The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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.
Aussie Article Writer 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
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:
[1]"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"
[2]"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?"
[3]"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.
[4] this is my request asking her to refactor the last three posts cited in diffs above and apologize for them
[5]"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 ([6]"TRM, please do try to stop trolling"). User:SQL asked her to tone this down [7]; 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: [8]. 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 here15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
So you insist on calling me a troll then? PS. My "claims" are simple: I've been a victim of several nasty personal attacks from you. Diffs are above. Good luck rejecting those "claims". All I asked is a refactor and an apology. Why escalate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here16:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't twist facts again, Piotrus. You escalated by bringing your complaint here after your trolling was reverted.
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)
Statement by BHG. I stand by my comments about Piotrus. For example, Piotrus falsely accused me[9] 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[10]. 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[11] and hatted it[12], TRM unhatted the off-topic comments,[13] and posted another round of trolling.[14].SQL hatted the discussion again, and I replied to TRM.[15]
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[16] 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[17] 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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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 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)
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)
There's an earlier personal attack and violation of the IBAN by AAW still on their userpage. Despite the numerous admins watching the page it was allowed to stand. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that the blocking admin GeneralNotability also posted a followup[18] noting multiple breaches of the IBAN. This was not a one-off strike by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock; it was more of the vendetta.
nope
Also, note that the history of AAW/CS's talk shows 5 edits by AAW/CS which have been hidden or revdeled: see this history. I think it's likely that this was yet more of his vendatta malice. The history suggests that maybe Fastlily did those revdels, so maybe Fastily can explain a bit of what type of stuff was revdeled. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not reasonable to assume anything when you do not know why these edits were suppressed. Please don't enquire more, but without putting in an addendum containing an excuse. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(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)
@TheresNoTime: thanks for your conscientious attempt to defuse the situation, and for the time and effort you must have spent doing so.
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)
@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)
@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[19] my assertion[20] 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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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.
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)
(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)
@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)
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)
(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 [21][22]). 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)
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)
(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)
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 diffabout Piotrusyour 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)
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.
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)
@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)
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 orthat 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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☎
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)
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?
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: [24]. 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 [25].
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 [26].
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"). [27]
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 [28].
I tried again to explain why BHG's edits were disruptive. [29]
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. [30]
I asked BHG to rescind her accusation, and stated that I had done no such thing. [32]
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. [33]
Not getting a reply from me at her talkpage, BHG started a thread at my talkpage [34].
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. [36]
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.
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). HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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. LizRead!Talk!23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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. LizRead!Talk!23:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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☎
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)
"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)
@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)
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 here00:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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 here01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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 here04:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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_C04:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(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 [40] (I mean, isn't it a reference to the jester's hat? c'mon), [41] or [42]. 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 here04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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_C04:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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 here04:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
"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)
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 here05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No. The nature of DRV is that everything it considers is contentious, and a lot of it is fraught, but that much drama is unusual.—S MarshallT/C23:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I've always gotten along well with both of these editors, and it's unpleasant to see two people who you like and who are unabiguously net positives on the encyclopedia at each other's throats like this. ReykYO!10:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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_C00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.00:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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 guide00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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 here04:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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_C00:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Actually, llywrch, GN declared their intention to block on 16:35, while 力's comment was on 17:35. But I'm not really following the logical inference between these two components, to begin with, tbh. El_C01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 guide01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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. Levivich01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)TOAThe owner of all ☑️
The community should be aware that there was a comment here added by MjolnirPants [45] which was then removed by Moneytrees [46]. 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOAThe 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 guide00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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×g21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. Levivich22:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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_C01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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.) Levivich01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Self quote: 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 (diff). El_C01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: [47], [48]). 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 here01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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. StarMississippi02:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.02:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. StarMississippi13:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Idle proposal: perhaps we could give a final warning for personal attacks and/or escalating the tone of discussions instead of (or in addition to) a block? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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. GiantSnowman10:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
@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.
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)
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 rap15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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. StarMississippi14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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. - jc3713:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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: [49]. 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,[50] 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.
@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)
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.
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 MarshallT/C15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. BD2412T17:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C10:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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·des19:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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·des20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I would describe this as a censure followed by a probationary period. I think this could work. Something needs to be done. Paul August☎20:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Paul August - This sounds like "comment on the content, not the contributor", which could/should work, but we need to leave room for commenting on the contributor, but only at appropriate venues (like here and other such noticeboards and processes which address editor behaviour). Else this is a one-way gag-rule that is ripe for third-party abuse. - jc3721:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking about Wugapodes's point and your statement when I commented. I still think North8000's proposal is too broad without focused language. As User:ProcrastinatingReader noted below, if not done well (and sometimes even if they are) these can have the eventual effect of driving editors away or on the other hand, eventually blocking/banning them anyway. I really would like to see if we can do better this time. - jc3722:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe I've seen restrictions like this a few times. One example was this, which was a six-month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. To the best of my recollection, none of them worked (in terms of improving editor conduct), but I suppose they did make enforcement for individual infractions easier. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I support something along these lines; I'd suggest a sort-of one-way blanket Iban – she would be allowed to comment in discussions or on talk pages, but as standalone comments only (e.g. in an RM or CfD discussion she can leave a !voting comment) and not responses to others, unless the other editor engages with her first. In my experience, the main issue is that she is unable to disagree with others without becoming increasingly obnoxious; as a result, I think the solution is to allow her to make her (often valid) points, but stop her responding to people she disagrees with. Number5721:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
"We have made a finding that BrownHairedGirl's method of interacting with other editors is too often and too severely uncivil". No. You have made that finding, and anyone who is clear about North8000's average "findings" will know that it's probably incorrect. Black Kite (talk)22:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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). LizRead!Talk!00:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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. LizRead!Talk!00:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
I wonder if a restriction limiting the number of replies per discussion would work? Much of the problem it seems to me lies in BHG's verbosity and refusal to back down or let a matter drop.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Any sanction that stops BHG responding to her detractors would also need robust protections to stop smarmers turning up to her talk page or other discussions to smarm sarcastically at her, knowing she's not allowed to respond. Experience has shown that the community is fucking awful at dealing with pseudo-polite baiters. ReykYO!10:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
She should definitely be allowed to respond to anyone that mentions her or posts on her talkpage. I would just stop her responding to editors who have not engaged with her. Number5711:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@SQL: I've had the same issue – asked her to stop pinging me, so instead she used the 'thank' function to get into my notifications. But yes, perhaps adding 'cease interacting with other editors when they request it' could be added to any requirement. Number5715:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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:
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 [51],[52],[53].
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[54] as boorish behavior. TRM then posted twice to the BRFA to add nothing of substance, just disruptive snark.[55][56], which for brevity I labelled as trolling.
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.
that in the DRV, Piotrus falsely accused me[57] of inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial, and that it was a straw man[58]. 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[59] 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
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 ifPiotrus withdraws and apologises for the false statements about me: see[60]
that reason I called Piotrus a "troll" when I reverted[61] 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)
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)
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). Levivich15:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
My part in this has been mis-represented here. Please see the contribs and timeline that I posted above with diffs included !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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 rap13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C12:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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 rap13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap15:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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 rap18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, as being too vaguely worded to be enforceable. If someone else doesn't preempt me, I will post a more specific proposal below in a little while. Vanamonde (Talk)15:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, Vanamonde93. I am just now seeing this. I had already started writing mine when you commented, but I would have happily waited for your proposals, if I'd known they were coming. Usedtobecool☎️17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the additional points Snow Rise eloquently outlined about difficulties, gamesmanship risks and subjectivity issues. I realise that the person making this proposal was an arb ages ago, but surely, if one reflects on that experience and earlier cases, the points Snow Rise made would be the first ones to consider (and explicitly address) when making a proposal like this one? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Oppose It's undue to require others to redact what shouldn't have been posted per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE in the first place. It can also potentially get into edit wars with others about what's a violation.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: it's already bad to reinstate personal attacks and it seems like this isn't really relevant to BHG, or at least not the only issue (if I'm missing its relevance). — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, the problem is not that she might reinstate a comment, but the nature of parts of her comments. This amounts to special accommodation that would do little or nothing to reduce the corrosive effects of her insults. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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·des18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
WP:NEVERUNBLOCK, in the third bullet, seems to cover this. What exactly would happen? I'd assume that if the unblocker didn't withdraw their unblock after being informed of this discussion, it would be taken to arbcom where I'd expect a desysop would be a likely outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Was about to post exactly what Hobit said. I do not have the institutional memory to know if there's precedent, but the blocking policy implies ARBCOM would treat this the same way they would if an admin reversed an arbitration enforcement block. It would be up to the blocking admin to make that explicit in the block log, of course. Vanamonde (Talk)18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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. –Davey2010Talk22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SunDawntalk01:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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.SunDawntalk04:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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 here03:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Thornetalk03:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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. doktorbwordsdeeds07:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. WCMemail12:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, LindsayHello19:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. - jc3721:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -FASTILY22:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
@Hobit: reversing a block is not wheel-warring, although we still advise admins to do so, and the failure to do so here is viewed as a block failure. One thing this does is basically expand the same restrictions to any block on BHG and would make reverting it akin to overriding a CBAN (that is, not allowed, and somewhat unclearly authorising admins to reinstate it). Don't get me wrong, it may well be insufficient, but it's not quite the same as the regular civility code. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm unclear on this. Are you saying we shouldn't acknowledge this or that she isn't? Because WP:UNBLOCKABLE feels pretty on point for what happened here and I don't see the point in not acknowledging that truth. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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. – Rummskartoffel09:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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 rap11:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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. Levivich13:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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 rap20:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap23:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 MarshallT/C21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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 rap21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 rap23:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Supporton 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 MarshallT/C22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. StarMississippi01:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. WCMemail12:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[62] and Once you have been asked to stop communicating with another editor - you should stop. To do otherwise is clearly harassment[63]. 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. Levivich18:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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 • c19:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) TOAThe 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 MarshallT/C22:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
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. --ARoseWolf17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
I agree, this still needs to be closed. There is no reason to wait on ARBCOM--in fact, that's exactly the wrong way around. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.00:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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. - jc3708:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
"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.
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." - jc3723:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
I noticed the similarity too : )
I actually wrote it several hours before your proposal above - [64].
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. - jc3709:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. Levivich16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Oppose BHGs behaviour being problematical is not a new concept - it is fundamentally why they got desysopped after all. This proposal clearly promotes the idea that certain editors should be immune any requirements that restrict other "less special" editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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... - jc3722:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. - jc3722:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Well I didn't mention you in my comments. Did it feel good to try to make it all about you? Happy editing. - jc3708:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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. - jc3722:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Seraphimblade: For clarity / to avoid another big debate later, should the remainder of #3 ("The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN in six months") be a part of the close? Or noted as excluded or implicitly included accordingly? North8000 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
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.)
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)
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)
"@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)"
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. LizRead!Talk!00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
@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)
@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
@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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [78]). 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)
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 [79] and [80] (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)
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 [81], 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 [82]. 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 [83].
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 [84] 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.
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)
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 isWP: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_C12:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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. ― Tartan357Talk12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Because that (mistaken) notion seems to be more rooted in language and national origin than it is "race," per se., that's why. El_C12:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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. ― Tartan357Talk13:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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_C13:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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_C14:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
(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.
Losing your temper with Commander Waterford is wrong; but also rather understandable. Nil Einne, it's profoundly unfair to make accusations without diffs.—S MarshallT/C10:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: [85], [86], [87]. 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)
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)
@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.
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)
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.[88] and The matter isn't resolved. You have to reply on the follow-up question.[89]. 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greeting! request you to intervene in the situation with this discussion. One of the clearly pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian participants began canvassing on the page of the WikiProject Russia in an unfounded discussion about removing the page of the Soviet occupation of Ukraine. Due to contradictions with the interpretation of history, as in the case of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States or Romania.
I would like to note that earlier the Ukrainian and Belarusian administrations approved this page on their Wikipedias. In the Template:Soviet occupation, Ukraine has long been mentioned only with reference to the Soviet-Ukrainian War. This whole discussion is a continuous attack for the spread of Soviet and Russian historiography. I am sought by the words of these users that we should be grateful to Stalin, especially after the Holodomor, the act of genocide of the Ukrainian people. This is about the same song like "You were created by Lenin." I understand that they do not like terminology, such as "Russo-Ukrainian War", "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation", "Soviet-Ukrainian War", Annexation of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the Moscow Patriarchate, but I really hope for a solution to this Russian attack, thank you. Jafaz (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 [91]. 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. [92]. After some further edit issues on the page, Marquardtika (talk·contribs) opened a BLP/N on the topic [93]; full archived version [94]. 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 [95] by March 31.
Come around Aug 6, and Marquardtika made an edit to remove the material they felt was poorly sourced [96]. 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 [97] 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.")
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)
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)
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. [102] 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)
I'd also add [103]. 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)
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. --ARoseWolf20:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? ;-) --ARoseWolf20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
(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 [104] when this came up in March. Was warned for edit warring on this article [105] 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 [106] and then explained exactly what the first personal attack warning was for (a post to my talk page) when the user seemed to misunderstand [107].
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 [108][109][110][111]. 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." [112] "blatant one-sided biased editing through threats" [113] . Finally the user says "Hope to be a good faith discussion now" [114]. Too little, too late. Meters (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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" [115]. 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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
Tomoo Terada's most recent edit at Chloe Melas was 9 August 2021 which added text (shown here without the two references): "On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation." If Tomoo Terada is intent on inserting such rubbish I would be happy to indefinitely block them as WP:NOTHERE. *Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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?
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)
Well, lot of laughs that I get from the one that has entertained me being involuntary comic relief making a fool of himself, and that I will not name so don´t shout "personal attack!" for self-aggrandizing importance. But as there are serious people here I´ll keep my cool.
But before rebutting the lies, nonsense and manipulation on the interpretation that Masem and the rest of their group give to concepts like "self-published", "UNDUE", etcetera I want to tell you about a recent non fiction book. It was published this same year by Spanish writer https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Soto_Ivars. I give you the Spanish page as the English one is outdated. If you look for the sources (Spanish), you´ll find Soto Ivars is a very well-known writer-journalist in Spain.
Public prosecution has been used as a weapon to destroy adversaries and undermine reputations, as evidenced by the smear of Morgan Freeman by CNN journalist Chloe Melas.
It quotes a note by a film magazine doing coverage of my column. The book is an essay on the taboo in western society, and it´s a bestseller at the present time.
Of course, Juan Soto Ivars has not any COI on the Chloe Melas fabricated report against Morgan Freeman, but like thousands of readers reading me in Spanish it was convinced of the fraud. Will he be sued by CNN/Chloe Melas for "defamation?" Of course not, if they didn´t dare to do that with me.
Tomoo Terada (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada
Tomoo Terada, repeatedly calling people here a liar isn't going to win anyone over. You were told that El Mundo was a reliable source but we still do not use interviews even if they are in a reliable source. The context and style of the source matters. The New York Times is considered a reliable source however we have refused them as a source when someone has tried to use a blog style article from their website. Why? Because they don't usually use this style of writing. Sometimes they do opinion pieces. We don't give them the same weight as non-opinion pieces. El Mundo is still reliable but those particular styles of articles from El Mundo, or any other reliable source, are not. Please stop misrepresenting what you were told and please stop trying to paint the picture that anyone here is trying to suppress the truth. We can only edit using the criteria we are instructed to use. @Masem does not have a "group" here on Wikipedia. None of us have a "group" here. We are individuals editing an online encyclopedia within the guidelines and policies of said encyclopedia. You have assumed bad faith on the part of almost every editor that has had an interaction with you. At some point you have to stop looking at them and look at yourself and the way you are trying to push a particular point of view. Everyone has a conflict of interest and that's okay. I can tell you are passionate. That's okay too. Do you honestly believe making unfounded accusations and disparaging remarks about others is any different than what you are claiming others have done to you? You have to evaluate your own biases and conflicts of interest and whether you are too invested in a particular subject to be able to have an objective vies of it. In the case of Wikipedia, it has never and does not ever state that everything contained here is 100% factual. If reliable sources produce an independent journalistic article in the words of the journalist, not the subjects words about themselves or their work, that is not factual then Wikipedia most likely will not be factual. This is called a secondary source. Interviews where the subject of the interview talks about themselves or the work they do are considered "Self-published" or a "Primary Source". Putting up walls of text won't change that. Screaming that every editor that opposes you must work for CNN or some other news/media group and that those people are "out to get you" or "suppress you" without providing proof of this is ridiculous. Full stop on that, please. --ARoseWolf14:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As I had not previous interaction with you ARoseWolf, a brief, polite answer no matter you already condemn me "But seriously, WP:NOTHERE jumps out". Because I´m busy and deal with you guys always misrepresenting reality and selectively picking pieces of it trying to make me look bad and you look good at the same time is really tired.
If I say a lie, threat someone, make a fool of me here, that can be chasing me for the rest of my life. You avoid that risk. And avoiding that risk means that the only way to judge that you act in good faith and don´t have hiddden COI or even being secretly paid by CNN or any other interest, is to see that you act in a fairly and honest way.
Let me see. Until now:
Nil Einne that at first dismissed El Mundo as a reliable source, now says it´s one. As you do too.
Masem keeps quiet on how he shared an unverified claim as a fact.
I entitled my previous post, in which I shared the fact Penguin Random House publishes a book that refers to my "discredited conspiracy theory that Chloe Melas and CNN committed fraud"-tongue in cheek) in this way: "Nil Inne wrote on Terada "the world has ignored their point of view". Not at all." For obvious reasons.
So, I will not stop making all of you accountable. Because, of course, you´re a group saying to each other how great you´re doing.
You will have to explain how are "using the criteria we are instructed to use." Like the interviews in reliable sources policy, you don´t quote from where you´re picking up.
As it seems, depending of convenience you say Wikipedia "it has never and does not ever state that everything contained here is 100% factual" or brag being it´s so reliable as Britannica. Anyway, the internet is what gives you too much power.
Given the above rant, I Support an indef block for disruptive editing, IDHT, and RGW. This user is clearly here to push their own view into the article, regardless of our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think this is intimidating, @Tomoo Terada:? Because it's not, it's just sad. For the record, these pages get archived by Wikipedia anyway, they're retained. Your conspiracy theory that you're being silenced is nonsense. And please do update your Archive.org link to include this message, before you inevitably publish it as some kind of "evidence". I think you'll find your readers will not be happy about your behavior on this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If any admin sees this beyond the massive walls of text, I also support an indef block for the same reasons as HandThatFeeds as well as on WP:NOTHERE grounds. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked Tomoo Terada indefinitely. Editing civilly and collegially is a requirement, not an option, and they continue to use Wikipedia to as a soapbox without any apparent intent to follow our policies, guidelines or pillars.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
He is not listening as he has continuing to add Synth to the article. A block is certainly needed for him to understand why his edits in this article are not okay. Here is the diff between my edit resorting the infobox versus the synth he added. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
ST47, pinging you because this has to stop. After I undid his edits. He then proceeded to remove large sections of the article. 1, 2, 3, 4. I've undone these four edits. Mausebru is not showing competency nor is listening or learning from any of this. This behavior warrants a block and definitely a topic ban. This behavior represents if things don't go Mausebru's way, then nothing else can. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I also believe he has been editing from anonymous IP's to avoid detection of his edits from his main account. 146.56.101.206 and 146.56.106.167. Both IP's have edited either the same or related subject matter articles. The latter IP has been blocked since August 14 for 72 hours for disruptive editing. That is the current block. The first block occurred two days earlier for 31 hours for the same behavior. And this latter's IP edits have all been reverted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It's remarkable that Mausebru deleted close to 70 kB worth of text from the article without so much as an edit summary explaining their actions. This after a previous AfD which was clearly frivolous. It's late here and I don't have the time to look into this further right now, but I think a topic ban would be appropriate. ST47 (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Mausebru, the IP's have been or are adding synth. Synth that you yourself have added in the infobox before. Like this edit adding Azerbaijan as a party involved in this conflict. When clearly the source is not supportive of such a claim. This one adding China and Armenia being on the same side. And for some reason, Northern Cyprus. Now your latest edit adds Algeria. You are not making this easy especially when for some reason you are removing large sections of the article. Why did you remove large parts of the article? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If anything those IP addresses seem to edit when Mausebru is not using his main account. Those IP's should be blocked for a lot longer than the current block for one of them because it represents a cycle of disruption. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
After legal threats, personal attacks, and promotional editting the user was blocked and had talk page revoked. Unblock request reviewed and declined. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.00:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now a second legal threat at Wikipedia:Teahouse with this comment saying "But we don't like to be told that we are spamming any one or any forum. If that is your position, then let it be known that we have our position on this matter also, and this is our legal position on this matter also." Notfrompedro (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No remotely reasonable jurisdiction in the world insists that any particular publication should publish anything, let alone something that hasn't been published publicly. You don't have to have a very high IQ to realise that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Talk page access revoked by Ponyo (talk·contribs) after a declined appeal. Their comments at their own talk page includes not only legal threats, but also a few personal attacks (including an accusation of racism). This thread can be closed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. This editor continues to add and then re-add unsourced content to various articles, all of which have been reverted. Their user page is full of warning notes and messages requesting them to stop, or at least provide a WP:RS. As far as I can tell, they have never responded to any of these requests. Please can someone indef, or block them from editing the article space, at least until they start responding? Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me07:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this is not the page to report this but since this vandal has already been blocked and the bots in the WP:AIV may delete my request upon reporting, may I request that the block on 120.29.97.74/32 be modified so that they can not edit their talk page? The vandal keeps on adding threats and vandalism on their user talk page after getting blocked yesterday. Please note that this is a sockpuppet of longterm en.wiki vandal User:Shame on PJ Santos. Please see here and here for behavioral evidences. -WayKurat (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
LaundryPizza03 - There was a bug on MediaWiki for awhile (that I believe is now fixed) that admins could not block an IP address if it was currently subject to an autoblock. The software would mistakenly see it as modifying a block instead of adding a new one, and it wouldn't let the blocking administrator proceed. The workaround that was discovered was to simply append a /32 CIDR to the end of the IP to block it. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift action! Though the IP address is now blocked, the vandal seems to be now active using the sock account they created in tl.wiki earlier (User:Senro Balitae). I have blocked it in tl.wiki but as you can see in the global contributions here, they have been active on other wikipedias as well, which includes uploading images in Commons that has Filipino swear words as its file name (see here). I tried to request the global block in Steward requests but it's currently semi-protected. -WayKurat (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone made the nazi flag go up when you search her page up. Should be fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.191.56 (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several pages had their content covered with a swastika
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I was looking at the page for Lon Chaney, I clicked a link to Kenneth Branagh (at 9:46 AM EST), but instead of seeing the page, the entire screen was red with a swastika on it. When I clicked back to Lon Chaney, that page was also identical. I went back to where I had edited that page, but there was no indication that the content had been edited since then. And searching Google I couldn't find anyone talking about this happening. Bends Water (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Kenneth Branagh has not been edited since the 8th. I wonder if you inadvertantly picked up a browser add on that did that. I haven't hear this issue from anyone else. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem has already been fixed, but due to page caching, it will likely reappear sporadically for some time. The culprit was vandalism to the {{wbr}} template, which has already been reverted and protected from further vandalism. There's already a thread at AN (as Surtsicna says). Writ Keeper⚇♔14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: No. My experience is mainly with templates which include DABlinks. The articles which use the template need to be 'touched'. Even after a link in a template is repaired, it can take several days for the fix to work its way through the system, without either manual NULLEDITs or a motorised version which I believe is available in WP:AWB. Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
174.247.192.0/19(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·block user·block log) Persistent (since several months) change of date/predecessor/successors on several articles about pharaohs or ancient Egypt in general (see page histories of [116] and [117] for examples) despite the presence of sources backing the original ones; other usually disruptive behaviour on unrelated articles, most of them reverted. They ignore warnings and refuse discussing their edits. A range block would be most welcome here. Lone-078 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Idris Munaf Shaikh has made multiple edits which are al but straight-up WP:HOAXes. These specifically relate to the List of people known as "the Great", where the user has repeatedly inserted personages which haven't been known as such at all, even fake cross-refs were added from the articles to boot (which don't support the assertions at all).
The user has been warned and reverted by different editors asking to come discuss the problematic edits (hoaxes) at the Talk page. But no replies have come and the user has now moved now onto the articles about the persons themselves adding unfounded "the Great" therein. A bock is needed here, unlikely that the user will desist from these hoaxes anytime soon. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I don't think this resolves the problem fully, the user has been targeting other biographical articles as well with absolute hoaxes. A permanent block is needed here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
IP(s) are constantly adding bogus cast information on many movie/television articles, and upon a looking, this has been going on for several months now. The IP(s) has been warned and even blocked before in the past. Hoping there is some possible range that can be blocked to stop this disruptive IP... some of the IPs used include:
I've mainly been experiencing/seeing the disruptiveness on 44 Cats, but I haven't seen until now just how widespread this really is... it's clear something needs to be done at this point.
As I've pointed out above, one of the IPs also received a warning with an IP saying this is likely WP:LTA/VCV, though I have no idea myself (I looked through it very quickly...)
I've blocked the 84.64.18.47 IP for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. The problem with these listed IP addresses are that most of them have not edited recently, and they're in ranges that are huge and would be irresponsible to block without taking into account the collateral damage that would occur. The pattern does show that it's a user (or a group) jumping between IP addresses and making similar edits. At this time, the best we can do is block the IP that is making the most recent unreferenced changes (which I've done), and consider partially-blocking certain articles from these ranges if a repeated pattern of disruption presents itself. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I ran into this IP when another IP tried to revert their vandalism on Cine Gibi: O Filme and was mistakenly restored by another user (here). Since I had watched the movie, I knew the information made no sense. I decided to check their contributions, and it appears this IP has a history of adding fake information on movie articles while making small valid corrections (see here and here on Little Shop of Horrors (film)). It sometimes takes a week for someone to notice and correct that info. They also take breaks as soon as they receive a third warning to avoid being blocked.
Yes, IP addresses from Virgin can stay allocated to the same person for a very long time. The IP hasn't edited recently, but I've blocked for three months to stop the hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attacks on an Active Arb Remedies talk page
On Aug 14, Nishidani said: generally editors here either stoutly defend the official Israeli POV or know nothing of the area — hello connection? Not great. Stalwart111: {{vandal|Nishidani}} — really? Eep. I suggest everyone make an effort to be extra kind to one another. I see that an uninvolved editor has hatted a couple of exchanges, so hopefully, that be the end of this particular anti-lulz train. Finally, generally WP:AE reports are much more preferred for ARBPIA matters than ANI, because it's rare that such reports produce anything but noise on this noticebaord. //Cow Man out!El_C15:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I contributed to the RFC at Talk:Wehda Street massacre (having participated in the recent AFD) followed by another editor. In his response to that editor, Nishidani singled me out (Stewart (sic) rather than Stalwart, but its clear) suggesting I had a problem calling acts of terror what they were, and ascribing this to some form of bias.
But Nishidani doubled-down, claiming to "represent here what neutral NGOs concur" and referring to other contributors as "low performing newbies".
There's an extent to which this all seems to be an effort to right great wrongs and seems angry that Wikipedia doesn't reflect his personal POV. But the default to aspersion-casting, personal attacks and accusations of bias is creating a chilling effect, where anyone who thought to contribute a view contrary to Nishidani's is subject to vitriol in return. St★lwart11102:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You are again misconstruing what Nishidani said and ratcheting things up with the truly astonishing claim that he isnt here to build an encyclopedia. All he is saying is the name used by the Palestinians needs to be included in the article. Thats it. The man is known to bloviate a bit at times, but building an encyclopedia is very much what he is here to do, and his contribution to that topic area is immense. nableezy - 02:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I've directly quoted what was said and haven't misconstrued anything. Bloviation I can handle, and if they were errors of language or things said that were meant to mean something else, he is welcome to explain that. But he has actively ignored that opportunity elsewhere, choosing instead to make further personal attacks. He seems fairly articulate and other than your reinterpretation, I have no reason to think he meant anything other than what he said. St★lwart11103:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
uninvolved non-admin: Stalwart111, I read through the discussion and it seems like you're misconstruing Nishidani's points. I think you're wrong about their "alternative Palestinian title" comment and wrong about their comment about you being a personal attack. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've quoted Nishidani's points, word-for-word. I'd like to be wrong about it. I accepted Nableezy's assertion that the comment shouldn't be taken literally. But Nishidani's follow-up suggests they meant exactly what they wrote (that their opinion should prevail and others' should be ignored). St★lwart11104:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
In the RM,
You said: "I am conscious of Garmin21's well-made point above, but would suggest those articles that include the word "massacre" should probably have their titles changed also." In saying "those articles", you're referring partially to articles about massacres committed by Palestinians.
A few hours later, Nishidani said: "Unlike Stewart, I have no problem in calling Palestinian acts of terror by that name. Wikipedia does so." The locus of the dispute has been on the name "massacre", so reading his comment in reference to that comes very easily.
Nishidani has no declared intention to ignore the eventual RfC consensus. I feel this has been explained multiple times, but Nishidani is anticipating that the RM will end with a renaming and proposing that the WP:ALTNAME "Wehda Street massacre" should be included in boldface in the lead. That's all there is. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
No, he has simply declared it invalid from the outset, and will no doubt carry this forward as an example of Wikipedia's "systematic bias". No matter what, we're all in the wrong and deserve whatever we get for holding a view contrary to his POV. Remember, other opinions don't count because, "generally editors here either stoutly defend the official Israeli POV or know nothing of the area". St★lwart11108:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the user's edit here, I don't see any personal attacks. I think that Nishidani might be taking things a bit personal with the RFC, but I don't see a personal attack. This edit also seems like the user is taking things too personal, and I agree that there's a level of POV-pushing and "righting great wrongs" going on. However, I do not see any blatant personal attacks here either. This edit, however, definitely shows some POV-pushing when the user states that they "represent here what neutral NGOs concur in stating." I also don't like how the user referred to some other editors as "low performing newbies" given the context of the response. Overall, do I see problematic POV-pushing and possibly some "righting of great wrongs" behavior going on? Yes. But do I see any blatant personal attacks toward other editors with the diffs that were supplied here? Other than the description of "low performing newbies" that I didn't find tasteful, I have to say no. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Not blatant, no, but specifying particular editors and referring to them as "low performing" for the egregious crime of *checks notes* contributing to an RFC seemed like an attack that was personally directed, if not a "personal attack"; it was a comment about the editors rather than the content in question. And the ad-hom nature of dismissing another editor's contribution because of a POV not held (and not even expressed) seemed to approach the same territory (which is why I urged him to steer clear and focus on content). St★lwart11104:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment The problem that he always on the verge Nishidani creates toxic atmosphere around him yes his attacks are usually not so blatant but it still hard to cooperate with him especially in such fragile area like WP:ARBPIA --Shrike (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Nishidani wrote "this article, whatever the result must bear the alternative Palestinian title per NPOV. Just as we do with things like Kent State shootings, also known as May 4 massacre and the Kent State massacre."[120] (bold in the original). Clearly, by giving the example, Nishidani is clarifying that the lead should give alternative names for the event in addition to the article title. This is common practice throughout the encyclopedia. Nishidani then confirmed this interpretation by thanking Nableezy for citing WP:ALTNAME.[121] So Stalwart111's claim that Nishidani flagged refusal to accept the result of the RM is simply false and should be dismissed. Zerotalk06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, he declared the result was a forgone conclusion; he didn't accept the premise of the RFC/RM. Even the comment you cite was prefaced with, "I know for the usual reasons that this name change will go through,- generally editors here either stoutly defend the official Israeli POV or know nothing of the area". But he clearly feels his personal POV, knowledge and edit-count give him the moral high-ground. St★lwart11106:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The borderline between personal attack, incivility and robust debate is frequently tested in the IsPal area, I think it is clear from the RM discussion further back up the page than you are talking about, that Nishidani was only discussing altname (and telling me off for "forgetting" about it). You can also see in discussion that I am as tee'd off as he is over the naming, you can characterize that as "righting great wrongs" if you wish but I for one, don't see it quite like that. I suggest kiss and make up is the way to go here (just a suggestion).Selfstudier (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Stalwart111, apologies for accidentally duplicating my first sentence in your section. I actually tricked myself into thinking that you hadn't cut off the part of Nishidani's sentence that proves he did intend to accept the RM result. Predicting the result and expressing frustration with it is something quite different (I don't know what "accept the premise" means). Zerotalk10:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Can we not make this a section for the usual ARBPIA suspects to attack or support Nishidani's general editing, please? Stick to the actual incident concerned, thanks. Black Kite (talk)10:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems structured enough, there are not that many diffs to look at. While I think of it, idk why that move discussion is still open, longer it goes on, more scope for friction.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You are usually quick off the mark filing for those, iirc, did you forget? This seems a separate matter, "Personal attacks".Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't actually suggesting that but seems preferable to "unstructuring" this convo here (or maybe just ask him to self revert?)Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"It should have been a simple move ... there was pretty much consensus already." The closer of the AFD discussion wrote: "For me, there's pretty close to a consensus to rename here, but I will leave it to an editorial decision to move it to a new title. This could either be done boldly based off this discussion, or via WP:RM." "Pretty much" or "pretty close", but still not actual consensus. Should the other editors opposing the move have shut up too? ← ZScarpia12:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: By far the most derogatory comments, including a personal one directed at Nishidani, are made in the pretty non-neutral introduction to the RM discussion (see, for instance, the curious description "almost clear consensus"). Therefore, if anything, Nishidani should be complaining about personal remarks and a toxis environment rather than be being complained about. Many editors in the ARBPIA area, especially Nishidani, are on the receiving end of insulting comments of one kind or another, yet would choose to raise a noticeboard discussion only for exceptionally nasty cases. ← ZScarpia12:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I personally wish this editor to be banned. But I don't know what the rules applying to this situation is. I hope something is done about it. They make no contribution to wikipedia. they have few edits, and occasionally come back, but all of their edits are POV karachay-balkar nationalist edits removing things related to Circassians or replacing them as if they are karachay-balkar things. the edit descriptions are stuff like "typo corrected." or "corrected incorrect information." or "removed info not in source" (while it is mentioned in the sources) things you can expect from a typical vandal. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact12:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
First of all, when we start an ANI discussion involving another editor, they are required to be notified on their user talk page. Else, they might not be aware that there's a discussion here involving them. I have gone ahead and done this for you. :-) That issue aside, this user hasn't edited since the end of July. There's nothing that we can do to block the user now and while they're not actively editing. If this user resumes editing and if they make changes that are not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, file a report at that time and we can take a look at it. :-) As of right now, the user is stale and no action is necessary until that changes. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Best I can tell is a highway is reopening and some people like it and some people don't and all that is spilling over here, OP included. I did some copy editing but that article needs a good polish from top to bottom. spryde | talk20:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Sp and HandThatFeeds: Pretty much correct "spilling over here". Every time new or revised details gets added to "the reopening of the road" section. That part get water down even through its closer to the source. There were possibly directed to continue promote "local closures" and its spilling into Great Highway Wikipedia page. Very beyond disruptive Centralist2021 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) This is in fact a content dispute about how much weight should be given to each side of the controversy (pro-reopening vs. anti-reopening); the main users involved are currently Centralist2021 (talk·contribs) (a new user who has edited exclusively on this topic), Fullmetal2887 (talk·contribs), and Jef poskanzer (talk·contribs), although there are a few other users involved. I have filed a RPP to request full protection so that the involved editors or third parties may reach a resolution on the talk page. Centralist2021 is already involved in this discussion; will I be required to notify Fullmetal2887, Jef poskanzer, or any others involved? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Groups talking some stuff.pngGroups talking some stuff@LaundryPizza03: Just like pro closures protesters and pro closures advocates, they will more likely follow 1 path which is "reopening" in those sources. Some of us (even me) try reduce bias by evenly post the details of the current status of this road which is "reopen on weekdays over concerns of access and residential safety". Content dispute resolution with a group that will always stuck on one side wont go well.
So I happen to run into a specific social media post regarding "Great Highway Wikipedia" after searching "Great Highway" on google search. I do not know if these posts were linked into directing to "promote and edit reopening" side and snub "reopening details". Its unacceptable they bringing the behavior if those post linked to here. See here. Centralist2021 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this as an uninvolved outsider, I can't help thinking that the material that Centralist2021 keeps restoring reads very much like a PR piece for the Mayor etc. [122] The alternative content isn't exactly balanced either, but frankly I think Centralist2021 may be pushing their luck with complaints here about the behaviour of others, if this is how they intend to continue. If there are differing opinions regarding the road closure/opening issue, as reported in reliable sources, a Wikipedia article must report both, not pick sides. Which will involve actual discussion on the talk page, about article content rather than claims of improper motivations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for three days, and it looks like Centralist2021 has been partially-blocked from editing the article for two weeks. I think that this should be enough to nudge everyone involved to discuss the dispute and the matter on the article's talk page. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that I was unaware of this ANI report when I imposed the partial block on Centralist2021 (by way pf RfPP). El_C13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@El C: The concern was the edits were possibly directed to be destructive through the specific twitter post if content about "reopening" was expanded. I found the first bullet point more alarming.
Few twitter post stated (i linked incase want to took at look at the rest)
"They don't know what they're up against"
"I fixed some of it. But it'll probably get reverted, wikipedia is toxic."
"Well actually my record on Wikipedia edit wars is not good, but I'll go a few rounds. And others are welcome to jump in of course."Centralist2021 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I first reportedThelonggoneblues(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. KyleJoantalk01:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Levivich01:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Thelonggoneblues has restored a chunk of the content Levivich (rightfully) removed.[123][124] 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. KyleJoantalk14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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 MarshallT/C00:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thelonggoneblues, when you want to include something and other editors don't, open a talk section and start discussing. I see the previous topic ban discussion was archived without action after you'd said you didn't intend to edit around Spears? This definitely would have fallen within a t-ban on Spears. —valereee (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
—valereee (talk), good point. That is fair enough and I intend to do that @ editing disputes, thank you. When I am not busy I will. I will say though, I believe Levivich's good faith edit of the work I created has multiple issues. The Blast is not credited properly, the missing overpaid fee section which had multiple RS and more. If Levivich or anyone else wants to inspect my reverts that were reverted again, to find any small pieces of information they may find RS and appropriate to add back on before a consensus is reached on the information added, I welcome that. If they choose to remain on standby, that is also fine. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I have had no problem with this for the most part. I found myself quietly disagreeing with several of their edits, but their conciseness/clean-ups made me complacent to whatever they chose to contribute (immediately seeing their good faith approach), or what they personally felt was appropriate. Information regarding the Lou Taylor subject has been removed on and off for over 2 years. I regret not challenging this. This even discouraged me from reporting the court-appointed lawyer Samuel Ingham's claims of the subject James Parnell Spears overpaying Taylor with fees from Spears's estate, from the late 2020 court dispute, which Rosengart, a lawyer later hired, regurgitated. (I later added 2 RS for this, but it was removed). As a Wikipedian, where information suppression must be prevented and clarity on subjects reinforced, especially in legal cases of alleged corruption, it does not escape me that this could have been intentional. As one argues Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as a reason to defer against all of this information, one can also argue the opposite point of view, such as False balance. Also, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content again.
And actually, no, I did not revert back much of the information. I added reliable ones, such as the aforementioned Ingham/James Parnell Spears overpayment dispute. I did not revert back any of the personal life or background section, the X17 reports on Taylor, and more. A declared low-quality source of LADBible a UK news site (also used for social media, like Buzzfeed News, which notably has exclusive news drops) discussed it. It regarded Rosengart's additional August 2021 regurgitated claims of the overpayment, which was removed. I respected that editorial removal, despite not agreeing with it. So I added the Ingham source to clarify that it was a legitimate occurence. The reason LADBible was sourced originally, is that other major media outlets had not reported specifically about this in Rosengart's declaration against Spears in August 6. However, thankfully, I did find a source to credit this from Variety which was removed. See here:[1] and here for ET in late 2020 of Ingham's accusations.[2]
Likewise, KyleJoan had issues with several of my edits and were forthright about it; I agreed upon observing the flaws. I initially believed there was a level of civility maintained. The edit KyleJoan refers to from 13 months ago is inappropriate, though I would say the use of the word egregious is hyperbolic, and a somewhat desperate attempt to deny me of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I believe the source was wrong to use, but the information was correct. There were also concerns about the information being necessary,the sub-section being clogged, and due to the beliefs that much of the FreeBritney movement was largely fan-drivel nonsense at the time, it was not taken seriously.
I am also the originator of the section and topic that is being discussed, Spears's conservatorship battle. I implemented the subsection topic on Spears's main page on April 26, 2019 amid it going viral. With that being said, I also rarely concern myself with other editors' own personal accomplishments or heavy contributions, but I do find it intriguing the user KyleJoan credit themselves as originating the Free Britney movement Wikipedia page on their own page.
As the person who originated the topic upon its contention in the media (who does not have any ownership qualms), I believe I am being deliberately discredited by this user, on the basis that they are the originator or sole management or owner editor of the page. I initially believed KyleJoan was purely interested in the integrity of the topic, hence why I was complacent with the proposal of a topic ban, believing that my seemingly pedantic violations should be deeply costworthy for the sake of ethical editing (the result of bad sources, one person claiming my tone was biased?). However, they also seemed to operate on the basis I was not operating on good faith, nullifying the argument. I am particularly aggrieved, due to the assertion (not from them) that my complacency or apathy regarding a potential ban was what "stopped" or "archived" the discussion. That I was held to this comment permanently, seemingly implicating me as downplaying accountability, despite earlier admissions that I also did not agree with some edits I made, is curious. Edited note: I am not one to play a moral high ground, but I am also not intentionally ethnically compromised, which is why allegations like this are frustrating. All Wikipedian make mistakes and disputes are common and normal. It was misidentified for here, however, and now I am standing up for myself.
I also did believe and state prior to the June 23 hearing I would no longer contribute, as I personally felt my contributions were made to feel conspirator-esque (all prior to Spears's own claims being backed up and media sources being made to verify this testimonial statement of alleged abuse). And this was later noted as the "bombshell testimony" (not my words, but the words of an editor of the Conservatorship dispute of Britney Spears Wikipedia article (the dispute label is something I created myself)). Perhaps there is integrity, as they are a good editor, but given the circumstances, I am somewhat suspicious of this being purely motivated as integrity unfortunately. Even objective realities such as Spears's father's alcoholism was a source of criticism from the user KyleJoan to put forth the assumption of my personal views on the matter. JPS is a self-admitted alcholic, the descriptor added was to clarify the 2014 termination attempt, an important part of the case, which clarified Spears's long term feelings. This information lost is why editors then re-worded the heading, declaring Spears had spoke up for the first time in 13 years to ask her father to step down, or terminate the arrangement only in 2021. Farrow's commentary was of legal court documents retrieved. Multiple times the user contacted me to disparage of information, and I felt reprimanded.
Disputing a claim:
The recent concern is that KyleJoan feels the entirety of Lou M. Taylor and TriStar in 2008 is unreliable/contentious/possibly defamatory. They specifically say the source from People does not specifically note it as controversial/contentious, or as another user said, "a hit piece" in general. Regarding the People piece (which I will expand on) appears to be the editing equivalent of a catch 22. If the source was directly critical of the auction, with scathing remarks, would this not be considered grounds for removal based on the fact that it would paint the subject in a particularly disparaging light? Because it reads like a "hit piece"? Again, I am not using my own logic here, but rather an opponent's one. So because a journalist does not have a particularly scathing tone on Spears's items being sold from under her, but rather shock, it is misrepresentative of the whole section that is attributed to the conservatorship controversies. Yet a scathing tone is also potentially defamatory, and that information is inappropriate. While one could argue it is only inappropriate due to the 'low quality sources' provided, there was no
Given the comment about my editing contributions being 'possibly defamatory', this brings me to [of neutrality as an excuse to delete] and the necessary assumptions subheading. Also refer to [harm] and "the "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person". KyleJoan states that 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". I disagree completely here. The article [125] begins with "You want a piece of Britney Spears? It won’t come cheap" stirring provocation, and the mention of Sean Penn and Dustin Hoffman's phone numbers leaks as part of the sellers, with the adverb even in the phrase "It even includes phone numbers" would drive a speaker and reader of the English language to the necessary conclusion that this is quite shocking, that Spears's many prized posessions have been sold under her, as reported in July 2008. This, of course, is a mere 5 months after the conservatorship was established, denying her legal right to consent over her affairs. And the conclusion drawn is reliably sourced from the claims made in Ronan Farrow's June 2021 piece for the NY Times, who are particularly reliable as a source. Farrow notes Taylor's involvement, while in paranthesis that Taylor's lawyer has now notified her as a "listener" not a "contributor" as a result of his research efforts (and following Taylor's non-sequitor cease and desist order that claims she contributed to the conservatorship's establishment aren't possible because she worked for her a year after). Farrow also notes the allegations regarding Lohan and Love, and noted that sources state Spears loathed Taylor. Again, the implication of my agenda is no more of an agenda than Jameela Jamil's many apparently contradictory health-related statements that were called into question, leading to a source referring to an allegation of munchausen syndrome. Once a subject presents contradictory information, it can be difficult to push forward the false balance that editors want. That is why a false balance must be let go of, and any information provided that appears negative is merely a consequence of public statements and actions.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Thelonggoneblues, I didn't read that, it's way too long, but from a skim it looks like discussion of content, which we don't deal with here at ANI. We deal with behavior issues here. What I did read is When I am not busy I will use talk pages for discussion of disputed edits. That is not good enough. If you don't have time to discuss disputed edits at talk pages, you don't have time to edit. Please don't do it with walls of text like the above, no one will read them, and no one is expected to. Make your point as briefly as you can, as if you write a wall of text, other editors are free to treat it as if you hadn't written it at all.
You didn't respond to my point about you having said you were going to stop editing around Spears. Why are you even working at this article? —valereee (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You cannot throw out presumptuous accusations without having read what I've said. If you're going to voice your freedom of speech to say, "I'm not reading that, but I'm interested in what you have to say, so you should chop it down", and voice criticism that it is not concise, that's fine. But do not throw out additional slanderous, false commentary. It is inappropiate and immature. —valereee (talk) "I didn't read that, it's way too long" then proceeds to say, "You didn't respond to my point about you having said you were going to stop editing around Spears. Why are you even working at this article?" I respond to it in what I wrote, so if you want to know why, read what I've said perhaps. The only commentary I intended to give on the talk page was a summary of some things posted here, regarding the article, and not the work referenced from my descrepencies with the claims made.
What is not good enough is callousness, disrespectfulness and shamelessly reinforcing Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk and Argumentum ad populum. I had to clarify and redefine someone else's skewed narrative of my intentions, only to be mocked by editors of its length. Not given a civil concern to possibly make it concise for whether you want to read it. Disgusting. Do not throw presumptuous statements without having read it. If you have difficulty with understanding that —valereee, you should stop contributing to this discussion. You do not take it seriously. El_C, afraid not. But if you're going to use an Ad hominem attacks, you should not be here evaluating my behavior on this section. Have a good day. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thelonggoneblues, we can make some nice fractals by anteceding the antecedent and negating the negation, but I fail to see the utility in doing so. You were not personally attacked, weakly or otherwise. (Been here since 2004 and I've never seen that essay before, though, so nice curating skills.) Anyway, this is a volunteer project. We are not here to coddle you. Act professionally and condense your statements so that they could be effectively parsed by conforming to the confines and practices of this noticeboard, please. That'd be in everyone's best interests. Because, anything else is a waste of time at this point. Thanks and good luck. El_C03:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If the source was directly critical [...] would this not be considered grounds for removal based on the fact that it would paint the subject in a particularly disparaging light? This question shows that Thelonggoneblues has a distorted understanding of the neutral point of view policy, essentially saying an editor is free to neutrally state something as controversial in Wikipedia's voice based on their own conclusion. They also suggested original research is acceptable since sources wouldn't outright specify something as controversial (The article [...] begins with [...] stirring provocation, and the mention [...] would drive a speaker and reader of the English language to the necessary conclusion that this is quite shocking). KyleJoantalk03:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't tell me how to waste spend my time! That said, it's true that several campers could have been had in the time I wrote the above. El_C04:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I stumbled upon User:2351x4513x13264529 when going through recent changes. Their userpage says I'm a sock of globally locked user 431x9719x2099863, and my password is the same as that of 431x9719x2099863., an account that was globally locked earlier today for being compromised. If this is indeed true, there's a possibility that this account is also compromised, but the presentation of this is quite strange: new account seemingly exactly aware of what happened and perhaps making the same "mistake". Also, most if not all contributions from both accounts have been reverted by other editors. Not sure where to post this or what to make of it, but I think it warrants another set of eyes. ComplexRational (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was EC protected indefinitely today. Just look at the page history and you'll see why. I saw that only one summary was removed and figured the others should be too Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The page is a classic case of providing encouragement to a bored kid rather than applying WP:DENY not to mention WP:BEANS. I don't see any useful information at that page. It doesn't help identify vandalism or show how to avoid it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Many years ago I make a plugin to bad username detection bot that detected leetspeak used to get around offensive names. Within 2 days we were flooded with accounts trying to use more and more severe leetspeak to trigger the bot. I removed that feature.
Moral of the story is that certain things meant to be helpful can be seen as a prize to trolls who will revel in it. Such toys should be taken away. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.00:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and rev del'd the recent revisions, edit summaries, and usernames. I might translate WP:DENY differently than some others here, but denying recognition sometimes comes with simply redacting the troll edits so that those don't get any attention or recognition. It essentially makes the LTA's edits and time spent essentially for nothing, since the edits aren't even visible to see. If anything, RD3 could be argued here, but I went with "WP:DENY" in the reason summary. Deny this user the recognition of having their troll edits stand as publicly viewable, and take away their reason for doing it in the first place. If you do it right, it's almost as if it never happened, which is *wipes hands clean* exactly what we want. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Abcd azad has made several disruptive and POV edits many of which are straight-up vandalism. Repeatedly inserting his preference of political ideologies into leads and infoboxes despite several reverts and attempts at discussion (e.g.: [133], [134], [135]). The vandal edits are even more egregious clearly showing that he is note here to build an encyclopedia: here and here the user adds a slur right next to the persons name (meaning "insect" and "British bootlicker" in Bengali), here he vandalizes the ideology of a political party.
The user has been reverted multiple times by different users and even been warned of their editing but ignores the reverts and continues repeatedly vandalizing and re-inserting his edits. Neither is the user here interested in following wiki policy or guidelines or willing to discuss his edits (no reply comes from him at all only disruptive edits), a perma-ban is needed here. Gotitbro (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.[136]
Totally disagree, not clutter, and you are politically motivated in your attempt to remove it - it has been noticed[137] and We know what you are trying to do, and it will not work[138], Subsequently asked to assume good faith by DeCausa but dismissed as a "bigot" [139] (also again here [140][141]) and said to DeCausa "curb your bigotry" [142] and again "Anglophobe" [143]
The user was warned about WP:AGF and WP:NPA back in March 2021 [144].
Bad faith accussed me of being an "English nationalist" [145] which he Vaze50 later retracted [146] but still has refused to strike bad faith questioning my 'political motivations' [147]
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) [148]. A new discussion was opened and closed as no consensus [149]. 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.[150]
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.[151]
you are - for obvious political motivations - seeking to erase the country from this website which is intended to be accurate, not politically motivated.[152]
This is blatantly politically motivated by you[153]
@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)
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)
IMO, considering they were already warned about WP:AGF and WP:NPA by Nagualdesign from March 2021 [155] (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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
q28 got blocked a couple of days after filing this (later unblocked). Unlikely we would grant bot usage as this time so it seems like no further action is required here ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
I would urge caution allowing this user a bot account. He has been disruptive here and has been blocked on Chinese Wikipedia. SpinningSpark16:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes. Vjmlhds should not be permitted to mark any edits as "minor". They've misused the minor edit box for long enough. KyleJoantalk04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yeah, I have to agree that something that adds content is not minor and shouldn't be marked that way, and something that changes meaning is never minor, and something that adds unsourced content is absolutely not a minor edit. @ST47, I feel like I must be misunderstanding you -- you think that's an appropriate edit to mark as minor? —valereee (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
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. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.05:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wellertalk12:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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 Wellertalk16:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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 Wellertalk16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wellertalk
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ProcrastinatingReader, I don't agree. People can set in their preferences for minor edits to not show up on their watch. That's because we trust one another not to mark as minor anything that changes meaning or adds/removes content. This edit added content, changed meaning, and added unsourced content. That is not a minor edit, and calling it that is at minimum misleading. This is a communication issue. —valereee (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and it's an awful idea to use that setting, because regardless of whether all the editors who are here to build an encyclopaedia follow whatever 'good minor edit practices' are, the vandals won't. So you'll now be hiding all the worst edits from your watchlist. See evil bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Whether it's an awful idea or not is beside the point here. I don't have my settings set that way and like you I agree it's a bad idea. —valereee (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
We can't start blocking established editors for a functionality (the filtering in watchlists) that shouldn't be in the software to begin with, and that no experienced editor probably uses. If any do use it, they can't complain when they miss changes that weren't minor (again, due to the vandal minor edits if nothing else). If you really think about the functionality, it doesn't make sense to treat it as anything but a user's self-description of what is 'minor'. And thus, there is no reason to block over it, or drag someone to ANI over it either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
PR, I'm not suggesting blocking. I'm certainly not suggesting blocking because someone might be filtering those edits, and again the edit filter is beside the point. The point here is communication is required, and we expect that communication to be accurate. Marking an edit that changes meaning and adds unsourced content is not accurate communication. Persistent inaccurate communication, especially when it can be seen as intentional, is indeed a conduct issue. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That's separate from my advice to Vjmlhds, which would be to just mark nothing as minor if they can't tune their expectations to what other editors find minor. Nobody can be sanctioned for marking every edit as major, and that's the safest way to go frankly. An absurd state of affairs IMO, but I digress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
There's something, somewhere, that explains a minor edit as "something no one could possibly dispute, such as adding or removing a comma". Ha! Whoever wrote that certainly never edited Wikipedia! EEng15:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
TLDR, but there used to be a Preferences checkbox to mark all edits as minor by default, unless you unchecked the Minor box on a particular edit. IIRC this preference checkbox was removed some years ago, so users can no longer opt in to that functionality, but (again IIRC) for users who already had that preference set, the function stayed that way. As I write that somehow seems wrong, because if the checkbox is gone I don't see how users in that situation can unset the preference, but anyway I think something like this may be what's going on. EEng11:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering, too, EEng. I remember that being possible, but I looked just now and couldn't find it. —valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, the checkbox has been removed so no one can adopt that option any more -- too much trouble exactly along the lines of this thread. But those who already had it checked, IIRC, would continue with this "feature" (i.e. making all edits minor by default) enabled, and I don't know how an editor in that situation turns it off, since the checkbox is gone. Anyone remember this more clearly than I do? EEng14:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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 Tailtalk17:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, actually WP:UNRESPONSIVE is policy so there is indeed a requirement to at least "try to use an appropriate edit summary". I'll be honest - I only discovered that today when double-checking my own belief that they're entirely optional! WaggersTALK16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Has never edited a talk page, including their own. Likely hasn't discovered them yet. Same for edit summaries. I'm not sure the lack of communication has caused enough disruption to p-block. Only a single actual warning on their talk. I'd say let's watch them. If they're making edits that really do require an edit summary, or if they're making disruptive edits, start leaving warnings, but I don't think this rises to the level of needing action yet. —valereee (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
For all the worth it'll do, I've dropped them another note - it's a shame admins (or someone) can't change certain user preferences... Being able to enable Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary would be good! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: You can set user preferences using javascript (see User:AzaToth/twinkle.js for an example of it in use) so theoretically it would be possible for an interface administrator to forcefully change a users preferences by adding a couple of lines to their common.js. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh! Hmm, not entirely sure that'd be allowed, which is probably for the best otherwise I'd be off to start a RfC on forcibly changing everyone to (old) Vector ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Charalampe: is attempting to put two pages on Template:Proposed deletion. I told him/her I opposed those deletions (here and here). He/she reverted me and told me I needed to argue my point or improve the page (here and here) - I do not, see below.
I reverted and asked him/her to make a proper DR, and explained why I could object the way I did (here and here). He/she then insisted I could not object and called one of my objections vandalism.
This is despite the fact the template he/she uses states that "You may remove this message if you [...] object to deletion for any reason", that "If this template is removed, do not replace it", and that a justification on the objection is "not required". Veverve (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Anyone may remove a PROD, Charalampe was acting out of process and edit warring on their out of process edit. Charalampe's accusations of vandalism are also out of place. Charalampe do you have an explanation here? This is not looking good.--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉)11:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve, you're required to notify the other editor of this discussion. I've done that. This is an editor with 7 edits who hasn't discovered talk pages yet. I see they've now AfD'd the article. Well, at least that gets them to a place we can communicate with them. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Charalampe, thank you for coming in here. I see you're engaging at the AfD, too, which is good. Please try to listen to what others are saying there about whether a deletion is appropriate or simply a discussion about renaming the article, which would happen at the article's talk page, which is at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Is absolutely valid for Deletion. The article state no facts, other than tabloid suggestions. There is no official statement for the matter. Instead there is a statement by the Orthodox Church that states "There is no Schism" (2021). As reading the talk page, other users opposed this article and consider in their opinion this article as false, innacurate and this is a ground for Deletion. Thank you. Please read the deletion process page. --Charalampe (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Charalampe, you've stated at the AfD that the topic is notable, but the title is misleading and the article is inaccurate. That is not a reason for deletion, it's a reason for fixing the article and renaming it, and discussion of that belongs on the article talk page, not in a deletion discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked Charalampe for one week. At least they should stop disrupting the AfD. I considered an indefinite block, but there is a slim chance the user can reform.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Theologian81sp, block evasion and righting great wrongs
There is overwhelming support for this. The user who has been editing under the account Theologian81sp is therefore site banned from EnWiki; this ban applies to the user, not the account, so any further accounts they create should be blocked (and global lock should be requested on meta). GirthSummit (blether)12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
94.38.238.71, 3 August: 19th-century Catholic priest Ugo Bassi added to Category:Italian Satanists based on a poorly-sourced claim of his being a Freemason.
94.38.235.172, 5 August: Italian economist Renato Brunetta added to Category:Italian Freemasons together with a source stating that he is not a Freemason, and an explanation on the article talk page saying that since Brunetta has written a book with Freemasons, he is also a Freemason – and that he, Theologian81sp, was simply forced to evade his block to add this information to the article.
84.223.68.6, 20 July: The Egyptian Revolutionary Command Council are Freemasons because... well, I don't get this one at all. Or what it has to do with the history of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi.
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. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
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! --bonadeacontributionstalk12:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Support as original suggester. It's quite clear they're not compatible with Wikipedia, they're socking all over the place, accounts left right and centre, and clearly don't get it. Canterbury Tailtalk00:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support I viewed a random sampling of his contributions and agree that this editor is not compatible with Wikipedia. I don't know how this will help with the persistent socking though. Schazjmd(talk)01:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
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 Tailtalk12:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support as one of those trying to block these multiple IP addresses. COI declaration: I have no connection with Satanism or Freemasonry whatsoever. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support as originator of the thread above. Even if there is a de facto three strikes ban, I think it's a very good idea to have an explicitly stated community ban. It just might make him stop trying to evade the block, though I'm not too sanguine about it. No Masonic or Satanist COI here, either, unless they have influenced my subconscious somehow. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support - same behavior on itWiki, other accounts and other shared IPs identified. The other users are Micheledisaverio (he stopped to use it because he lost the password) and Ciccio81ge. The IPs are three and they are from his office (185.51.X.X); currently they are blocked. --НУРшЯGIO(beware of the moose)21:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Support - The fact this individual is already globally locked on 2 accounts because of their disruption tells me everything I need to know and certainly tells me this individual isn't compatible with this project (or any other by the looks of things!). Clearly a net-negative to the project either way. –Davey2010Talk16:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Support - I argue that we should amend policy such that a user who has an account that's globally locked is automatically considered community-banned, but this isn't the time or place for such a proposal. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano09:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Safari web - mass reverting IP edits without explanation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Safari web is a new user that seems to be trying to involve themselves in anti-vandalism work, but the way they are approaching it is full of errors. They seem to be exclusively reverting edits by IP's without leaving any kind of edit summary or explanation, and they don't seem to be performing sufficient checking before reverting because their contributions are full of mistakes where they are reverting good faith edits or reinserting vandalism. Some examples:
[164] Reinserting a spam copyvio advertising a bnb site, which had been correctly removed by an IP
[165][166][167][168][169] Edit warring and reverting an IP 5 times to replace a neutrally worded "see also" section with a POV-pushy "Macau is china" note
[170][171][172] Same thing on the Hong Kong template - edit warring to replace a neutrally worded "see also" section with "HK is China"
[173][174][175] Edit warring with an IP that was trying to remove a notice from their own talk page.
[176][177] An IP identifies an image as original research and removes it, explaining their reason why in the edit summary, Safari web blindly reverts it back in
[178] An IP removes some controversial material sourced to a not particularly amazing source (a perfectly valid edit) and is reverted by safari web with no explanation
[179] I redirect wp:Suppress to oversight (yes, I know I forgot the namespace) laying out my reasons for doing so in the edit summary and am instantly reverted by safari web with no explanation. I ask why they reverted my edit on their talk page, which they blank with no response [180]
This is clearly an editor who's here in good faith, but they need to slow down, check what they're doing, stop blindly reverting IP's and explain what they're doing in their edit summaries. A coupe of editors now have asked them to slow down and use edit summaries, but this doesn't seem to have had any effect. This might be a case where some kind of mentoring might be beneficial? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User has been active for over few months. A lot of their edits do not meet standards of our projects or a simply counter-productive. Adding POV statements, unexplained content removal, creation of unsourced articles, or even pure vandalism. Take a look at their talk page – User talk:Imsamrat392.
Recently he has involved in the abuse of autoconfirmed privileges by performing page move vandalism (WP:MOVEVANDAL) – moved "Bashundhara Kings" to "Bhosundhora CIowns" ([181]). And vandalised that page even further – [182].
I believe we should respond to this behaviour, as the community, to prevent further disruptive editing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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 [183] 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 [184] 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 [185], [186], [187]. I'm concerned of the actions from the user, especially after a call to another editor with a caste-promotion message [188]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I 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)
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)
I've blocked the editor indefinitely for harassment/personal attacks. I consider my block somewhat involved (though not WP:INVOLVED) as it was the pronoun comment that "tipped" me to indef them. Would welcome another admin just giving this the thumbs up ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Non-administrator comment) Omitting edit summaries doesn't really warrant any sort of admin intervention in itself. As long as their edits are constructive, there's not a lot anyone can do at this point, considering you've already templated them. Zudo(talk • contribs)09:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_helpful:_explain is the relevant policy on this; in a nutshell it's "explain your changes". That doesn't mean editors have to use edit summaries; if the edit is self-explanatory then that's fine, or they could use the talk page to explain their changes instead. But if an editor is repeatedly making changes that are not self-explanatory and not explaining them, then technically they are in breach of the editing policy. Of course, whether or not an edit is self-explanatory is somewhat subjective - and if their edits are constructive then WP:IAR comes into play. WaggersTALK10:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
FS, if an editor is failing to use edit summaries in a problematic way -- that is, if they aren't explaining something that needs to be explained -- that's when we start insisting on edit summaries. They do seem to at least occasionally use them. Are you seeing edits where you feel they definitely should have included an edit summary? —valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I second this. Writing edit summaries helps everyone and not taking the time to write them is unfortunate, but really nothing more. MrPorpoise (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This issue would fall in the urgent category. Editor Laska666 appears unwilling to accept the result of the AfD of an article which he created, which closed with merge. It looks like he has begun doing undiscussed (and counter to what the AfD would indicate) changes to the target article: [200][201][202] EDIT: and related articles [203] He is also undoing all the merge-related changes to daughter articles (also created by him, as a self-contained PoV-fork ecosystem), including undoing moves, whereby he posts summaries such as rvv disproven deletion discussion. He has also posted in the AfD post-closure, further reinforcing that he doesn't accept it's result. Moreover, in an article talk page post-AfD discussion dealing with how to perform the merge he protracts the deletion issue by writingOppose merging/deleting etc. The warring-style edits he has made on August 16 are too numerous to link here (9RR involving an IP on another topic notwithstanding). I think that this editor should take a back seat for a while so that the advocates of merging, who are responsible Wikipedians (one is a bureaucrat on the Vietnamese Wikipedia), get a fair shot at actually pulling the merge off, without systematic disruption. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The way to appeal a decision at AfD is firstly to discuss it with the closer and if that doesn't lead to agreement to go to WP:DRV. It is not to act as if the decision hadn't been made. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Oshwah: For non-vandalism edits after the fourth, it must go to ANI; for vandalism after the fourth, AIV. I could remember from User:ToBeFree that he is happy that the non-vandalism reports are not added to AIV. according to him, the AIV is not a place to report good-faith edits. This was happened before.----Rdp060707|talk05:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh my If cases such as this one, with clear and repeated BLP neutrality violations, appear at AIV, I simply block and often thank the reporter for their edit. Same when such a report appears here at ANI. Redirecting to a different venue in such cases is practically pointless; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rdp060707, you seem to refer to Special:Diff/1038738238, which was about a different situation involving a legitimate content dispute about whether a musical riff verifiably appears in another song or not. Comparing Special:Contributions/103.95.98.42 to Special:Contributions/103.246.39.1 is comparing apples to oranges. My main intention wasn't redirecting you anywhere, and I wouldn't have said anything; my main intention was to provide a counterbalance to JPxG's inapplicable advice. AIV is not for cases that require discussion or long explanations; AIV is for cases that can be answered by looking at the situation for 30 seconds, placing a block and moving on to the next situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user 2601:140:50D:5F25:2D1A:6BD5:5E13:CE46 is posting information from a unreliable source on T-Mobile US about the company's GSM and UMTS shutdown dates. Although the company supposedly sent letters to business customers, T-Mobile's website still states that a date has not been confirmed[1] and customer service when contacted says the same thing. He also keeps reverting the page back to the disputed edit even though a conversation is ongoing in the talk page. Also I suspect that this user is User:Dnywlsh who was recently blocked for disruptive editing on LTE frequency bands and 5G NR frequency bands and was found to be a sockpuppeter using User:Dv42202 so could someone verify if this is the same person because dealing with this person again would be very tedious. Joshua Shah (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am parking my motorcycle here in the middle of the intersection so as not to interfere with the flow of lulz-traffic. While I'm here: thanks El_C. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: I created that article; I think it qualifies for indefinite semiprotection as Ethan Ralph is a primary target of Kiwi Farms, and will still be one a month from now. The article is repeatedly vandalized, this isn't the only occasion. I think indefinite semiprotection is fair because users would have to know Wikipedia policy quite well to edit it well anyway; I would ask El_C to consider it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!05:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Zudo: I've blocked the IP for a bit, and I'll go take a look at revdel'ing those edit summaries. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following unregistered user is having an ownership attitude towards the article United Arab Emirates national beach soccer team. It started when he made some edits which I reverted, stating that there should be consistency in format on football articles. After explaining my restoration to the previous version, he always reverts my restorations and while he answers to my comments, those are lacking logic. It seems he just ignores all the guidelines and prefers to edit articles in the way he agrees with. It is like I would talk to a wall. So I ask you, that the previous version should be restored, since no weighted reasons have been given by this user yet, and he or she does not want to work with other users, but merely doesn't want his or her articles to be changed. The anonymous user's last statement "the application of the guildlines you cited is currently controversial, most of your addition and reformatting are new, so you must discuss on a settled period before applying any change" clearly underlines his dislike to adhere to the guidelines, formatting standards (which are not "new"), and also the fact that I should discuss the previous version, which I try to restore, and not he, who always reverts it, is quite nasty in my opinion.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concerns about The Gentle Sleep's editing in support of the Taliban
I am concerned with the POV presented by The Gentle Sleep(talk·contribs·count) in Afghanistan-related articles – the only articles they have ever edited, starting their editing history barely two days ago but flooding respective Talk pages since then.
questioning the legitimacy of the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan: [207][208] and elsewhere
defending the Taliban insurgency as a legitimate state in continuation since 1996 [209][210][211][212] and in multiple other places
While we welcome a diversity of opinions, and Wikipedia is not censored, the editing pattern of this single-purpose account, registered in 2016 and sleeping for five years until two days ago, is concerning. — kashmīrīTALK09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have simply been discussing topics of interest in good faith. I had created my account previously, but hadn't been motivated to actively participate in the editing of Wikipedia until quite recently.
I have done my best to be objective in regard to these matters, have done my best to familiarize myself with and follow Wikipedia guidelines, and have spent a significant amount of time attempting to help the truth and accuracy of the pages which I have interacted with.
I am trying to assume good faith here, but the users above are clearly looking for an excuse to get rid of me considering how little time passed between the creation of the sock accusation and now this.
Perhaps their desire to see me leave is based on a good faith belief that my presence is disruptive, but that certainly isn't the only conclusion which one could draw. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on your edits or the SPI, merely making sure people discussing your behavior here are aware of a relevant/related concern someone raised elsewhere. DMacks (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
There has been a huge amount of activity on Afghanistan-related articles over the past few days, much from brand new accounts or similar. There are issues surrounding understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including quite a lot of WP:OR and I suspect a reasonable amount of unattributed WP:CWW. However, these issues are general and not restricted to any particular user, and I haven't seen anything that should come to AN/I. CMD (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The Gentle Sleep is an extremely active new account active only in the Afghanistan topic area. In my estimation, the user knows enough to be dangerous, but not enough to actually be guided by site policy. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll admit I've made some mistakes in regard to policy as I wasn't particularly active until recently, but I've been learning quickly. I've also been doing my best to go back and fix any mistakes I've made as far as policy. Although I've mostly been interested in the accuracy and neutrality of pages related to Afghanistan recently, I'm also interested in other areas of Wikipedia including essays on ethics and philosophy. I just haven't had the time to devote to other areas so far The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aside from exceeding the scope of the article (which should strictly be about Testosterone as a hormone or chemical compound), the added text includes "references" that have links to buy food. This was just a lame attempt by this "account" to generate money.
"IP", you need to dial it way, way back, and perhaps take another look at WP:AGF. As far as I can tell, this was an editor who was trying to be helpful but who does not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Given the links they added, I'm willing to believe that the "links to buy food" are the product of bad choices in citations rather than spam. Having looked at your recent behavior, I also would strongly advise that you stop policing other editors for a while and work on a different part of the encyclopedia. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One instance of adding content that may have been copied straight from the external source is not a reason to block the user immediately. Have we warned the user? Have we talked to them? We try and give users the opportunity to stop the behavior and improve their edits before we resort to blocking. If they repeat the behavior (and this would be an example of a violation of policy that should not be repeated after the user has been warned), administrative action can (and usually should) be considered in this situation. However, it doesn't appear that the user has repeated the behavior since the edit being reported. I don't see a reason to administratively act at this time. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Carnegie CommUser talk:Carnegie Comm#Springfield College has admitted that they are a paid editor for Springfield College, and has edited that page several times recently, only now adding the required notification to their User page. Some of the edits are innocuous enough -- updating the accreditation agency and the listing of the school's colleges -- but others are more promotional -- see my comments on their User page, and my edits and edit summaries. --Macrakis (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@Macrakis: I think you're going to have to be a bit more specific about what kind of action you expecting an administrator to take. From the discussion you started on this editor's talk page, things appear to be moving towards some sort of resolution: the editor has a PAID declaration on their user page and you've explained your concerns about their editing of the article. They don't appear to have edited the article about the college since August 12; so, it's not clear what you're hoping to achieve here at ANI. Perhaps if you clarify that, an administrator will have a better idea as to what (if anything) needs to be done. Why does this need to be discussed here at ANI and not, for example, at WP:COIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. For some reason, I thought that repeated violation of the policy was supposed to be reported here. But in re-reading WP:COI, I see I was mistaken. Sorry for the noise. --Macrakis (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the use of "we" by the COI editor and the rather straightforward admission that this is an account run by the marketing firm Carnegie Dartlet, the editing contravenes WP:NOSHARE. --Kinut/c00:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a comment, which probably doesn't apply in this case but might in future: External relations/comms departments in universities generally appoint someone to handle web communications, who may feel that they are writing on behalf of their employer, and therefore use the pronoun "We". They may also give their account a name related to their department. So we should be careful of blocking them for multi-user without finding out what's really going on. Nevertheless, this sort of account is super high-risk because it's got all sorts of CoI and paid issues going on, and whoever's doing it needs to understand that they can't just pass the account on to the next person who has their job. If they also edit as a private individual, then they need to know all the rules on multiple accounts, and worry that they may be disclosing their identity and where they work. It's a bit messy. Elemimele (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user insists on repeatedly changing album release dates without sources despite multiple talk page warnings, reverting edit summaries and personal requests. On top of that, they also have yet to communicate with concerned editors such as myself regarding their problematic behaviour. Please could I ask a willing admin to cast an eye. Robvanvee08:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More or less all of this users edits have been reverted. He engages in pov-pushing and edit warring, removing/altering any information he doesn't agree with. He has also just broken the three-revert rule big time.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pyxis Solitary, I agree that a comment of that nature constitutes a personal attack, and is entirely inappropriate on an article talk page. I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they repeat that. I would have considered redacting the comment, but since you have quoted it here and on the article talk page, I am not sure whether you want that to happen. GirthSummit (blether)10:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for handling this. I prefer that the comment remain so that others can see what is not acceptable in an article discussion. Thanks, again. Pyxis Solitary(yak). L not Q. 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
After further disruption at the talk page in question, a further personal attack at the IP's talk page, and a refusal to retract it, I've blocked the IP for a week. GirthSummit (blether)13:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I edited Template:RuPaul's Drag Race on the 15th August. Almost immediately, User:Another Believerreverted my edit, writing "I disagree, so please discuss on talk page". I have reverted Another Believer's edit, because they failed to provide a reasonable motive in their summary. After that, another user reverted my edit once more - this time inviting me to discuss on the talk page. Which I did: Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Template edit suggestion. I invite you all to read the discussion between me and AnotherBeliever. Today, I edited the template again. This time, my edit was focused on a different issue: the template is named after RuPaul's Drag Race (the US TV show), however it links all the articles related to the "wider" Drag Race (franchise). Since Drag Race (franchise) exists, and since all of the franchise's pages are currently featured in the template, I edited it in good faith to reflect this. Again, immediately Another Believer reverted my editing, this time stating: "Restore; ongoing discussion(s) on talk page". I reverted their revert, but again, Another Believer reverted back once more - their summary: "Restore again; please quit while you're ahead...". Now, I may not be the biggest expert on Wikipedia's policies, but I suspect that User:Another Believer may have ownership issues, specifically with articles related to RuPaul's Drag Race. Their motivations for reverts are very weak in arguments, especially the "I disagree" comment. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, but my edits have been challenged and reverted with no reasonable reasons every time by Another Believer. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I see reasons for the reversion on the talk page and edit warring behavior from you. Do not continue to reinsert your edits when there is no consensus for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
My first edit on the template was reverted with "I disagree" as the reason. I don't believe that every edit has to go through consensus, but for Drag Race-related articles this seems to be the norm, since Another Believer reverts edits often inviting people to start discussion (I presume when they don't like the nature of the edits). My edits from today concern other aspects of the template, so saying that there is an ongoing discussion is not accurate: there is a discussion, but it's about other things. I didn't edit war, and I did not break the three-revert rule. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem following through with discussion at the talk page and abiding by the consensus that results from the editors (more than just you and AB) involved in the discussion there. I see no reason for administrative action here in relation to AB's actions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That's what I did, I started a discussion on my first edit (after Another Believer reverted them). Today I made other edits of different nature and they got reverted by Another Believer again. Using the "please discuss" excuse to perform ownership of article is not a fair practice to me. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Glad you started this discussion. I was anticipating. I have a feeling this editor is the same as User talk:78.148.25.46, who has been blocked. I am not entirely opposed to some of the editor's proposed changes, but they are going about this process all wrong by overhauling the template and edit warring during active discussions. I stand by all of my edits and invite this editor to use the template's talk page to propose specific changes and gain editor consensus before implementing. ---Another Believer(Talk)16:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not that user. I didn't overhaul the template and I didn't edit war. You revert too easily and don't allow other users to edit articles that you care about if the edits are not to your liking. Reverting with no reasons and say "please discuss" is not productive. Not every edit has to go through discussion. You are not reasonable. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You are proposing significant changes to the template, some of which I'd prefer not be implemented. When there's disagreement, editors discuss on the talk page. This is a very simple process. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You should've provided a reason for your disagreement in the edit summary, but still, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal to make an ANI thread out of it. —El Millo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It's common practice for Another Believer. They revert the edits that they don't like, inviting users to start discussions. More often than not these discussions have little to zero traction, resulting in no changes made. In this way Another Believer get to keep the page the way they want it. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Not true. You seem to think I have ownership issues when that's not the case. I'm totally open to template changes if other editors agree to them. Also, WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race is relatively active. If you propose specific changes, post a note there seeking feedback, you just might get your way. Follow the process and be patient. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I can see both sides to this one. 92.28, please review WP:BRD. Your edits were the "bold" edits, once they were reverted, they should not have been reinstated until and unless there was consensus for them. The WP:ONUS is on the editor making the bold edit to gain consensus for that edit. Reinstating the edit without consensus is edit warring, and "bad edit summary" is not an exception. That said, and though it's not a requirement, edit summaries for reverts really ought to give a substantive reason for the revert beyond just "disagree" (that much is obvious from the revert itself), even if the substantive reason is a totally subjective one, like "flows better before" or "better word choice before," at least giving a reason in the edit summary gives the reverted editor an idea of what the problem is. To not give a substantive reason for a revert in the edit summary just compels the reverted editor to start a talk page discussion, ping the reverting editor, and ask, "what's the problem?" which is an unnecessary step. So save editor time and give a substantive reason in the edit summary when reverting. This is especially true if you're reverting the same editor multiple times, and even more especially true if it's across multiple pages. I'd also be annoyed if someone was reverting a bunch of my edits on different pages without giving any substantive reason in their edit summaries.None of this is ANI-worthy, though. AB's suggestion below for moving forward seems reasonable to me. Levivich18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. My slight caveat is that I think good template editing should be a little less bold than article editing. I'm a fan of consensus first for all but trivial edits. That said, I wouldn't recommend unexplained reversion. Can an admin wag their finger at both parties and we call it a day? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
semi protected the template in question. Now they can thrash it at the talk page. Finger wagging does not require the Admin bit. I will leave that to the Community. I stand ready to unprotect when everyone is ready. --Deepfriedokra(talk)18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Bad protection, Deepfriedokra. WP:SEMI is clear that the relevant condition is: Subject to edit warring if all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. (Emphasis in original.) This is clearly a two-sided edit war between an IP and an XC user, neither of whom are vandals. You needed to fully protect or apply no protection. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Thanks for your input. I read it as disruption by an unregistered user. I think it is sorted now. If things start up again, full protection might be needed. --Deepfriedokra(talk)20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I have to say that I find the IP user's assertion that they are not the same person who was editing through 78.148.25.46 a couple of months back quite difficult to swallow. They're both on the same network (OPALTELECOM-AS TalkTalk Communications Limited, GB), and the contributions of both show a pretty-much single-minded interest in this range of TV shows - it's hard not to conclude that they're the same person, who just got assigned a new IP. That said, the block on the 78 IP expired ages ago, so this wouldn't be block evasion. GirthSummit (blether)16:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to propose a possible solution to 92.28.190.117. If you agree, I would like to archive this discussion and this discussion. This way we can start from scratch. Then, you can propose very specific changes to the template, one at a time. Right now your changes involve the header/link, naming conventions for International section, displaying full titles of spin-offs, etc. In other words, you're proposing too much at once, which makes discussion difficult. Start a new section for each of the proposed changes, and let editors respond to you before you implement on your own. If you agree to this, please let me know and I will archive the discussions so we can start again. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Repeating sentiment posted on template talk page, where I was previously involved.) I'm fine with this solution, though I don't think it should be the standard for all changes to the template going forward (WP:BOLD is a thing). Colin M (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I will start a new discussion in the Talk page, with a list of the proposed changes. I hope that many users will contribute, but if that won't be the case then it will demonstrate the situation I illustrated above. Thank you User:Colin M for your comment. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will archive the two aforementioned discussions. Please start a series of new discussions, proposing specific changes to the template so editors can weigh in. Thank you very much! I'll try to revisit this section later to make sure there's no additional commentary, but from my perspective this is resolved. ---Another Believer(Talk)21:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
While discussing the proposed changes to the template, I mentioned how some articles shouldn't be included it (in my opinion). I specifically stated that another article (The AAA Girls), who wasn't featured in the template shouldn't be included in it. Another Believer then proceeded to edit the template and add such article. I have reverted their edit, because consensus in the talk hasn't been reached yet, but it's interesting to note how Another Believer feels entitled to make edits even when other users clearly expressed their disagreement, yet when other users (like me, as reported above) make other edits Another Believer reverts them and invite to discussion. Another Believer wasn't interested in discussing this with me, when I pointed out their obvious double standards in their Talk Page 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were suggesting the TV shows should be removed because the girl group article was not included. Since I thought the girl group articles should be included, I added them and offered to continue discussing their inclusion on the template's talk page. I'm fine admitting I misunderstood your preference to not include the girl group links, and I didn't push back when you reverted. You're making this a bigger deal than is necessary. I think we're doing a good job of talking out proposed changes on the template's talk page so let's please continue to do so. ---Another Believer(Talk)20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Today i noticed an article title Rex Nosa was created by Bloomshouse, I opened the article and the image there was described as their “own work” suspecting a potential COI I drafitified the article and left them this personal message see here trying to initiate a dialogue as to how they got the image they refused to WP:COMMUNICATE, rather they moved it back to mainspace, Due to the nature of the potential COI, I moved the article out of mainspace and explaining to them why a dialogue was important especially since there is a cogent and warranted COI suspicion, here, I furthermore tell them it is not good practice to move an article with a potential COI back to mainspace and told them to use the WP:AFC method to create the article and expressly mentioned I was going to file a report here if they moved the article back to mainspace if they failed to disclose how they got the image to be their “own work” they ignored me and for the third time moved the article back to mainspace/copy pasted it back to mainspace see here
Upon Further Observations of their TP I note the following;
In 2017 they are warned about COI by Reb1981 see here
In 2018 Bri categorically asks the question Are you a paid editor see here
In 2021, I asked them how they got a particular image(different incident) I ask them how they got an image labeled as “Own Work” see here but they didn’t reply
All the aforementioned are even more detailed in their TP, see here. Communication is the bed rock of any collaborative project, now coupled with potential UPE editing and the actions I referenced in the beginning of this report, I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia I feel an indefinite block should do the trick here or in very least a topic ban from creating biographical articles as this has been ongoing since 2017. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@El_C Seriously though My major concern is that this has been ongoing since 2017. I brought this here instead of COIN as this isn’t an isolated issue regarding one article but a pattern of creating promotional COI looking articles, and observing their TP I believe it’s rather overt they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia, but I’d let you sysops handle the rest, I am suggesting an indef block or in the very least a Tban from creating biographical articles. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It's fair to say they're not a great communicator. Their only talk page edits are actually moves, but there's a bit more in the user talk space - initially asking other editors to review pages they had created, handing out a couple of barnstars, and then replying on their own talk page to the question about paid editing (which they deny). It's concerning that they haven't responded to any questions on their talk page since 2018. My guess is they're not a paid editor, but are uploading lots of other people's images and passing it off as their own work in order to avoid copyvio tags, which is clearly not acceptable.
I've no qualms about editors avoiding all the drama of talk pages, getting their head down and writing articles, but ignoring direct questions on your own talk page is a big problem. I suspect they're not even looking at their talk page, are ignoring notifications and probably haven't seen the questions they've been asked. Sadly if that's a case I suspect a block will be the only way of getting their attention. WaggersTALK10:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There's something hinky about the draft, userspace page, and two articles above. Maybe an article was userfied then re-created. Perhaps one of the fine admins reading this case can sort it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree Bloomhouse/Rex Nosa looks like paid promotion. Regarding images as "own work" (mentioned further up) , I don't think that can be definitively concluded to mean one thing or another. It's a drag to chase down likely COI like this, since we have not instituted the mechanisms to deal with it effectively. --- Possibly☎21:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Chinnusaikrish (CSK) was involved in Talk:RRR (film)#Regarding RRR Title expansion and the controversy surrounding it discussion where all the editors, except CSK, agreed that the existing title of the article, RRR, is according to the article titles policy and that there was no abbreviation for the title. The abbreviations marketed in various languages were sourced in the Marketing section. CSK argued for an abbreviation of "Roudram Ranam Rudhiram" but failed to prove it. The user has come back after about 10 days and has just edited the article to what their argued version [223], which is directly against the consensus. (The discussion was rather draining for the editors who participated in the discussion with CSK, which could have spent on more productive stuff, only if CSK understood the policies properly.)
There was another instance at the article Talk:Rajahmundry, where CSK started an RM, three times in one year, the latest being last week after the above RRR discussion, and failed consistently to prove the move on the lines of common name policy. In the latest RM, CSK has admitted in own words that the common name has not changed but raised the request anyway stating the new name would become common name only after Wikipedia changes it. A tightly scoped TBAN was also called for on CSK restricting any new RMs.
Chinnusaikrish's attempt to push their own version on 16 August was reverted by DaxServer. Instead of seeking consensus for their version per WP:BRD, they've returned on 17 August to re-instate their preferred version. I've reverted the same asking them to discuss but they simply reverted it again ignoring the discussion at Talk:RRR (film). The edit warring behaviour is not new for Chinnusaikrish as they tried to the same on 2 August ([224], [225], [226]) and 4 August ([227], [228]) despite being warned ([229], [230]). -- Ab207 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Had a block for 3RR couple of days ago, CSK is still continuing the same pattern of editing against WP policies. Reverted my edit [231] where I removed unsourced criticism. Requesting an indef block. -- DaxServer (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on these edit summaries, I do not believe this IP is editing in good faith. This occurred nearly a month ago and only came to my attention now, so the IP might be finished with the article, but I would like the administrators to be aware if this problem resurfaces. Bluerules (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The 111 IP seems to be someone else. But Loafiewa, I wonder where you heard that, that we put rangeblocks on IPs that are NOT making disruptive edits. We do not. If IP hopping were a reason for blocking, most IPs couldn't be editing in the first place. These edits are not disruptive. The edit summaries are not nonsensical; they are enthusiastic with non-standard capitalization--not a big deal. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The 2409 IP is in India and uses no edit summaries, while the others are in Singapore and talk a lot, so that might be a different person. You may want to choose to not listen to whoever told you that on Discord. I wrote a page some time ago about IP hoppers: Wikipedia:IP hopper. It's not great but I hope it conveys at least the basics. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
What zzuuzz said. Some ISP's have limited IP's and reassign them as needed each time a customer connects. (AOL, I hear.) And then there are the IPv6's-- with an astronomical number of IP's per customer. --Deepfriedokra(talk)01:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Macklevine calling me racist when I'm actually a woke anti-racist.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Macklevine has built a small walled garden of COI articles over the past ten years. Their edits also include what look like a hundred or more "plugs' for Bayer Mack projects, inserted into a multitude of articles. Someone reported their editing to COIN, where I looked into it and left them some messages about COI editing. Melcous agreed that it looks like COI editing and tagged/edited some affected pages.
Mackelvine logged in today to find that the promotional days are over, more or less. They agreed to post a PAID notice on their user page, seeing as they appear to have a financial COI on all the articles created. They've been really difficult. However the reason I am here now is that they have just posted to their user page that the COI articles "have been (and continue to be) the targets of malicious editing and attempts at deletion that are possibly politically and/or racially-motivated in nature." So they're accusing me of racism, which is baloney. Also, they are making what is a simple job (informing them of COI and PAID guidelines and policies) into a giant pain-in-the-ass job. I'm sort of fed up with them at this point. Help, please. --- Possibly☎08:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I have left a hopefully informative warning on their talk page. I am concerned about this user's future here given their past. There is little to their contributions beyond their recently declared conflict of interest and their attitude is very confrontations and seems to blame others but not themselves. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@El C: What "woke" means seems to depend on which part of the world you live in. It is not so much of a pejorative here in Montreal where I live, because we have not suffered as much from the extreme left/right polarization that the United States has suffered from in the past four years. Here, it mostly still means socio-politically aware/educated. I added that word to try to use little humour to moderate the disgusting feeling of being called something so offensive--i.e. racist, which frankly sucks. Maybe I should have left it out; feel free to change the header. @HighInBC: I appreciate you talking to them. Not sure it will help, given the very long term exploitation of WP as as advertising platform for personal projects, but it is worth a try. --- Possibly☎13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@El C:That's not what I get from reading the Woke article. I don't see that using a term which originated in "African-American Vernacular English" and "referred to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans, especially racial prejudice and discrimination" is automatically racist when using by non-African American people. Just because it was appropriated and weaponized by right-wingers as described in the "Woke as a pejorative term" section doesn't make it so. WP is not a reliable source for such claims anyway. Carlstak (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
No, this is editor behaviour that is worthy of some admin attention. The editor had been creating and editing articles on project for which they have a clear COI, without any kind of disclosure of that COI, for nearly ten years. When discovered, they said that other editors were racists (diff above), and in two other instances wrote on talk pages edits are "possibly politically-motivated in nature" (diff). I posted it here because I do not think we should allow someone who abuses our PAID policy and and COI guideline for a close to a decade to also get away with baselessly calling other editors racists and accusing them of being politically motivated. HighinBC has dealt with is pretty smoothly, but on the other hand I do not understand how we block accounts some accounts for paid editing after ten edits or less, while we let others like this one, who violated Wikimiedia's paid disclosure for almost a decade, to remain active. --- Possibly☎16:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MarshallKe, if you express the intent of doing something about an article on your user page, like the possibility of nominating it for deletion, don't be surprised when editors with an interest of the subject matter follow up on that. Roxy the dog wasn't hiding that this was the impetus for their attention here. To me, that looks more like due diligence than hounding. El_C15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) MarshallKe, you are going to have to be specific about the abuse you say you have received in the past (in the form of diffs), and what it is you think they have done (also in the form of diffs). !Voting in an AfD discussion you have started on its own does not match the behaviour described at WP:HOUNDING. Is there anything else we should look at? GirthSummit (blether)15:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I will endeavor to compile the information you've requested soon. Is the AGF violation self-evident enough, or do you request more information on that, as well? MarshallKe (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Frankly, if an article in which I had an interest was nominated for deletion, and the nominator admitted the purpose of the AfD wasn't to remove a non-notable article but instead to encourage improvement of the article, I'd be upset too. You made a serious error in judgment, and I think you need to shift your efforts in Wikipedia to something more constructive instead of, as Roxy stated, wasting people's time. --WaltCip-(talk)16:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you've misunderstood me. If the article is notable, I want to improve it. If the article is not notable, I want to delete it. There has been enough discussion on the article's talk page about notability concerns that it was time to submit the AfD. I am sorry that I was not more clear in stating my intentions. MarshallKe (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Roxy said this: "Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it". I'm not sure what noms means, but this statement implies that I am trying to get the page deleted in bad faith. My reply to Roxy was my attempt to reassure them that I have no conflicts of interest or bad intentions in the deletion request. MarshallKe (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims" reads to me like an accusation of bad faith motives. I'm not sure what the point of writing that line is other than to impugn Marshall's motives for filing the AFD? Although I also don't see how "figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor" being an "aim" is problematic or relevant. So I'm a bit confused about why Roxy wrote that line at all, but I understand why Marshall would object to it. It doesn't in and of itself rise to the level of a personal attack though in my opinion; if there is a history (as is claimed but not yet diffed) that might change my view, but as of now, doesn't seem urgent or chronic to merit an ANI report. Levivich17:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a legitimate question that was asked. You definitely can state your beliefs but if you do then expect there could be a follow up question about how that relates to the AfD. I'm not sure how any of is hounding or assuming bad faith, however, a quick look at the nominators talk page does show that there is somewhat of a history between both parties. I don't find anything Roxy said as problematic and I don't find anything Marshall said as problematic either, except, in regards to the filing of the AfD. Based on their comment here, in which they state that their intention is to "bring the article up to WP standards if possible", I would have questioned their reasoning as well. Either the subject is notable or not. AfD is not for article clean-up. These are things experienced editors should know. I am sure that Marshall feels hounded and I am certain they feel Roxy has assumed bad faith because of their history. That does not mean what they feel can be equated into something actionable. I am certain Roxy feels the opposite is true. That's why we can't act on feelings. If Marshall has any follow up diffs to what we have researched and stated here then I encourage them to bring it to the community's attention. --ARoseWolf17:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Like Levivich, I read Keep Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it[232] as an imposition of bad faith. The only reason given for keeping the article here seems to be that it was (supposedly) not nominated in good faith. I guess that Figuring out what the heck to do about Hitchens's razor[233]could be read that way, but only, well, if one assumes bad faith. Now since the subject of the AfD was conceived of in a book called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and is commonly used to argue against the existence of God, it's reasonable to infer that someone who would want to 'do something about it' would do so from an anti-atheist agenda, whence MarshallKe's clarification [234] of their beliefs. If Roxy knows about the subject they are voting on, and there is every reason to suppose they do, they should have understood why MarshallKe was doing that (i.e., as a defense against a possible bad faith agenda). But this also means that asking what on earth do your beliefs have to do with this?[235] is not a genuine question, but rather disparaging rhetoric. Roxy has told this user before that with regard to being told to fuck off and to fuck right off by another editor [236][237], if you continue with such behaviour, you need to get used to such responses to it[238], and that they couldn't stop laughing at your lack of understanding of this project[239] It's true that MarshallKe sometimes makes poor decisions related to inexperience (they're around since 2007, but have only made 579 edits in that time [240]), but that's no excuse to deal with them in such an uncivil manner. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)03:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Apaugasma, Levivich I don't see Roxy's comment as an accusation of bad faith - I interpret it as 'I saw that this user was planning to do something about Hitchen's razor, I wondered what it was, I found that it was an AfD nomination, and I think we should keep the article'. There's nothing in there about bad faith, which is about intent. If I squint at it, I can see a way to read between the lines and infer 'This user is short on clue, so I thought I'd better check on what they were doing', but that's not about bad faith. If you advertise your intention to do something about an article, you are inviting other people to look at what you do - if they show up at AfD and honestly say that's how they found out about the discussion, they can hardly accuse you of hounding. GirthSummit (blether)10:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep the article, as an argument at AfD, would be classic WP:ILIKEIT. You seem to assume Roxy has a clue, as do I, but why then do you assume they would make such a transparently invalid argument? That just doesn't tally up. It seems much more natural in any case to read it as an ad hominem: 'the nominator seems focused on this article, and that's always a bad sign'. Agreed though that this is no hounding. I also tend to agree with the general sentiment here that there was by far not enough to be sanctionable, or even to come to ANI with, yet. But that doesn't mean we should just brush it off as if nothing at all happened, either. MarshallKe does notneed to get used to such responses. Roxy should be reminded that civility is not optional: it's the key to expert retention, and to a much more diverse user base more generally. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)23:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not a persuasive argument at AfD, but it's a very common one, and I don't think it approaches anything problematic. Digging into what elicited those uncivil remarks you've referenced, I see MarshallKe giving out EW warning templates to regular editors, when MarshallKe was in fact only person to have reinstated their own edit after a revert (the two editors they templated had both reverted back to status quo and engaged on talk). "Fuck off" isn't an ideal response, and it's not what I would have written; on the other hand, if someone gets into the habit of templating people while engaging in edit warring themselves, they probably shouldn't be too surprised if they receive less-than-optimal responses. GirthSummit (blether)10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Less-than-optimal, sure. I have given out some such answers myself after having been irked one time too many. But I did recognize they were wrong, especially after other editors pointed it out to me. What is happening here is the reverse, with people saying it is to be expected, something they should get used to. No. We should point out that we expect a different standard. By all means, also warn MarshallKe for their undue templating and their untimely report at ANI. Please just stop (what I perceive to be) enabling incivility. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)11:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Apaugasma, Levivich This can become a slippery slope. You have to make a bad faith assumption to conclude Roxy was acting in bad faith. Pretty soon we are all acting in bad faith to assume others are doing the same. Without an expressed action of bad faith that clearly violates WP:CIVIL I don't believe we should be trying to make that leap. With regard to the comments by the other editor and Roxy's response to Marshall, the initial comments were entirely inappropriate and uncivil to say to any editor here no matter the context, though I would need to see the full context of the conversation prior to such comments to verify Marshall hadn't goaded or antagonized the other editor, inappropriately, into a response which would make both parties at fault. I maintain that we should be able to control our emotions or simply walk away. Roxy's initial response, "if you continue with such behaviour, you need to get used to such responses to it", is the typical response I expect from someone who has had interactions with Marshall prior to and with whom they disagree. I wouldn't have necessarily said it the way they did. Instead I would have encouraged Marshall to evaluate their comments and responses and make sure they weren't taking too much of an immediate antagonistic approach to a discussion knowing how others would respond but ultimately it is Marshall's place to govern their actions, not mine. The laughing comment was in poor taste and we should expect better. I would strongly urge Roxy to not treat fellow editors, even ones they disagree with, in such a way. I do not feel there is enough here to take action over beyond a call for all sides to act with kindness. Others may see it differently. --ARoseWolf13:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay on this, I had been sleep deprived and busy with work. Apaugasma's comments make a sufficient history of my interaction with Roxy. My hounding accusation was premature and based more on intuition than facts, so I am sorry for that and I withdraw it. For those asking for an explanation of why the statement was bad faith, others here have explained it sufficiently and I also see how others interpret it in good faith as well. I can see how what has happened here could be the result of a Causal loop of WP:Bad faith, where an assumption of bad faith in person A causes an assumption of bad faith in person B, and they reinforce each other. I will try not to react in such a kneejerk manner in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With this user's history out of the way, I can get to the reason why I'm typing this now. For context: there has been a lot of discussion at the Jimmy Dore talk page (which they were recently blocked for edit warring at) over whether or not it is a potential BLP violation to include [[Category:American conspiracy theorists]]. After plenty of discussion, there was no consensus to include the category, and so it was removed. Ignoring the consensus, Jaydoggmarco just re-added the conspiracy theory category anyways without any edit summary, despite the fact that edit warring on that very article is what got him blocked two weeks ago. If it was just this one revert, I'd probably just ask them not to ignore the consensus and leave it at that, but knowing that this user has a track record of getting blocked for edit warring and adding BLP vios and doesn't seem to care how many times they get blocked, I'm seriously concerned that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard 💙04:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, this edit shows some snively get-away-with-it-ism. Not good. On the heels of the edit warring on Jimmy Dore, it seems that editor is exhibiting too much WP:BATTLE, even though this editor seems to be reverting some serious POV and WP:BLP issues like [241], [242] and [243]. Volatile issues like these require a bit more finesse and thick skin than what we're seeing. Perhaps an attitude adjustment and some basic education in wiki-process is necessary but it seems they're trying to contribute constructively despite the epic violations. Two recent blocks didn't deliver the message so WP:NOTHERE seems like an easy conclusion, but I think there's more going on here. If this editor is to continue here, some major behavior changes seem required. Unless they commit to that, it seems indef is the direction they're headed. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't comment on the articles other than Jimmy Dore. I don't recall Jaydoggmarco being part of the talk page discussion regarding the tag. Yes, they restored the tag that didn't have consensus but when the issue was pointed out they acknowledged the error. I think the edit had already been reverted at that time but their talk page acknowledgement suggests they understand. I would not hold that against them. Springee (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I do think I jumped the gun starting an AN/I thread about this user given that they did seem to acknowledge the error in the edit that prompted me to question if this was a WP:NOTHERE case, although blanking my comments at AN/I is certainly not the best way to express that acknowledgement. I was mostly interested in what other editors thought, and I agree with what Toddst1 had to say; this user has made some positive edits in the past, but they have some significant behavioral issues. I'm not aware of any appropriate restrictions I could recommend to try to reel in some of the negative aspects of their behavior, and it would be odd to suggest something like a 1RR restriction when their most recent problematic edits weren't necessarily edit warring. I suppose the best option is to take no action for now and hope that, going forward, this user will be an overall positive presence on the encyclopedia. If they try to participate more in talk pages, don't remove other editors' comments, and continue to avoid edit warring, then there should be no issues. Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙18:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite repeated warnings, descriptive reverting edit summaries and personal requests on their talk page, Monkeylady999 refuses to make any effort to reliably source their edits, specifically genre changes as can be seen in the current tangent they're on. Then there is their blatant lack of communication, something that is required to edit here. Please could I ask an administrator to take a look and assist. Thank you. Robvanvee10:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
As they've been warned several times over the past few months, I've issued them a short block of 31 hours to hopefully bring them into more harmonious editing territory and hopefully begin communicating with other editors. -- Longhair\talk10:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As these are mobile edits, I would wonder if this was the "mobile editor not seeing talk page" issue, that's been discussed of late, if they had not removed previous notices from their talk page - [244]
Jc37 - The user looks to have been warned plenty of times, I think that if the user does this again, starting with a temporary block for adding unreferenced content would be a reasonable and logical next step here. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)04:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No, I haven't been editing the article at all. I simply came across the edit note and thought it was a prima facie case of incivility. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Your post links to the civility policy but it doesn't look like you've done any of the steps outlined there, and instead have jumped straight to the endpoint of an ANI post. Perhaps raise your concern directly with the other editor first, and see how that goes. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought posting here and notifying the editor of the discussion was sufficient. I don't really have time to counsel the editor and am not an involved editor - I just saw a fairly clear case of incivility and wanted to bring it to someone's attention so they could step in. If you are saying I should ask him to apologise to the other party first, I'll do so [and have now done so, see [246], but I am not a regular wikipedia editor and am not intending to follow up so I would like someone else to monitor the response. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, I think an admin or someone with more authority would have to actually go in and expurgate the edit note as an ordinary editor cannot do that, even if they made the comment in the first place. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm more curious as to who you are. You haven't been on Wikipedia before now (according to your IP contrib history) & immediately found WP:ANI & apparently know your way around the project, as well as the rules. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to close this since we don't block for that phrase, and since it seems like the IP is here just to get a pound of flesh. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
History of unsourced or poorly sourced population edits
Warned. Hey, IP, it's been... half a minute. Anyway, I've left them a final warning. Please feel free to drop me a line personally if problems persist. New tunes, btw. El_C15:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The user is adding RT and Sputnik News, deprecated propaganda sources, into Munich speech of Vladimir Putin. They reverted removal of these sources at least twice 12. (I am not convinced that the material should at all be in the lede of the article, but this is a separate story). I tried to explain them at the talk page that the sources have been deprecated, to no avail (see User talk:Ssr#August 2021). RenatUK opened a topic at the talk page of the article, Talk:Munich speech of Vladimir Putin#Ssr sources RT and Sputnik, to no avail. As far as I understand Ssr (I might be wrong) they believe that (i) RenatUK and I are harassing him for some reasons unrelated to the article (ii) when they have written the article the sources have not yet been deprecated, and therefore should stay in the article. They also personally attacked RenatUK [250] basically saying that since they have longer been on Wikipedia they know better. Smth needs to be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not personal attack RenatUK, I was disagreeing with his "welcome to wikipedia" for me while I don't need such welcomes because of longer time being. As of yourself, you was involved in direct personal attack on me in the same year 2017, so you now again is attacking me now, but your previous attack turned to be senseless and disrupting. You should make no more personal attacks on me. --ssr (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Asking a former paid editor to conform to the terms of use and indicate the paid editing history at the user page is not a personal attack, even if you want to see it like this. Concerning RenatUK, they just put a DS template at your talk page, something they are obliged to do to make sure that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you have listened to them, we were probably not even here. (If you have listened to me, we were not here either). Comparing the registration date of an account is an ad hominem argument, and, absent other arguments, is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I just hope your complaint here will just help me to reach the goal that I cannot reach by normal explanation to you and RenatUK: that these links are relevant in the article and should stay in the article. I hope administrators evaluate it and make right conclusions as third-party watchers. --ssr (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
There is already explicit consensus of the community that these links can not stay in the article. Why can not you find reliable sources to prove the same point? If non-deprecated sources proving it do not exist than the point is not valid. This is a behavioral issue, not a content issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
(comment from involved editor) I think that Ssr's behaviour is unacceptable. And they not only reverted removal of the deprecated sources instead of discussing it, but before that they reverted maintenance template restoration (the same article, the same part of it) despite the fact there is a detailed edit summary why the template should not be removed in this case (diff 1 and diff 2). --Renat16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The article needs expansion and more work. You only remove other peoples work without helping to elaborate the article. I think that your behaviour is unacceptable. --ssr (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Both your judgment in discerning reliable sources and your ability to work constructively with other editors are in question. Perhaps you should consider that using sources like RT and then complaining when other editors object might indicate a problem, and that bluster at ANI is not a good look. Acroterion(talk)19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2017, when I created the article and used the sources, everything was OK both with discerning reliable sources and with my ability to work constructively with other editors. I cannot predict a moment when someone at ANI decides to overturn this. I just maintain my article as I maintained it before. --ssr (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - my recollection was that RT and Sptunik have been viewed with at least concern since about 2016, I thought they had been deprecated before last year.So Ssr, take this as an example of gracefully accepting a constructive correction and moving on, please, and do likewise. Acroterion(talk)20:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not "my article", but try to I maintain it as a normal wikipedian and hope for help with that. If there was a problem with RT, I could not insert it from the beginning, but I could because it was not banned at the time. --ssr (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Then please accept that when other editors tell you a source is deprecated and revert your use of it, it might be because they have a point, and that you should find a better source, which as I understand it is all that they were asking you to do. Acroterion(talk)20:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I agree with Bbb23, it seems very likely; but – as I recall – I looked in early July at some contribs of Cozgem and did not see any firm evidence to confirm it. Coz21 and TenorT have openly declared their identities, but I don't see that Cozgem did the same (I may just have missed it). There's absolutely no doubt that there's a long history of seriously inappropriate promotional editing here, but that should probably be dealt with at WP:COIN. That said, Coz21 is not here to improve our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm very suspicious of everything here. There is no reason for Coz21 to have contacted LemonBlast8, and no reason for LemonBlast8 to be aware of Cozgem or anything to do with TenorT. There is no overlap to result in these user accounts suddenly crossing each other. It's all rather odd. Canterbury Tailtalk21:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't remember ever seeing this kind of pedantic nonsense. This obviously isn't this user's first lapse in behaviour; see their talk page for a previous thread dating from July, which also includes similar comments. Persistent failure to abide by WP:CIVIL is grounds for a block. I've given them a final warning for now, if an admin thinks that this behaviour is likely to continue, feel free to give them a block. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who is more pedantic. Your and Adamstom's pedantic insistence that we follow the MOS:SEAOFBLUE exactly or there couldn't be an exception when it provides better context? There is actually a sample sentence regarding the usage of "pedantic" on Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pedantic | Definition of Pedantic by Merriam-Webster. It describes exactly the kind of behavior you two are demonstrating. I don't know what kind of bad military agenda he thought I was pushing when I am more like a pacifist and advocate for human rights. I wasn't mocking his nationality. What I don't understand is why all three here in the developed world can't have empathy for those in the developing world, if not poorly developed world. Btw, whatever you guys are "cheering" certainly have not unbanned Wikipedia in China. wikipedia.org is 100% blocked in China | GreatFire Analyzer Cheers. Supermann (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Beyond my comments here, I'm not previously involved in this, so I really think you should heed the advice being given to you, and stop digging. Thinking that you are right does not give you the right to be rude and pedantic (yes, if it wasn't already the case, firing back dictionary definitions to "win" an argument is certainly pedantic) about it. People objected to the inclusion of a link (all of this over a mere link - how trivial a reason to get upset over), the debate isn't going your way. So what? Unless you really want to die on this hill, I suggest you slowly back away and find something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am involved in this situation to some degree, as I saw it unfold. I just want to come here to say that I corroborate the claims and that, yes, user was pushing a political and military agenda. Even after I added Colonel to the credits he still insisted upon hyperlinking it and ranted on about the political situation of the Afghanistan and Taliban situation. Multiple users already warned him to stop pursuing this line of discussion, and a policy was cited, but the user still continued arguing this point. For now, we don't need to do anything. We can just keep living life as normal and if the user makes further disruptions, appropriate sanctions can be taken. Case closed. Cheers! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This is at least the second time Supermann has tried to link Wikipedia editing to the Taliban link. They have also accused other editors of totalitarianism for rejecting their edits, as well as tried to use the Five Pillars to override policy and consensus. I was actually considering taking them here over their behaviour over Stephen Hogan, as their behaviour there to me indicates that they're unwilling to compromise and will just keep browbeating until they get their own way. See for example their repeated attempts to use play reviews repeatedly stated to be insufficient to establish notability: linklinklink. This sort of behaviour has been going on since at least May by my reckoning CiphriusKane (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Given personal experience with them here at ANI, at DRN, at RfM, and at one point a declined ArbCom request, they've been attempting to use IAR to overturn consensus longer than that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like Supermann has decided to lay low until this blows over. Well, I think this complaint should function as final warning. It looks to me like we're approaching WP:NOTHERE-levels of "treating editing as a battleground". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that this thread should serve as a final warning that further disruption from this user can result in action. In particular I find the attitude that no matter how many people tell them they are wrong it does not matter to be problematic, example[251]. @Supermann:HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.02:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreeing with HighInBC here, the China reference is just empty political hyperbole that Supermann likes to engage in. I'm more concerned about the assumption of bad faith, victimhood-assuming, refusal to listen and wikilawyering. Supermann seems quick to assume malice when confronted, aggressively insists they are the victim, and refuses to listen when asked to stop (which can be seen in their messages here). @HighInBC:@NinjaRobotPirate: I accept I may have acted prematurely in referring the matter here, but I feel like the current final warning is insufficient as it fails to address the points I just listed IMO CiphriusKane (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user has not been given any warnings on their talk page as it is a constantly changing IP, but has been asked to stop in edit summaries and has already been rangeblocked from Legality of cannabis... and it's very obvious they are just trolling. So I think a full rangeblock is warranted. Thank you.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Long-term unsourced and disruptive edits by User:Jamesbath93
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jamesbath93 specialises in adding trivial and pointless distance and location details (motorway junction numbers, far distant airports etc) to articles on places in Dorset (eg [252]). Edits are always unsourced, and even if they could be sourced would still fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This has been going on for over a year, and there has been no response whatsoever to multiple warnings on the editor's userpage. There is a wider issue with unsourced edits generally. Would like some action to be taken to ensure the editor gets the message that their editing pattern is unacceptable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need an uninvolved admin (who may or may not be barefoot, it's irrelevant). I've been trimming down Barefoot and the related (yes) Prison uniform, which seem to suffer from someone with an extraordinary interest in bare feet (I swear I'm not making this up: see Talk:Prison uniform): the editor User:Julian von Bredow. Lo and behold, who reverts me, with a brand-new account, but User:Kerbald König. If one of you could have a look and do what must be done, I'd appreciate it. (CUs: don't bother--geolocation confirms, for what it's worth, but it's a different range from the Julian account so we can't make the easy calls.) And let me add that I'm not sure what to do about the Julian account, which suffers from a very high NOTHERE quotient. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I cut the 'corporal punishment' section in Barefoot and left a link to the article elaborating it in the see also section; where it was elaborated in the article body just felt like it didn't belong in the body at all. Anyone outside JvB and KK can feel free to revert, but where it was felt like a diversion meant not to inform (and the article is already very long as it is). Nate•(chatter)04:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been repeatedly stumbling across and am now watching user Dalie747 (contributions) as they have been making several disruptive edits, such as creating G12-violating articles and recreating articles after they have been deleted for so or moved to draftspace. Their articles consist of Korean food recipes translated into English and usually submitted with little to no improvement from the copied article. Another user, Someee1112 (contributions) may be a sockpuppet, since they edit Dalie747's articles and creates new ones with a similar writing style and topic, but I won't accuse. Maybe they should be investigated. Waddles🗩🖉22:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: you're saying Someee1112's a sockpuppet, but not accusing them of being a sockpuppet? EEng19:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You failed to notify Someee1112; I have done so for you. I recommend filing at WP:SPI. I've looked at the two users' edits, and behaviorally they look similar. However, there are some technical differences that give me pause, and unless a CheckUser wants to look at it based on this thread, I think it should be investigated more thoroughly than can be done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed sockpuppeteer Politialguru (talk·contribs) has just had two more accounts blocked via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. However these two new accounts only popped up recently and were kindly spotted and reported by @Mutt Lunker. In the weeks leading up to this however Politialguru has been active with the exact same disruptive editing pattern on the exact same accounts. He/she has been IP address hopping through the exact same IP range (which traces back to Sky Broadband in Truro, Cornwall) and at times has been hopping IP address every few minutes. A very good example of this can be seen if you look at the edit history of North East England on 10 August 2021. Although the IP changing is prolific, the range stays pretty constant. The majority of edits since 28 July 2021 have come from the following range of addresses.
Thank you. Apologies for giving you so much to read, but I really really despise sockpuppets. One day I'd like to earn admin access and be able to do this sort of thing myself. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor is doing Vandalism and they looks like sockpuppet
This user has made several disruptive edits where they've removed content from various articles, such as [253], [254], [255], and [256]. I left a note on their talk page that their edits could be considered vandalism (see [257]) since I wasn't sure at the time if they were editing in good faith; since then, they've removed content from other articles, see [258] and [259], and made this article-breaking edit [260]. I'm disinclined to AGF in this instance since several of their edit summaries do not accurately reflect the changes being made to the affected article, which suggests they're using edit summaries to intentionally obfuscate the nature of the edits they're making. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(edit conflict) I think the user Motherwellfc should read through WP:SHAREDACCOUNT and WP:COI regarding their editing conduct in general, as well as WP:3RR and WP:BRD regarding this specific case. Regarding the content dispute, I think it can merit a discussion on the article's talk page (two reliable sources which contradict each other and how to settle it). --SuperJew (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
it's stated in this revision of Banu Qaynuqaa https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qaynuqa&oldid=1039872744
And the current revision of Banu Qurayza that the cause of the invasion of Banu Qaynuqa was that a muslim woman got assaulted with her clothes pinned by the jews, with cited sources (Guillaume 363, Stillman 122, ibn Kathir 2)
But, one of the sources (Guillaume 363) doesn't consist such information, which the full book can be found here: https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad
Instead, the source (page 363) only talk about Muhammad after raiding many tribes, went back to Medina and gathered the jews in their marketplace and started inviting them to islam with threat. Which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute arose, with a verse revealed to Muhammad from God that the jews would be vanquished.
It's totally different with the cause of the banu qaynuqa invasion written on those 2 wikipedia article.
And the other source being cited {ibn Kathir 2} is too vague, since, Ibn Kathir wrote a lot of books, with many volumes each.
and {Stillman 122} born in the 20th century, it would be very weird if the information only exists in his book.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arief1982 (talk • contribs) 20:01 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why this is at ANI but while the referencing needs work, I assume from [262] that it means Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol III, p. 2. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
As for Guillaume, I think the section which deals with the woman part in particular is in 366-367. I still have no idea why this is at ANI. I mean there is even an open talk page discussion? Why not continue that explaining your concerns about the referencing without edit warring or making claims of fictitious referencing? Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
As Arief1982 has already been told several times, the sentence in the article doesn't only talk about the part regarding the Muslim woman, but also the war between the Quraysh and Muslims itself, which he omitted here because reasons. Thus the source is legit enough (as it talks about that part). He has refused to investigate the other sources and keeps using this as a argument to remove sourced information, which is a big no no. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me correct your statement. The cited source (Guillaume 363) IS not talking about any muslim woman being assaulted at all. --Arief1982 (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Arief1982 and HistoryofIran: Those 3 references were used as a source for four different things in our article [263]. In a case like that, it's natural that some may not cover certain incidents completely. It's fine to raise concerns about references and discuss how they can be improved on the article talk page. And Arief1982 does seem to have had some legitimate concerns since at a minimum 363 doesn't seem to cover the woman story at all. Later pages may or may do partially do so, I don't know as I said below. So at a minimum the page numbering could do with improvement. If it's decided the story is too incomplete in Guillaume, it may be better to remove the reference completely while keeping it for the other things it may be used to support.
Likewise Arief1982 IMO has a point that ibn Kathir 2 seems too incomplete to work out what reference this refers too from the article at the time. I think I worked out what reference this referred to from the history which potentially Arief1982 could have done themselves but regardless while Arief1982 had a point, they also clearly did not handle this properly.
There was no need to edit war over this. And rather than quickly making aggressive accusations of faking references etc, the correct way to handle it would have been to politely raise the issue in the talk page i.e. something "Hey I checked out Guillaume 363 and it doesn't mention the woman story anywhere. Also what is ibn Kathir 2 since there are a lot of works/volumes by ibn Kathir?". This would hopefully have received a response like "You're right Guillaume 363 does not mention the woman bit. It does discuss other details (?and briefly mentions the woman story in page 367). Do you feel it would be better to remove the reference from this section? And ibn Kathir 2 is....." etc etc. Instead we have this mess which for all its faults still doesn't belong at ANI for either party.
Note that if referencing does not support details it's being used for or if the reference being referred to is unclear, this is something that all editors need to fix. It's not Arief1982's responsibility in particular although it is true that removing it point blank was not a good solution, especially since so far I haven't seen it contested that Stillman supported the claim. I'd note that it's perfectly fine for only a modern ref to be used, indeed often quality modern refs are preferred since their authors are better able to summarise all the information available, with hopefully less biases than historic scholars may be subject to, and using modern understandings of how trustworthy and reliable different sources are, how to understand and interpret their texts etc. Obviously the details modern scholars use came one or more historic texts, but these may not necessarily be the best sources.
@Nil Einne: Thank you for your lengthy explanation. And sorry if I actually wasn't supposed to post this here. I searched how to deal with this kind of problem. And I found in this wiki article that I should report it to the administrators' noticeboard.
I initially asked kindly to HistoryofIran who reverted my edit, if he can provide any more details about the other 3 sources since the {Guillaume 363} one doesn't consist of such information. But instead, his response was dismissive and he told me to do the search myself.
Regarding the (Ibn Kathir vol.3 p.2) one, yeah it's there, but I think the chronological order is different. It's said there that after raiding many tribes and defeating the Quraysh in the battle of Badr, Muhammad went back to Medina and addressed the people of Qurayza by saying, "O Jews, beware of God afflicting you as He did Quraysh. And so accept Islam. You well know that I am a prophet sent with a mission; you find that to be so in your Book an God's pact with you". Seeing that as a threat if they don't convert to Islam, one of them retorted by saying "Muhammad, do you think that we are your people? Don't delude yourself, just because you did battle with those who lacked knowledge of warfare, and so you could take advantage of them. If you fight against us, you'll find us to be real men!"
And then after the verses about the non-muslims would be vanquished if they don't accept Islam revealed, the Muslim woman being teased in their jewelry story began. So I think the main or initial cause of the invasion of the Qaynuqa shouldn't be the Muslim woman being teased in the market story, but instead the threat made by Muhammad to the Qurayza if they don't accept Islam they'd be vanquished. Since in Saheeh hadiths Muhammad already stated his intention that he wanted to expel all the non-muslims out of Arabia. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1767a
@Arief1982: it's not at all clear to me it's a different incident or it partly describes the same incident, I know very little about the issue. I've seen page 366-367 otherwise I wouldn't have made my comment. If the ref partly supports the incident together with potentially Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol III, p. ~2 and Stillman 122 that seems more than good enough. You can discuss whether improving the page number for Guillaume or simply remove it if the description is incomplete on the article talk page. As Berig said, you still haven't explained WTF this is on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Just as a general note here: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir are primary sources which should only be used for literal quotes illustrating content already covered by citations of secondary sources, but never for any evaluative or paraphrasing statements for which there is no secondary source. It seems to me that these articles (Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza) contain quite a bit of original research, which should be removed rather than form the subject of a dispute. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
On the whole I find Arief1982's edits to be unhelpful. They tried removing a well-known story, that is widely covered in secondary sources, just because one of the page numbers were wrong. Then they tried adding voluminous quotes sourced to primary sources, giving them more weight than secondary source analysis.VRtalk14:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems you're not following. Maybe because of my bad English. But this English wiki is also often read in my country so it's quite a problem.
I deleted it before because the story doesn't exist on page 363 of Ibn Ishaq {translated by Guillaume} which is used as one of the sources for the claimed Muslim woman got molested information, "Guillaume 363".
And at that time, the other source [ibn Kathir 2] is too vague to me since Ibn Kathir wrote a lot of books, with many volumes each.
But then a user, Nil Einne (above) told me that it's Ibn Kathir Al-Sira Al-Nabawiya vol.3 page.2, and I found it. But rather than being molested, the Muslim woman was more being teased, and the chronological order is different.
All the sources however is said to goes down to Ibn Ishaq, but some said that he was quite problematic, even the IP user who reverted my edit before you used that reason.
However, one clear thing is, in one of the two most trusted collections of hadith, which is Sahih Muslim, Muhammad had already stated his intention, that he wanted to expel all the non-muslims out of Arabia.
@Arief1982: there's something which you don't seem to understand here: any information on Wikipedia that is solely based on Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim, or other medieval ('primary') sources should be removed. Writing something based on them is what scholars do (original research), but it is strictly prohibited here. We don't look to what Ibn Kathir and the others wrote, but only to what modern scholars ('secondary sources') have written about what they wrote. A wrong page number in Ibn Ishaq or an incomplete reference to Ibn Kathir is not a good reason to remove something if there is a secondary source. If there is no secondary source it should be removed, but only for that reason. We don't go into arguments here about what Ibn Kathir did or did not write, or how that should be understood. We take this understanding directly from the secondary sources. Please read our policy page on original research. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)02:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Even with my limited English skills, I can tell that Ibn Kathir's al-Sira al-Nabawiya is not something that can be considered as an original research meant there.
Here I copied some of the text:
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"
Is Ibn Kathir's not a reliable, published source? It is.
"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:
Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented a drinking game, a new type of dance move, or even the word frindle, it is not notable enough to be given an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. And Wikipedia is certainly not for things made up one day.
Is Ibn Kathir just some friend of mine who came up and talk nonsense, which then I took as a source here? No.
Dear Arief1982, please read the introduction of our article on primary source, to get a better idea of what that term means, and to establish that Ibn Kathir indeed is a primary source (it's the source that is chronologically the closest to the material conveyed in it: you may read about the Banu Qaynuqa in a modern book which uses Ibn Kathir's words as a source, but Ibn Kathir's own words are a prime source of information for which we have no further, lower-level source). Then note the phrases in our relevant policy page, WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [...] Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Examples of secondary sources from the Banu Qaynuqa article would include, e.g., the works cited there by Fred Donner, F.E. Peters, or W. Montgomery Watt. Unlike us, they engage in primary research, reading and analyzing and interpreting Ibn Kathir, but we rely upon their primary research, not upon our own. Any interpretation or analysis they don't mention, we don't mention either. This is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, which despite being some of the most important policies of the entire project, are not always so easily understood (also by editors with perfect English!). I hope you understand a little bit better now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)02:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There have been several attempts by an IP user(s) such as 85.174.193.91 [265], 37.29.41.30 [266], 85.174.197.54 [267] that has disruptively edited/vandalized United Russia page since 17th August. A few other users have also reverted their changes. He/they has broken the consesus agreed in the discussion page of the ideology of United Russia, he/they has unexplained removed sources of the ideology seciton and vandalized the article a few days ago such as adding 'Putinism' (eg headquarters, membership) to every section in the infobox. Several rollbacks has been made and more than 4 warnings during the last 6 days has been given that he is not respecting the consensus agreed upon for the ideology and that he should not add unsourced material as well as remove sourced ones. I believe he is trying to do this due to the upcoming election this year. He has no edit history and has been unwilling to discuss changes, acknowledge the consensus and he only reverts back to his changes without explanations. As he is unwilling to discuss and the 'Putinism' change a few days ago, I am not sure if his edits are made in good faith or not but it is obviously disrupting the article ahead of the election and needs to be looked into. BastianMAT (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Endorse all of what John B123 is saying. This IP user does not appear to like WP recording the fact that thousands of Afghan women are sex trafficked to India. Potential regional user and this impugns his honor (this is my guess given the racist comments). Definitely he's WP:NOTHERE. Buckshot06(talk)07:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
User talk:KZebegna: Undid revision 1040404271 by Callanecc (talk) all who coverup sexual abuse of minors will be exposed for what they are
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: The headline literally says "U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies"... this is the part that bears much further investigation for the sake of the victims, not covering up for the sake of protecting the abuserss
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: like I say, do not try any underhanded tricks to cover up for the abusers of little boys
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Undid revision 1040402193 by Pincrete (talk) You're digging yopurself a hole, because now we see who the editor is who wants to cover up what is happening now in IEA with executions. Do not remove again without discussion.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Undid revision 1040403211 by ProcrastinatingReader (talk) Why do editors like ytou have to exist who clearly wih to coverup abuse of young boys? Your action WILL be discussed if you revert agaun
User talk:KZebegna: Undid revision 1040403357 by ProcrastinatingReader (talk) This editor is engaging in coverup of child sexual abuse in full view of everyone and he will be discussed in apppropriate venues
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: Undid revision 1040403442 by ProcrastinatingReader (talk) stop engaging in coverup of sexual abuse of infants in full view of everyone. You are already being discussed in the appropriate venues
El_C 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Self-trout Carry on, Cow Man! Levivich 01:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
12:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If cases such as this one, with clear and repeated BLP neutrality violations, appear at AIV, I simply block and often thank the reporter for their edit. Same when such a report appears here at ANI. Redirecting to a different venue in such cases is practically pointless; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rdp060707, you seem to refer to Special:Diff/1038738238, which was about a different situation involving a legitimate content dispute about whether a musical riff verifiably appears in another song or not. Comparing Special:Contributions/103.95.98.42 to Special:Contributions/103.246.39.1 is comparing apples to oranges. My main intention wasn't redirecting you anywhere, and I wouldn't have said anything; my main intention was to provide a counterbalance to JPxG's inapplicable advice. AIV is not for cases that require discussion or long explanations; AIV is for cases that can be answered by looking at the situation for 30 seconds, placing a block and moving on to the next situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Finger-wagging needed Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Warned. Hey, IP, it's been... half a minute. Anyway, I've left them a final warning. Please feel free to drop me a line personally if problems persist. New tunes, btw. El_C 15:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed to one another and are indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: notified user of this thread on talk. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 19:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
