through is most definitely not equivalent to "One or more good faith slip-ups in the conducting of, for instance, an RfC". Meanwhile, your point 5 ("Our job as editors at WP is to report from verifiable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), not to present information in a way we would like it to be presented, or believe it to be best reflected") is precisely what the editors who disrupted the RfC actually want! Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Black Kite, the only 'issue' I have is that I disagree with you. And I repeat that I do not appreciate your accusations and the conclusions you've drawn in the absence of evidence to support them. In my opinion, my point 5 is not what the editors who disrupted the RfC want, at least not all of them. But, in the commons that is WP, we are of course free to disagree :) —Songofachilles (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We may need an RFC on whether historic counties should be included in infoboxes at all. On 11 and 12 August, an IP editor added historic counties to London Borough infoxes (which use {{Infobox settlement}} for some reason) by using other parameters eg subdivision_type5= Historic county, subdivision_name5=Kent[187]. I don't know if it's a coincidence or if the same's being done in other articles. NebY (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd see that as part of the same dispute. IMO would be better to go broader still and instead look to get guidance on how to discuss historic counties in the body of articles. That will inform what mention they get in lead and infobox (if any). Articles often see historic counties only mentioned in the lead (eg Wantage).--217.32.153.153 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    Dealt with, with indication to OP to report future occurrences at AIV RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Vandalism by 147.158.160.27. Peter Ormond 💬 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to report at WP:AIV? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AIV is the correct venue - IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request to create a local account for Q28bot

    This account is my robot account. I am now in mainland China, when logging in, it will be unable to log in because the IP address is banned locally.--q28 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats not possible, I am afraid. While WP:ACC can create completely new accounts, its not possible to create a local account for an already existing global one (with the exception of certain WMF staff that has a username/password combination for the database system behind Wikipedia). What could be done theoreticall though is that the block is (very temporarely) lifted to allow the bot to log in locally. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Victor Schmidt: That's not true, see mw:Help:Extension:CentralAuth/CreateLocalAccount * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, didn't knwo that was a thing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would urge caution allowing this user a bot account. He has been disruptive here and has been blocked on Chinese Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 16:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Theologian81sp, block evasion and righting great wrongs

    Theologian81sp (talk · contribs) is an Italian user with very strong views, in particular on the topics of Freemasonry and satanism, which he considers to be one and the same. For example, see this Teahouse thread, with statements like "...since the Freemasonry is the Synagogue of Satan" and some rather convoluted reasoning about Pope Francis being a Freemason because the 2016 earthquake in central Italy was really a human sacrifice to Satan (!).

    Theologian81sp has had two previous accounts, Micheledisaveriosp (talk · contribs) and Philosopher81sp (talk · contribs), which he acknowledged here. Both previous accounts are globally locked for cross-wiki spam/POV pushing and personal attacks. Theologian81sp was blocked by Nick Moyes on 11 July, following a Teahouse thread with the title Are some WP users representative of the Satanist Freemasonry?. While it was a sockpuppet block, the WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW vibes were so strong that it would probably just have been a matter of time before Theologian81sp was blocked for disruption. As Nick Moyes points out, this is somebody who probably edits in good faith, but a combination of very strong convictions and an uncertain grasp of English means that English Wikipedia is not a very good fit for him. Both his previous accounts were blocked at it.wp.

    Since his block a month ago, Theologian81sp has edited en.wp almost every other day, hopping between IPs. Some edits are fairly constructive, but many are not. On 21 July, I posted a message on the talk page of the IP he was using that day, which he replied to, see User talk:84.223.68.239. In his subsequent block appeal and the following discussion on his user talk page, he said that he felt he had "no other choice than contributing to a good number of articles" without logging in. In that user talk page section I started listing the IPs he had been using to evade his block up to that point, and a couple of other editors have also contributed IP addresses used for block evasion. It would be a pretty long list by now, but it boils down to these ranges: 78.14.138.*, 78.14.139.*, 84.223.*.*, and 94.38.23*.*. A few examples:

    some diffs
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Would it be possible to rangeblock Theologian81sp, or are the ranges too broad? I have been playing whack-a-mole with the IPs, but it is not really a long-term solution. --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is utterly incompatible with Wikipedia and an administrator skilled at IP rangeblocks needs to do their best to contain the damage. I lack those skills. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We could start with 78.14.138.0/24 and 78.14.139.0/24, if someone is able to recognise Theologian81sp IP edits and make a judgement on whether there is collateral damage. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect 94.38.232.0/21 (or 94.38.234.0/23 and 94.38.236.0/22) will do the job for 94.38.23*.* though again someone should make a judgement on collateral damage. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    84.223.*.* would be a /16 and likely too large. A list of IP addresses used might help to find narrower ranges. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: I'll compile a list tomorrow. --bonadea contributions talk 22:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this won't be necessary, thankfully – see my comment below. --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think a logged community ban is needed for this editor. Canterbury Tail talk 20:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bunch of spot checks on the IPsocks I have reverted before, and other IPs used by Theologian86sp, and I think the rangeblocks placed by ST47 on 78.14.138.0/23, 84.223.68.0/23, and 94.38.232.0/21 will be enough. (Thanks, ST47!) I thought T86sp had been using a wider variety of 84.223.x.x IPs, but it looks like I was wrong about that, and I'm reasonably certain that all edits from Special:Contributions/84.223.68.0/23 were made by him, at least as far back as from the beginning of 2021. Discovering the preference that makes it possible to search for contributions from an IP range made this a lot easier to check! --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't he locked now? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Community-ban proposal (Theologian81sp)

    Canterbury Tail I've taken a look at this and I agree with your assessment:

    Proposal: per the above; due to persistent block evasion and sock puppetry; due to editing which is grossly incompatible with building an encyclopedia; due to persistent uncivility and equally persistent POV-pushing, Theologian81sp is hereby community banned, with standard provisions for enforcement and appeal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It means that we can simply block the socks on sight without having to go through any other boards or processes. That's the big advantage of banning and logging. Along with increasing the visibility to admins of the user to make spotting easier. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr.troughton

    Mr.troughton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to think this and this are acceptable responses to a DS notice. FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I always get a red flag when someone who hasn't edited in years (in this case save for 1 edit), immediately goes to a DS covered page and makes a inflammatory comment. And that's not the way to react to a notice at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo the red flag - have given the user a warning, we'll see how they choose to reply to that ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Workingepskeiskxkke

    INDEF
    Indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user has engaged in repeated blatant vandalism and introduction of unsourced content to articles. Examples of vandalism: [188] [189] [190] [191] [192]

    Examples of repeatedly adding unsourced content: [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198]

    This user has been warned at least on four separate occasions to stop adding unsourced content and vandalizing articles, and was recently given a block to editing the page Coaster (commuter rail). This user continues to vandalize articles while ignoring all attempts to communicate with them. User is obviously WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked. I initially was going to make a report on the noticeboard for vandalism, but their history of repeatedly adding unsourced content despite it being reverted should also be considered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought that since most of his bad edits were to the Coaster (commuter rail) article, a ban from editing that article might cause him to lose interest in editing Wikipedia. I see one useless edit since the block went into effect so while he was disruptive before the partial block, I'm not seeing the urgency right now, that he has moved on to the same behavior on other articles. I wouldn't have escalated this to an ANI report since the partial block is largely curbing his behavior. But other admins might see things differently. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your perspective, but from what I've seen, this user has never shown any intent to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. They've been given many chances and many warnings (4 blatant warnings, along with a few additional ones that are less overt) and there's no sign they intend to ever change their behavior. Allowing them to continue to be disruptive is a mistake in my opinion. Their most recent instance of vandalism is what prompted me to make the report, on top of all their previous disruptive editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider their edit to Isoroku Yamamoto two days after the page block to be evidence that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. Accordingly, I have blocked them indefinitely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock request for LTA

    RANGEBLOCKED
    2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/46 rangeblocked for two months by EdJohnston. Quick maths. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    All four of these /48 ranges have been used by User:Ninenine99 after that account was indefinitely blocked in March (in some cases, before). All edits from the IPs in these ranges since then appear to have been made by this editor, who seems to be fairly adept not only at switching IPs every few days (if not hours) but switching /64 ranges every time one of them is blocked. I imagine that four /48 ranges is not a small request, but I've looked through the contributions history and the collateral damage would be minimal if not nonexistent. The B00 and B02 ranges are recently active; the other two were last used in July. --Sable232 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a two-month block of Special:Contributions/2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/46? (This /46 ought to have the same effect as blocking four adjacent /48 ranges). Most of the recent edits from this /46 seem to have been reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to cover it. I'm not particularly familiar with how IPv6 works and don't know how the ranges "scale up" for lack of a better term. --Sable232 (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: - sorry, forgot to ping you. --Sable232 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Special:Contributions/2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/46 for two months as proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Here's hoping this puts an end to the disruption for a while. --Sable232 (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Taung Tan

    Taung Tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    See [199]. I was initially just going to give a warning, but I noticed they just came off a block for personal attacks and harassment [200]. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Drama king is real! Pinging Burmese editors for normal discussion simply (not AfD) is a canvassing? You have reverted true information added by User:Kantabon with references. Moreover All Burmese know Min Aung Hlaing is still hold his SAC position or not. You one-sided reverted his edit (Actually this is not my edit and not my problem). When I seen this injustic case, I pinging senior Burmese editors simply to discussion on this dispute because Burmese editors can read Burmese language sources to verify information. (see Talk:Min Aung Hlaing#Discussion and [201]). Am I wrong??? As a very active Burmese editor, I created many military related articles (green team) and also NLD related articles (red team) so I'm not problem with WP:NPOV. See articles I created.

    You ever reverted editing of Burmese editors without discuss. "Wikipedia is not your mon's house is a WP:PA?. You are trying to dominate Burmese articles without Native editors. I'm not alone. In past, you have same problems with many Burmese editors such as User:Htanaungg. We have been patient with you for a long time. Taung Tan (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block my account I was wrong. Note I'm Bao Zheng. That's all Taung Tan (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The latter link mentiones personal attacks cast by Taung Tan toward CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) (now site-banned), which led to warnings by Girth Summit (talk · contribs) and then the block. This person's been here before, both times in relation to CommanderWaterford: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#REFUSING_TO_DISCUSS; they also left a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Revocation_of_CommanderWaterford's_permissions. According to User_talk:Taung_Tan#Thanks_for_helping_me, they share a sentiment with Cepyita (talk · contribs), another new mywiki editor who believes that Burmese Wikipedians and Myanmar-related articles are being persecuted, yet seems to be much more civil. Tellingly, they occasionally act aggressively toward users preceived to be enemies of the Myanmar topic area, such as their !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel), though this is quite rare — for example, their other AfD !votes were quite civil, even when CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) was the nominator, and in most cases aligned with the actual outcome. A tough balance between preventing further incivility in discussion forums; and treating them as a human being from a country marred by a recent coup and Covid, and who seeks to contribute to an under-covered topic area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan send NPOV warning on all Burmese editors' talk page. For WP:NPOV issue, I never violated WP:NPOV. I never trying to change Min Aung Hlaing as the rebel leader on his article, but many people tried. I and Htanaungg are supporters of National Unity Government of Myanmar against the military rule. However, on Wikipedia, I've created many military related articles with NPOV such as Military rule in Myanmar (I created this long time ago before the coup), Nay Soe Maung, Tin Sein, Htein Lin (colonel), Yin Yin Oo, Zaw Min Tun (general), Kyu Kyu Hla, wife of coup leader and children of the coup leader Aung Pyae Sone and Khin Thiri Thet Mon and many more. I also created key figures of the revolution such as Tayzar San, Wai Moe Naing, Win Min Than (blogger), May Oo, Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, Soe Moe Hlaing, Sean Turnell, Myo Yan Naung Thein and many chief minister articles of National League for Democracy government including Boss Ko and Hla Moe Aung. My opinion on Htanaungg's NPOV, I seen that he have reverted many vamdalism editing on Military and Min Aung Hlaing realted articles. He has been threatened and personal attacked on social media when he reverted vamdalism editing on Min Aung Hlaing and updated Min A H as the PM of Myanmar. See User talk:Htanaungg#Threatening you on social media and then he changed his username for his security reason. See PA post on FB. Pls note Tartan, we are working to protect Burmese articles not for destroy. Taung Tan (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Myanmar-related articles are very persecuted by Tartan. He reverted someone's change on Burmese article even that is a fixed typo pls see and have many problems with Burmese editors such as [202] and [203] (he have reverted office infobox from NUG's minister). We did not do nothing wrong on political articles but Tartan is very sensitive. In this case, actually it was referenced change by Kantabon. I don't understand really. That's why I started a [[discussion because of his bullying on Burmese editors. Taung Tan (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fairly sure I explained this to you before so I'm not sure why you keep simplfying that situation. That fixing a typo may have fixed a typo [204], but it also introduced a change that appears to be in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Tartan357 should have looked more carefully to find the typo and re-fixit, but they didn't notice it which they apologised for later [205]. To be fair (and I can't recall if I noticed this last time), as User:KornaticeUser:Corevette was using the visual editor, I'm not sure if they were aware what they were doing with the link either, or maybe they just didn't know what to do since the redirect didn't yet exist [206].

    Notably, if KornaticeCorevette was aware they were changing a link to a redirect into a piped linked to an article sub-section, even if they felt this was necessary because they didn't know how to fix the typo otherwise, they should have been clearer what they were doing in the edit summary. Because when someone says the "fixed typo" but then changes a link to a redirect into a piped linked to an article sub-section, it looks a lot like when they say "fixed typo" they mean they are just violating NOTBROKEN. If KornaticeCorevette was not aware because of the visual editor, we can call it an unfortunate miscommunication because of the way various tools work.

    Ultimately the point is Tartan357's concerns with that edit were perfectly valid even if they unfortunately reintroduced a typo. As said, it would have been better if Tartan357 looked more carefully but under the circumstances also perhaps given that Tartan357 introduced that typo in the first place, it's easy to see why they would have noticed.

    Edit: Actually Corevette is the one who made the original change. Kornatice reintroduced the change [207] with a better edit summary explaining why they were making the change albeit it in a way that sounded a bit like they were referring to the previous edit which lead to a whole load of confusion and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corevette/Archive. None of this changes the reasoning why complaining about Tartan357 reverting a typo fix is oversimplfying the situation.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update Finally Tartan has admitted he was wrong on Kantabon's case! See User talk:Tartan357#Chairman of SAC. English language media doesn't reported all things on Burmese. We have many Burmese language source in deed. So, I hope you don't think yourself that your knowledge of our country's politic is as much as native's. I do not want to have problem with you. Pls don't be very sensetive. Taung Tan (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tartan357, this a poorly-drafted report. It's way too terse. Also, the header that read: Canvassing, attacks, racial ownership by Taung Tan is inappropriate (amended). Also also, just came off a block for personal attacks and harassment is quite misleading. "Just"? Early March is not an event that "just" happened.
    Taung Tan, if you don't dramatically moderate your tone, you're heading for an indefinite block. Mitigating circumstances can only get you so far, which you've well exceeded by now. You seem to have shown contempt for addressing any of the problems that the March block attempted to remedy then, which looks to be reflecting in your comments now. As well, when you ping like-minded editors, that is WP:CANVASSING, by definition. To that: what is this "normal discussion" canvassing exemption that you think you're entitled to? That is not a thing. And how would AfD be considered a "normal discussion," even under these invented rules? So, count this as a final warning. No more Drama king is real! —stated in this very report, above— and so on.
    Everyone else: diffs are much more preferred as evidence here than links to discussions. And yet, in all the many links cited in this report, there's maybe 2 diffs, with everything else being links to discussions. This method of documentation makes an investigation challenging. So please make a note of it for future reference. El_C 12:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, what was wrong with the section header? They have repeatedly claimed that Burmese editors should have special status over Burmese articles, and that I should have to consult with Burmese editors before editing, demands they've repeated in this discussion. That seems like a pretty clear case of WP:OWN based on race to me. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that (mistaken) notion seems to be more rooted in language and national origin than it is "race," per se., that's why. El_C 12:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, okay. That seems like kind of an unimportant distinction to me. If you want to say it's national origin, I'm fine with that. I fail to see how it rises to the level of being inappropriate, when OWN is indisputably going on. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an important distinction, period. Example: I want more, I dunno, Italians to play a prominent role in editing [whatever, Spaghetti] because they speak the language and possess the added background — not "racial." El_C 13:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Thanks for point me out. But I disagreed with that you says "when you ping like-minded editors". I only know Htanaungg on Wikipedia not in real life. I really don't know other editors I pinged, one of them is an admin from Burmese Wiki. That's all. It is accusing other editors, not WP:CIVIL. Taung Tan (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Taung Tan: "like-minded editors" doesn't have anything to do with what you know about a person in real life. (Most of us know very little about who our fellow editors are in real life.) It's to do with whether you expect them to have similar views to what to do on Wikipedia as you. Your views in real life could be polar opposites, but if they are likely to share similar views as to how to handle the situation on Wikipedia that's canvassing. For example, if I know editor A always supports keeping negative content about subject Y and I ping them because of that, it's clear canvassing. Maybe in real life the editor is an ardent supporter of subject Y who is trying to destroy Wikipedia and I'm an ardent opponent trying to show how evil subject Y is, that doesn't mean it's not canvassing. (In practice in a lot of cases views on a dispute only have limited correlation to how someone may see some real life situation anyway.) It's generally acceptable to neutrally notify a relevant Wikiproject on the Wikiproject's talk page, but it's a bad idea to ping certain editors from it since questions will arise about how you chose those editors. Even if you tried to be unbiased in your selection, there's an easy possibility you will be. And heck, even if you used a random number generator to select who to ping, there's no simple way to prove it. Note that trying to ping a 50-50% selection of editors who will share you and a selection who will be opposed is also not a good idea. You need to always ping all relevant editors, or ping no one; and also make sure there is a compelling reason why these editors are relevant. (If for some reason you really need to bring up some specific editor, this may be okay provided it doesn't seem like you're just using this as an excuse.) If in doubt, discuss your plans to ping before you do so. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all, I will control my anger in the future. 🥰 Taung Tan (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taung Tan, sure okay, let's hope for smoother sailing and calmer waters from this point on. But a point of clarification: lodging a complaint about canvassing (or whatever) is not inherently uncivil. If that was so, nothing would get done. To reiterate, please don't ping editors that are likely to take your side in a dispute, because that constitutes a violation of the canvassing guideline. El_C 14:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C and Nil Einne. Special Thanks. I've learned many things from you. I'm not familiar with all wiki rules. I will learn from these mistakes. I need to control my temper when I see injustice case on Burmese. From March until today, I have tried to control myself to be a smart editor. Before March, I've many problems with CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs). When he left, I was alone and silent. Thanks all. Taung Tan (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) First, I should say that my view of Taung Tan is heavily tainted by something I won't bring up here since although all the information is on wiki, there's a very slight possibility my understanding is incorrect and if it that's the case, it's not something to be discussed publicly. So my view may not be entirely fair.

    But IMO based on what I've seen before (i.e. this is diff free), Taung Tan can do good work in improving our coverage of Myanmar an area our coverage is woeful. Unfortunately they also have a tendency to ignore our sourcing requirements and take offence when people come to them with concerns over sourcing or their edits and behaviour, or tag or nominate articles they've worked on; and generally not getting along well with people who disagree with their edits or creations. Because of this, they are having trouble learning the norms etc.

    While I think we can all understand the current situation in Myanmar has caused them significant distress and we can cut them some slack because of it, there's got to be a limit. The situation is particular unfortunate since pretty much everyone would welcome improved coverage of Myanmar, and we also do desperately need editors who understand Burmese. In other words, if Taung Tan would only play better with others, it's likely they would find plenty of editors working with them rather than continually at loggerheads.

    If there's something we can do to push them toward that, it would be great.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vaze50's behavior

    Vaze50's behavior, particularly in the UK topic area is getting increasingly hostile and continues to ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA after being warned. I am requesting some possible solution here or action here. Here an outline is below:

    History of bad faith assuming other editors:

    • Take your blatant Anglophobia elsewhere. It's clear what you are trying to do, and it will not work. [208]
    • Totally disagree, not clutter, and you are politically motivated in your attempt to remove it - it has been noticed [209] and We know what you are trying to do, and it will not work [210], Subsequently asked to assume good faith by DeCausa but dismissed as a "bigot" [211] (also again here [212][213]) and said to DeCausa "curb your bigotry" [214] and again "Anglophobe" [215]
    • The user was warned about WP:AGF and WP:NPA back in March 2021 [216].
    • Bad faith accussed me of being an "English nationalist" [217] which he Vaze50 later retracted [218] but still has refused to strike bad faith questioning my 'political motivations' [219]
    • In background to these following the diffs Vaze back in April 2021 started to enmasse add "UK" to birthplace parameters in the infoboxes of many high-profile UK articles vaguely citing "MOS:BIRTHPLACE". MOS:BIRTHPLACE said nothing which backed up Vaze's edits so I and other edits reverted them citing the last discussion which resulted in no consensus (not closed) [220]. A new discussion was opened and closed as no consensus [221]. And in August 2021, Vaze50 ignored the consensus of lack there of and started en masse adding "UK/GB" to the birth_place parameter. Throughout this time Vaze again bad faith assumed the "motivations" of opposing editors reverting Vaze:
    • People like you who are, for blatantly political reasons, intent on erasing the UK/Britain from this website as much as you can are being allowed to get away with your agenda, not on the basis of consensus being behind you doing so, but on there being a split opinion.[222]
    • That's what should be included. But that's what certain editors, for blatantly political reasons, are attempting to keep off. It's an issues that needs to be addressed.[223]
    • you are - for obvious political motivations - seeking to erase the country from this website which is intended to be accurate, not politically motivated. [224]
    • This is blatantly politically motivated by you [225]

    Thanks for reading. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Spy-cicle: The big yellow box you see at the top of this page when editing it says, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". I have done this for you. Narky Blert (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: So far as I can see the notification was already there, and you added it to an old version of the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: I did per this diff [226].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my mistake. IDK how that happened. Thanks to The Land for correcting it. trout Self-trout. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am minded to agree, which is why I have given Vaze50 this warning. If they persist with this pattern of editing then blocks and topic-bans are the obvious consequence. Some might feel that line has been crossed already. The Land (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, considering they were already warned about WP:AGF and WP:NPA by Nagualdesign from March 2021 [227] (who also suggested to apologise to DeCausa about the "bigot" and "Anglophobe" remarks which Vaze has not apologised for), I think stronger action is neccessary here.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Usedtobecool

    He's thinking himself to be superior editor of wikiproject Nepal. He deleted content of Kingdom of Nepal to create a redirect without any concensus. Its not enough, everytime he makes numerous changes on articles and reverts factual data. I feel he follows any political point of view. His contributions and logs prove this. These should be identified in detail. It's much, he feels he can do anything due to previlages he has got and his experience. Please, take action on him. Wikipedia should be bully fair without biased point of view. Hope, truth wins.Curious km (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Curious km: I have oversighted the previous revision, as it revealed your IP address. No meaningful context has been removed, and this is a specifically noted legitimate use of the oversight function. No comment in regards to the above complaint. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curious km: RE: His contributions and logs prove this — that is not proof. Proof should be submitted in the form of diffs. Thanks. El_C 19:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    this appears to be the edit in question, which Curious km has now reverted. It appears to be a question of Nepal vs Kingdom of Nepal. Not being fully educated on such things, I'd suggest a WP:RfC on a merge of the two - unless they are two completely different countries. — Ched (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but why is it here at ANI? That's what I don't understand. Usedtobecool made a WP:BOLD edit (diff), Curious km reverted (diff of current version). That's it. Usedtobecool has observed the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. They have engaged the article talk page (here). At a glance, this looks like a bogus complaint, with some un-evidenced WP:ASPERSIONS sprinkled on top. El_C 19:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I started the talk page discussion three days before redirecting the article. Since no one had responded, and since the article had obviously turned into that mess over time (2002 revision), I thought a BOLD action might save time. Neither WP:ATD-R nor WP:BLAR discourage making a bold redirect.
    I was happy to ignore this, but this editor's POV-pushing has started to actively interfere with my work.[228][229][230] This is completely unacceptable. They obviously went to the article with the object of interfering with my work, as it happened right after I mentioned the article on my talk page[231] and now they've left me this message. Please make sure they commit to leaving their politics out of Wikipedia. I am going to bed now, but I will present a full history of this editor's POV disruption tomorrow, if required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Agreed. Usedtobecool has not done anything that warrants an ANI report. The user did raise the issue on the talk page [232] and waited three days (no other comments) before redirecting. The edit was undone a day later by Curious km, and is now being discussed on the talk page. I see no valid reason for Curious km to have brought this to ANI just hours after undoing the redirect. Meters (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, see Usedtobecool writes much with a Maoist favour. See his recent contribution in 2004 Beni attack proves this. He makes many articles related to Maoists. I believe it's not bad to follow an ideology. Promoting it on Wiki is totally wrong.[233] In recent article, 2004 Beni attack he included the facts never published anywhere. It's known only to onces involved in this. Maoist are the cause of removal of monarch in Nepal. There are many other parties in Nepal. I can't sum all of them here but see clearly his contributions to prove his connection with maoist ideology, party members and incidents.[234][235][236][237][238] Yes, see his contributions on article KP Sharma Oli when there was dispute between Maoists and him.[239] I also request the deletion of article 2004 Beni attack. It lacks inline citation with major events listed. Monarchy was removed in 2008. It became of no use and how come 2004 Beni attack be a fruitful article for Wikipedia? Is it written in encyclopedic tone/language? These all prove the behaviour of editor. He always uses his knowledge and experience on Wikipedia to make wrong doing on Wikipedia.Curious km (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious km, why are you still presenting assertions that are un-evidenced (again, diffs, please) as if it is actual evidence. It is not. No evidence = no proof (a tautology). You are casting aspersions, even after I warned you against doing so. Please stop doing that. This is a volunteer project, we are not to gather evidence for you. Rather, you are the one expected to compile and summarize it to back up your claims. The principle of WP:BURDEN that governs submissions in the main article space, is also one that is required elsewhere on the project, including for claims of editorial misconduct. El_C 20:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the diffs were added after El C's reply; this kind of refactoring is common with Curious' posts, which should be read diff by diff. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad but well deserved at this point. Hope this does not put me off assuming good faith and trying to help new editors in the future. I had thought this editor could be an asset if I could get them to keep their bias in check. But I did not foresee their obvious COI with Ainaa (TV program) putting me in their crosshairs so squarely for simply pointing out that it was related to Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma. I will note here for the record that, this editor has edited from, based on the overlap at Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma, Ainaa (TV program), Bimalendra Nidhi, Draft:List of democratic parties in Nepal, Nepali Congress, KP Sharma Oli and Third Oli cabinet, and behavioural pattern, at least the following:
    Not looking for confirmation, obviously, which is not needed anyway. But I hope these can be blocked. If not, I would ask that admins reviewing future unblock requests take this into account. If left unblocked, I will just have to create an SPI next time they edit, which is no problem. My thanks to @Bbb23, El C, Ched, and Meters:, and kind regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to everyone for the triple ping. The reply tool kept saying it had failed to post. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Usedtobecool, activity from these IPs is at this time Stale. El_C 03:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    68.193.199.8 Attack other users

    BLOCKED & REVDEL'D
    68.193.199.8 (talk · contribs) blocked by EvergreenFir for 72 hours. Revisions deleted. Really sorry y'all had to deal with that ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I reverted his edits and then he wants to attack Me, Mvcg66b3r,   melecie   , BlueboyLINY, LooneyTraceYT, Tvstationfan101, and now  Kylo Ren III  ClueBot NG, and DaxServer. Screams in my pillow. FrankT•C 18:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @EvergreenFir: Think we may have conflicted there in regards to revdel! Apologies ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheresNoTime: Sorry about that! I just ran across that IP editor in my watchlist and saw the edits in their contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:BLP help at Leandro Campaz

    I've requested page protection and reverted to a recent, more stable version, but the mass disruption goes back weeks. I can't tell good edits from bad at this point. More eyes, and perhaps some knowledge of the sport, would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve flagged this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrific. Thank you, Malcolmxl5. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you. The article's sorted now. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I knew it looked weird when I protected it. And yet... El_C 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nonetheless, I'll have to put this in your quarterly performance review, El_C. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, there's a reason why the WMF only pays me in hugs and kisses — behold my cover letter! El_C 02:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My lord, where do you find this stuff? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, my brain has become too plump for my skull! El_C 02:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Who are you and warring you

    Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Rahil mirza9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Akhtar Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Following a long standing and much discussed image dispute over at image at Akhtar Raza Khan, Rahil mirza9 wrote following my issuing a disruptive warning against them: Who are you why you are uploading the photo of Akhtar Raza photo is not allowed in Islam I am warring you for the 1st and last time you don't upload the photo upload the Taj pic of Akhtar Raza not a photo. Upon that warring/warning I have decided expedient to revert my final change of that image to bring the matter here. I invite Rahil mirza9, or any member of the community, to suggest any topic ban or other block the community may care to issue against myself over this matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given a discretionary sanction notice to this user covering the topic of India broadly construed. I have also informed then that we are not censored, and not subject to the rules of Islam. I have let them know that giving such warnings(I am assuming they meant warnings not warrings) or demanding that others follow the rules of Islam is disruptive and can result in a ban from the topic area or a block on their account.
    I suggest we wait and see how they respond. I believe it goes without saying that you don't have to obey their religious demands. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime I have restored the image by backing out Djm-leighpark's self revert. There is no reason to wait on that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1039021442"