Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive editor at Christian ethics

• Christian ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tahc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Airborne84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Tahc is being generally disruptive and creating conditions at Christian ethics to suppress editing and displaying apparent ownership of the article as the primary author. Unfortunately his/her concerted efforts to maintain the status quo (reduce visibility and create roadblocks) on a low-traffic talk page makes it challenging for any editor to address them and means the article will likely remain start class with multiple tagged issues and a WP:NPOV issue for the foreseeable future. I have frankly run out of patience and do not plan to engage the article anymore under these conditions, but would like to enable others to improve the article in the future in a more permissive environment. I'll list below the context and Tahc's conduct that is causing these conditions, running contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for good editing:

• In 2012, there was a consensus on Old Testament (OT) material related to the article. Because the talk page is not often-commented on, I had to request a Third Opinion to augment my and another editor's position. This resulted in a consensus that the material is relevant.
• Some time later, Tahc came to the article and dismissed the consensus, claiming consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy instead of trying to achieve a new consensus.
• Tahc began a did a major rewrite of the article in March 2016, removing much of the Old Testament material, and promoting a particular point of view related to the New Testament.
• I happened on the article again and saw its state, noted my concerns about neutrality on the talk page, and added a POV tag to the article. (This isn't just my position; StAnselm also noted a POV concern at the RfC on the talk page.)
• Tahc summarily deleted the POV tag here, dismissing, rather than discussing, the stated concerns on the talk page.
• I requested a third opinion which another editor deleted due to a third editor commenting on the issue after the request. Unfortunately, that other editor only made an abstract comment in passing.
• I then requested an RfC for broad consensus on whether Old Testament material is relevant to the article to highlight the lack of that material in the article as POV. The result appears to be a clearly reaffirmed consensus on its relevance.
• Tahc dismissed the consensus as irrelevant, again asserted that there was no previous consensus, and repeated that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies" (apparently a person opinion since he won't explain where he gets this idea from). The latter indicates to me that, no matter what consensuses we achieve on the article, Tahc will dismiss them based on his/her personal "standard".
• During the above discussions, Tahc suggested that only "textbooks" that supported OT material inclusion would be relevant as sources, dismissing multiple other high-quality WP:RSs provided, and creating a standard higher than that required by Wikipedia—another apparent roadblock to maintain the article's status quo.
• After subsequent discussions of potential material to add, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that some of the passages would improve the article. I drew from that, other previous discussions, and the consensuses, notified other editors of my intention on the talk page to begin addressing the POV concern, waited four days for comment, and then began boldly editing.
• Soon after, Tahc reverted ALL of the edits to the "last okay version" here, invoking WP:BRD and stating ironically that discussion was required. Tahc then made clear on the talk page that he/she had not followed WP:BRD by trying to retain material that would improve the article, and making immediate adjustments to other edits. He/she just deleted them all summarily, reverting to the status quo. I notified Tahc that this runs contrary to Wikipedia guidelines which promote editing and discourage reverting to maintain the status quo, especially by editors who have written the previous material, pointing to the second bullet in "Bad reasons to revert" that fits this situation perfectly. But in an effort to move forward, I asked Tahc to identify his concerns with the edits (all from high-quality WP:RSs with a clear link to the article's subject matter) and Tahc won't do it. Tahc asserted that each passage needs to be brought to the talk page "one at a time" for discussion before putting in the article (as if there has not been discussion). Another roadblock to editing.

To summarize, Tahc's established pattern on this Start-Class article with neutrality issues is to minimize visibility and erect roadblocks to editing. I.e., minimize visibility by dismissing consensuses versus seeking to achieve a new consensus (necessarily through outside editors due to low traffic), and deleting a POV tag that directs interested editors to the concerns. And more roadblocks through trying to impose a personal standard for material beyond Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, summarily reverting multiple edits without reading them, and insisting that all proposed edits be brought to the talk page, regardless of previous discussion, "one at a time" before including in the article. Low traffic equates that to Tahc personally approving all additions—a very effective roadblock for an editor who is the primary author trying to maintain the status quo with a well-established pattern over multiple years. As a result, my desire to try to improve the article has soured, and I don't have time to continue to bring in outside help to overcome roadblocks that take little effort to maintain due to the lack of traffic there. However, I would like to address Tahc's conduct so others can attempt to improve this article—which sorely needs it—in the future. Thanks.--Airborne84 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question - There is a section in the talk page that purports to be a Request for Comments as to whether the Old Testament is relevant. (Of course it is, but that isn't the question now.) However, it was either never published with an RFC tag, or the RFC tag was removed. Can someone explain why the so-called RFC doesn't have an RFC tag? This question does make a difference, because it does affect whether there was ever a consensus determined by closure, or whether we just have editors who are trying to game the system by claiming the force of RFCs, or whether the system is being disrupted. Why was the so-called RFC never tagged? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Airborne84 was the one who (seemed to have) called for the RfC. My guess is that he quickly did it and did not know how to do so correctly. tahc ^chat 01:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Airborne84's summary above mischaracterizes several actions of himself or others. Airborne84 normal attitude toward the article alternates between long periods of neglect and shorter periods of more tenacious editing. Airborne84's very first edit on Christian ethics was an article tag, and his second edit (6 minutes later) was a 1434 characters criticism of (one author's view of) Bible ethics. While we can have criticism of Christian ethics in this article, we have other places on Wikipedia to cover criticism of Old Testament ethics, namely Ethics in the Bible or Criticism of the Bible.
• When I began edits on the article, it was mostly a history of different authors' writings on the topic. Over time, I helped rewrite the article to cover items that a modern course on Christian ethics would cover, and also to be more like other Wikipedia articles on the ethics of other religions. Doing this included removing off-topic material about the Old Testament, but some material about the Old Testament does remain. Both Airborne84 and myself have left in a statement that points out that "Christians today 'do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments' in the Torah"; in other words, the Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics. This form of the article with limited material on the Old Testament has had at least consensus through silence for quite some time.
• When I removed POV tags from the article, it was because the tags did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale. Even now, it is unclear what POV or POVs Airborne84 thinks are missing from the article. On 16 July 2018, Airborne84 requested a Third Opinion without first trying to discuss me directly. User:Aquegg asked for more information before giving a Third Opinion and Aquegg proposed that books like "modern theology text-books" would be the most reliable sources to consult for the issue at hand. While I agree, this standard was Aquegg's idea rather than mine. Both Airborne84 and I presented our views, but before Aquegg could give any Third Opinion, Airborne84 decided the process was "inconclusive"-- although he only waited 2.5 hours since my last post for Aquegg's reply before he did this-- and Airborne84 began a Request for Comment. This seems to be because Airborne84 did not like Aquegg's ideas on what are the most reliable sources. If one has never studied Christian ethics much it might seem simple to verify that the Old Testament informs Christian ethics, but such a view is not found in textbooks on Christian ethics.
• Rather than crafting the RfC to be about a particular point of disagreement he and I had, or about any particular point of disagreement he and Aquegg had, or even on any particular source he considered useful to improving the article, Airborne84 worded the RfC (in my view) to be very vague. He asked if "Old Testament material" should be "allowed to inform" the article. After discussion had already begun he inserted a clarification that he meant discussion of Old Testament material from modern sources shared "in the context of Christian ethics". This was a help, but "in the context of Christian ethics" proved misleading. Jzsj and I were able to discuss with Airborne84 a passage from Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics that showed the complexity of deciding what might seem to be "in the context of Christian ethics."
• While Airborne84 and I did later agree ourselves that "Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics", the RfC itself resulted in no consensus. Airborne84 claimed otherwise. Airborne84 then made many edits all at one time without discussion or consensus, and afterward claimed that he didn't have time to discuss passages one at a time. tahc ^chat 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: It was a valid RfC that ran for the 30 days.[1] It only expired recently and has not been formally closed, yet both editors are claiming their own differing readings of consensus. The RfC obviously needs to be listed for a requested close so that it provides a formal reading of consensus. As of now, it's meaningless since the consensus is obviously not uncontroversial enough to not warrant a formal closure. Once you secure an actual answer from the RfC, then you can go about implementing that consensus—with another RfC, or two, of ten, if you're incapable of collaborating. Regarding the claim that "consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policy", that's entirely correct. A local consensus to include content means exactly nothing if a user objects to it on WP:V grounds. The policy is clear, unsourced content can be removed, and it's mandatory to provide a source if you want to restore it. A local consensus cannot override policy per WP:CONLIMITED. It looks like Tahc brought up a straightforward sourcing issue, and you failed to address it. That's not ownership behavior, though I understand why it might be frustrating. Swarm ♠ 04:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm, my frustration is from the pattern of issues that I've laid out above. This wasn't intended to be a referendum on one of the (apparent) consensuses I linked to. However, I did request closure of the RfC at the link you provided. Thanks.

In any case, I did address Tahc's sourcing issue. Directly and at length. I've agreed with him that there should be a clear link in a source linking OT material to the article's topic. I clarified the RfC to reflect Tahc's concern (he agreed above). I then listed a number of sources that provide the clear link he requested here, taking care to note how they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Tahc basically ignored them, suggesting "textbooks" should be a criterion, and maybe only one of them met that personal standard of his. Yet, another editor, Jzsi, concurred that three of them were improvements. So, I notified of my intention to edit and then added the three passages the other editor mentioned, I included material from the source Tahc mentioned (figuring naively that he can't argue with that one from discussion). Tahc simply reverted it all here to the "last okay version". And you can see in the edits that I took pains in the notes to clearly establish the link that Tahc was concerned about. And it's evident from the talk page that he didn't even read them. He just reverted them. So, the record shows that I have laboriously addressed Tahc's concerns. This isn't about his concern that a clear link be drawn anymore. It's about him maintaining the status quo.

Tahc's pattern is to automatically revert material that changes the status quo and the POV written he's written into the article (again, I'm not the only one to notice it).

As another example of this, Tahc automatically reverted the POV tag I added to the article. You can see above that he's claiming again I added it without discussion. This is getting tired and it's purposeful dishonesty at this point since I've pointed out to him that I discussed the tag on the talk page. It's a matter of record. I added the tag on 12 July here, I immediately went to the talk page and posted this new section called "POV Tag added" eight minutes later here (with my concerns noted). 15 hours later, Tahc followed his pattern of disruption by deleting it here. Yet he continues to claim that I'm at fault because the tag "did not have a discussion begun on the talk page to indicate its rationale" (in Tahc's words above). But I've told him before that it did. You might ask "why" he continues with this canard?

It's part of the roadblocks he's erected. Ignore when other editors address your concerns about sourcing. Require sources that exceed Wikipedia's requirements. Minimize visibility on the article. Automatically revert any edits without reading them or the discussion on the talk page. Claim that there has been no discussion. Ignore the tenets of the guidelines invoked (WP:BRD). Assert you don't have time to read multiple edits at once and each passage needs to be discussed individually on the talk page first. Even if they have been.

The reason is clear. In Tahc's words above, the "Old Testament has limited value (if any) in Christian ethics". Tahc appears to be the only editor on the talk page (which has brought in 8 or more editors now for comment) who supports that position. And he's written that POV into the article. Due to the normally limited traffic, his roadblocks will easily maintain that POV. I came here to try to change those conditions. Your response will determine if the article is to keep that status quo indefinitely or become more permissive for future editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the responses here send a clear message.

Stop by the Christian Ethics article in a year or two. It'll look remarkably like the Start Class essay it is now. A bit similar to Tahc's other essay.

Feel free to close this thread. I'm out. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Long term POV-pushing, disruptive behaviour and edit warring

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

---

Filiprino keeps POV-pushing and edit warring at the Ada Colau article over the issue on whether she should be referred as "Spanish" or "Catalan", despite having been blocked roughly one week ago for edit warring on the same article for the exact same issue. During the time of his block, I intervened in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau#She is Catalan, hence she can also be Spanish to try to reach a consensus, which emerged in that "Spanish" (which was shown to be the preferred by English reliable sources to other proposed terms, such as "Catalan" or "Spanish Catalan") could be used if referenced in the text, which was done, for the sake of WP:VER which had been the central point of the late discussion. However, upon being unblocked, rather than engaging in discussion and trying to sway a consensus in his favour, Filiprino resorted to edit war over the issue once again ([2] [3] [4]). Note that these edits from him were done right after I tried to engage in talk in him (diff for his first comment, diff for mine), yet he went with the change back to "Catalan" anyway despite having been warned of the WP:NPOV issues in his reasoning. He stopped the edit warning after being warned twice in his talk page for this ([5] [6]), but then proceeded to post an enormous wall of text ([7]) which had little to do with the content of the previous discussion (all of it while he kept the edit war on). A second wall of text from him ensued after a reply from me, yet it was mostly filled with new POV assertions (i.e. that using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, among others), straw man fallacies (i.e. pretending that I've used some arguments which I have not used to label them as "flawed") and I have even spotted personal attacking where he tells me that I "ignore science" and calls me "stubborn for ignoring scientists" (??), while also accusing me of not wanting to admit other cultures than the Castilian! You want to se homogeneous Iberian Peninsula! You don't conceive the Catalan nationality! ([8]). Seriously, this has reached the point of absurdity.

This behaviour has been persistent for months on a number of articles, and it has not been unfrequent to see Filiprino involved in some sort of similar disputes in this very same noticeboard with other users, in which he has also shown an ignorance of WP:BOOMERANG and even some WP:OWN behaviour ([9]) or even going as far as to denounce others for the same behaviour he is currently adopting (i.e. that another user was blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion at [10]). This very same behaviour was pointed out to him in his latest unblock request ([11]); all of this shows it is absolutely impossible that he could not know about it by the time he started editing today. I am normally willing to engage in discussion with whoever wishes to resolve a dispute, but I find it as just impossible with this user, who demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge at best (or a serious lack of competence at worst) on WP:NPOV, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:IDHT at the very least, pretending than his is the only right stance over and over again and that it must be imposed at all costs, even if it means going to continued edit warring, serious POV-pushing and even personal attacks, if not outrightly absurd accusations. Having seen this behaviour from him already too many times in the past, I can only consider this as beyond my efforts to seek a peaceful settlement. I post this here to seek an alternative solution, because this seems impossible in the article's talk page and this relates to the actual user's behaviour rather than the content itself. Impru20^talk 23:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I am not ignorant of WP:BOOMERANG or WP:OWN, but you are entitled to your own opinions. Thank you for your notification. I have to state that I am following the WP:BRD policy. On the matter of using WP:TEXTWALL, well, I have discussed your articles yet you have not provided any insight on the articles I provided. If I have to provide long explanations for my point of view, I will do so. In the talk page of Ada Colau 4 users have participated. Iñaki LL, Crystallized Carbon, Impru20 (you) and me (Filiprino). Impru20 and Crystallized Carbon push the POV of Spanish nationality instead of Catalan nationality. This: using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom is false. I have not said that. What I have said is that using Spanish from Catalonia is using Castilian custom and negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom, which is different from "Spanish" negating Catalan nationality. On the matter of ignoring science, is because you don't even provide insight in the articles I have provided you. You just keep referencing Google search number of results instead of discussing WP:RS for the matter of nationality definition (that is my take on the sources you provided for backing up the Spanish nationality of Colau). That's your argument. I provided you two articles talking about Ada Colau and his nationality, and also provided an article from a quite known article of an anthropology journal talking about Spanish and Catalan nationalities and their respective customs, yet you ignore them and fall back to your google search numbers. Filiprino (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not following BRD. You only stopped edit warring when you were warned thrice by three different users that if you kept on the warring you could or would be blocked. BRD means you would have engaged in discussion and stopped warring after the first revert, the later of which you obviously you did not do (and so far, your proposed understanding of what "engaging in discussion" means has been everything but constructive). Half of your replies are straw man fallacies on my arguments, with you trying to depict that I have used arguments I have not; and the other half is just personal accusations and attacks. Some of them even either completely taken out of context, or just outrightly off-topic. All of this while also ignoring the evidence provided throughout the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau before your recent interventions, just for the point of trying to impose your own, particular POV.

Then, you would excuse me, but I invite anyone reading this report to search "using the term Spanish instead of Catalan negates Catalan nationality and Catalan custom" in the discussion at Talk:Ada Colau, which this user claims to be false, to check that Filiprino has stated this word by word, literally.

I am not going to discuss anything else, as you are just being outrightly disruptive and manipulative now. Impru20^talk 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment Also worth noting is that the POV-pushing is seemingly also being brought into a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Solution proposal ([12] [13]). Impru20^talk 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this does not qualify as personal attacks or Straw man fallacies ... I have pointed out you are not collaborating because you blatantly ignore the sources provided on the topic of national identity definition. If that is not POV pushing tell me what it is. On the other hand, WP:BRD can lead to edit warring and you are not the one to decide if it is edit warring or not. The edits you have put here from the RFC on biography manual of style provide a comment with sources for national definitions. If any opinion you don't like, even in an RFC, you consider it as POV pushing then is impossible to improve articles. Filiprino (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cherrypicking sources as you do does not mean that others must consider your POV-based arguments as valid (to the contrary, actually). Then, using a RfC as a soapbox to make Catalan nationalist propaganda while trying to bring it off-topic by posting walls of text with your opinion of Catalan history, culture and the such does not help your cause that you are not being POV-ish.

If you think that BRD "can lead to edit warring" then it could be because you are not applying BRD correctly. By definition, BTD implies that you should not restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. On the edit warring issue, maybe you could also ask those warning you on your user talk page about your behaviour on Ada Colau what the definition of "edit warring" is ([14]). If you have doubts you can also read WP:EDITWAR. Impru20^talk 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued editing against consensus

Vjmlhds has been blocked on 10 separate occasions due to his edit warring. I raised this issue last month here that he was still continuing to edit war against consensus, see here [15]. In response the user stated he would back off and stop editing that topic, yet yesterday he made the exact same edit again, against the established consensus on 4 separate articles, see [16] [17] [18] and [19]. It is very clear that this user has not and will not learn. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to get involved in the 205 Live debate, and I lived up to that. If you look at the revision history of all of the said articles, it was others who made 205 Live it's own section. My issue was that in Galetz' zealously he undid a bunch of unrelated edits that reflected recent happenings not involving 205 Live. He was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water because he was so hung up on the 205 Live thing. Also, Galetz has been warned about edit warring on his talk page (by another editor), so if you look at it, he is the one with the issue, not me. I lived up to my word, and stuck by it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I reverted to the last stable version and then went back in and put back the edits that were valid. You however restored it to its own section, which per established consensus is incorrect. If you think I missed something valid than put that back, not the wrong edits.

• Lets look at the first edit [20]. You removed a tag without addressing the concerns. About 75% of the sources are primary which is way too many. Then you moved 205 live back to its own section. Then you put a huge picture of Rhea Ripley back into the middle of the article with just her name next to it, clearly thats wrong too. So what exactly did I miss?
• Now lets take a look at the second one [21]. Once again you incorrectly made 205 live its own section. You added an extra line that isn't needed back into the table. Once again what did I miss?
• The third [22] you added just the incorrect table back and an unsourced claim.
• The fourth an final one [23], you only moved it back into its own section.

So what exactly did I miss? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you did put back things you cut off, then I was in error. My intent wasn't about 205 Live, just the stuff that happened afterwords. My only suggestion in the future would be that if 205 Live is separated out again (which I had then and have now no intent on doing...as I said, I wasn't the one who separated it in the 1st place) that you just be a little more careful in making sure there isn't collateral damage with other things...just gotta watch, that's all (goes for both of us). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No matter who put it there in the first place you blindly restored it. You are responsible for every edit you make. Just like how you continued removal of this tag [24] is a violation of policy without addressing the concern. I have reminded you before we have a style guide that this is in violation of. Just because you don't view it as overly detailed, it is larger than the recommended length and someone else clearly disagrees with you. You need to follow the proper steps for removal, not just making unilateral decisions that it is ok to remove. - 14:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You got me...I'm a flawed editor. Not everyone can be perfect. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You literally removed it after I mentioned in ANI that you incorrectly removed it. That is not a flaw, its not caring. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic musings

Ah yes, another day, another tussle over "pro" wrestling "champions". See right. This is really getting beyond ridiculous. EEng 18:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Another day another WP:UNCIVIL comment that adds nothing to the discussion by EEng - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC) No, no, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that you're back on a weekly basis with a new argument over whether the cruiserweight title is being defended on pay-per-view, or whatever it is. This is worse than longevity. EEng 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC) User:EEng, don't be such an elitist spoilsport. At least it's not MMA. BTW, I hear that that is actually real. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC) The awful thing about "professional" wrestling is that it's fake; the awful thing about MMA is that it's real. EEng 02:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Galatz EEng You two always seem to find each other. Seriously, on one side there's someone like Gomer Pyle on that one episode of the Andy Griffith Show when he kept yelling "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" when Barney Fife made that U-turn (kinda like needless ANIs for minor issues), and on the other side, there's a Holden Caufield-esque cynical iconoclast who is saying "Look at the rubes fighting over wrestling again." Not being uncivil, just trying to make a point - Galetz, not every little thing needs to go straight to ANI, and EEng, not everything requires commentary from the stands. So let's just drop the whole stinking issue and live happily ever after...OK? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Per WP:UNCIVIL Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. How does EEng responding to anything related to PW that comes here with the same negative comments not violate the parts I bolded? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Galatz I'm agreeing with you...I told EEng straight out that him making his snarky comments wasn't needed. When I said "not being uncivil" I was referring to me, in that I wasn't trying to be uncivil when I was pointing out your and his approaches, just saying that none of it was necessary. You do come off sometimes like a Wiki hall monitor, and EEng comes off as a smart aleck...neither helps anybody. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I love it when someone can't even tell you're agreeing with them. Holden Caufield ... I like it! [25] EEng 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Ruth Wisenheimer

-EEng

Hey, Dr. Ruth lives in my neighborhood; my wife saw her on the street just the other day! BMK

EEng Don't get me wrong, I think Galatz is a bit over the top with his strict rigidity to WP:(insert guideline here), but throwing gas on the fire with snarky comments from the sidelines doesn't help either. So just cool it with the wisenheimer act, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

On the bright side, you two finally agreed on something, perhaps a first step towards a more peaceful coexistence between you? One can hope.  MPJ-DK  20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Just remember - I'm not the one issuing ANIs at every little drop of a hat. Galatz needs to learn that not everything needs to go right to red alert. Having said that, third party snark doesn't help. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont run to ANI at the drop of a hat, you have been blocked 10 times for this stuff, and you said a month ago you would stop when brought here for the exact same thing. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And hope goes out the window. So what can we expect now? Anything constructive or just repeating what has already been said?  MPJ-DK  21:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean...I explained myself, I did not do anything regarding 205 Live stuff specifically, it was just caught in the mix of other edits that I was more concerned with. And I even talked to EEng to lay off with his sarcasm. Nothing seems to register. I don't look to have beef with anyone, but I also don't appreciate needless ANIs for minor issues. This is what I mean by being a Wiki hall monitor - it's not beneficial to anything or anybody (and neither is snarky commentary). I'll make it simple...Galatz leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone (on top of getting EEng to back off) Not that hard. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough is enough and it's time for a change

With apologies to Owen Hart for stealing his catchphrase but this is getting ri-damn-diculous.

• Vjmlhds - You can try and throw "blame" on someone else and distract everyone, the fact of the matter is that you broke the voluntary agreement you made - you can state for whatever reasons you want, you can try to explain it, bottom line you promised to leave it alone and you did not. You have zero credibility at this point in time and should be looking at some sort of sanction for the repeated transgressions. Honestly for other repeat offenders there would be a TBAN or a long term block in place already.
• This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. - my emphasis - those that complain that this is at ANI again need to take part of the blame for it being here again - derailing the conversation with snark and off-topic bickering does not help. The fact that this has been brought here multiple times and nothing has been done is in part a failure of everyone who are supposed to try and resolve these issues. The fact that you are blaming the reporter here is tantamount to blaming a prosecutor because a repeat offender is in court for the 10th time, it's misdirected.
• Could Galatz perhaps use a little common sense and flexibility in his/her thinking? yes, agreed, but neglecting the actual issue does not make it go away
• EEng - here is the part that would make you happy, if this gets a permanent resolution (TBAN, Block, whatevs) then you will not see this topic come up again and again, so perhaps we can work towards something that will actually make a difference?
• I am a grumpy old man and you guys are forcing me to get out of my recliner, better be worth it by actually putting an end to this facade.  MPJ-DK  23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I just came off a 4 1/2 month block...I don't need to go through that again. No ill will was meant on my part, I just made a mistake. So if we arrive here again, I'll take a topic ban/block with no arguments if it'll keep the peace. I'll stick my neck on the line to end this, if it will END THIS. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

All you had to do was leave it alone, it really was that simple.  MPJ-DK  23:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

OK...from here forward, I will leave it alone, I didn't think we'd be at this point to begin with. This is getting ridiculous, you're right about that, and I will do my part to end it, and I will take a block if I break my word, so I'm putting my neck out to prove I do want this over with Vjmlhds (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So could we perhaps put this to rest now? Neutral corners, go back and be productive participants in our little corner of Wikipedia?  MPJ-DK  00:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright so here we are Galatz, the proposal on the table is that he backs off, we get peace and everyone goes back to editing? In addition if there is a slip up again in regards to the Cruiserweight/205 situation hit me up on my talk page and then I will take it here to ANI to get a long-term block enforced? Can we "hat" this and move on?  MPJ-DK  00:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The person who brings it here is really not the issue. They were unblocked because they promised to stop, a month ago they promised to stop, today they promised to stop. How many chances does a person need? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So that is a no to "move on" then? Your choice I guess.  MPJ-DK  18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Proposal

Given that these two users (Vjmlhds and Galatz) seem to constantly find each other, and, indeed, constantly find themselves at ANI, I feel that their interactions with one another are producing more heat than light. Thus, I propose a two-way IBan in the hopes that, perhaps, we won't see these editors at ANI at least once a month. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - does not address the reported problem but punishes the reporter for repeately reporting someone who has repeatedly done the same thing.  MPJ-DK  22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - If either or both can be shown to have misbehaved (e.g. broken policies or guidelines), then block one or both accordingly. One of the editors in question has only been blocked once years ago (for 48 hours in 2014) while the other has been blocked many times (most recently for 6 months in mid-2017); there is likely a problem with one side of this dispute and not the other. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Icarosaurvus, you should really include a number of diffs in your proposal for making it look convincing. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Improper use of talk page while blocked

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

---

• Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user was indefinitely blocked per community consensus about a month ago. He has continued to use his talk page in violation of policy ever since. An administrator needs to remove talk page access as he has ignored warnings from other users. Thanks. (Pinging blocking administrator Iridescent) Nihlus 01:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Which policy is that, exactly? --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain, see WP:OPTIONS, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Abuse of the unblocking process and WP:SBAN. The point of the block is to prevent him from participating in any form of editing outside of the usual block/ban appeal, which would need to be brought to the community. He is not permitted to edit directly or indirectly while blocked. Nihlus 02:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PROXYING, which does not support this argument. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING makes no mention of a blocked user using their talk page. Nihlus 02:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This time, it's in the opening sentence. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 02:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, again, it makes no mention of the user's talk page and how it supports them editing from it. Nihlus 12:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. SQL^{Query me!} 03:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

SQL I'm sorry, but on what basis are you doing this? Policy doesn't support this action. Per WP:PROXYING, editors are explicitly allowed to make edits at the suggestion of blocked editors if they have merit on their own and the editor performing them is willing to take responsibility. I don't think he's being disruptive and I've already said so in two different places when Tarage was trying to remove this stuff. --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked means blocked. It doesn't mean "use your talkpage to request edits". A blocked editor is not welcome on the site, and is typically only permitted to use their talkpage to appeal said block. SQL^{Query me!} 03:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: Thanks for giving me your opinion on that, but I asked what policy supports your action. There is precedent for editors suggesting edits while they are blocked (The Rambling Man for instance) and I don't see any evidence he is trolling or doing so in bad faith. Per WP:ADMINACCT you are required to explain what policy supports your action, or I will be undoing it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not recommend wheel warring. Blocked means blocked. It's a very simple concept. If they're good enough that they can make edit requests - we should unblock. Otherwise, they cannot make edit requests while blocked. This is a very standard practice, and has been so for a very long time. Talkpage access is provided to blocked editors as a courtesy - to appeal the block. It is disruptive to use said talkpage access to continue editing via proxy. SQL^{Query me!} 03:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Undoing an admin action is not wheel warring. That would be if you re-protected the page. Again, you are failing to provide any policy behind your action other than it's "standard practice" which I don't buy. --Laser brain (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to enforce community consensus correct? The community decided to indefinitely block IHTS. Allowing them to continue what they are doing is simply a failure to enforce community consensus. Something that would be unbecoming of any administrator. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As a practice generally, it's used completely indiscriminately and on a whim. Policy *is* the expression of consensus: It's what the community has decided is best practice, and, at the moment, best practice is that WP:PROXYING should be followed. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The community has decided to enforce a sanction on IHTS. Community consensus is deeper than policy. It is one of the cores of what Wikipedia stands for. But in case you need an actual blue link, WP:CBAN explicitly states that the community can authorize such things and that admins should follow them. Oh and in case it isn't clear, I support the enforcement of community sanctions in this manner. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, and then feel free to give me a blue link that actually says what you think it says. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 03:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You are the one linking to PROXYING. Something that is also on the BAN policy page. CBAN explicitly says which may include a time-limited or indefinite block. So yeah, I read it. But you continue to speak down to others. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: The point is that they are blocked rather than banned. But that is being discussed below. Look: I'm sorry if you thought I was patronisng you. Not true: but I was responding in kind, to "in case you actually neeed..." which comes across as something similar  :) but maybe we misread each other. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 04:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I for one agree with and Support SQLs block - Had they been blocked for a week or a month then sure I wouldn't of really objected to them doing the whole edit request thing but at present they are community banned indefinitely blocked from this project so shouldn't be requesting edits on their behalf, The wisest thing they could've done was to completely disengage from the project for a year and maybe retry an unblock request at some point, Like SQL says Blocked means blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: Where are you getting that they're community banned? I guess everyone just pulls things out of their asses in this case and this editor has to suffer for it? --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain - The second sentence in your response above wasn't necessary - it appears that you're implying that Davey2010 is "pulling things out of his ass". I think he may have just said the wrong term or confused something and believed that it meant that the user was community banned. There's no need to respond in that manner toward another editor like that... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you redacted the comment made above. Thank you for doing that and for apologizing to Davey2010 in the edit summary :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely blocked (prevented from editing the project using the technical tool Special:Block) per consensus at this ANI discussion. They are not banned (formally retracted or prohibited from making edits or certain types of edits) from anything or anywhere. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, the difference does not matter. Nihlus 11:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• My apologies I have no idea where "community banned" even came from, That obviously should've said "indefinitely blocked", Thanks Oshwah for your comments and thanks Laser brain for striking - It was a genuine mistake for which I apologise for, thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 - Thanks for updating us with what you meant to say initially; I figured that you just said the wrong thing and meant something else. No big deal at all - we've all done it at least one or twice (or, for me, like a bunch of times) ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse Removal of TPA Blocked editors are not permitted to edit here either directly or via other editors. Rare exceptions are granted in situations where an editor has "independent reasons for making such edits."[26] Blocked editors soliciting edits from their talk page are engaging in a specie of block evasion. This is especially the case when the editor has been indeffed. Revoking TPA in such circumstances is entirely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse TPA removal: It seems to me that the community explicitly does not wish IHTS' involvement on Wikipedia at this time, so it would seem to me that Wikignoming by proxy via their talk page is directly contrary to that. As an aside, their commentary about the "AN/ANI public drive-by boards" would seem to be rather contemptuous of the process of consensus and not in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia, though I could be misunderstanding them. Waggie (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA - There's a certain amount of truth to the claim that turning off TPA is inconsistently applied, but there's also absolutely no doubt that when misuse of the talk page by a indefinitely community-blocked editor, especially to encourage proxying, is brought to the community's attention, the very frequent result is removal of TPA. An argument can be made that the proxying-encouragement here was not disruptive, but deciding whether behavior is disruptive or not is well within administrative discretion, so those arguments need to be addressed to the admin who took the TPA away, on the basis of exploring the nature of the editing, and not on the basis of Wikilawyering.
  The bottom line here is that IHTS's cumulative behavior over time led the community to have them indefinitely blocked from editing, and editing by proxy is still editing - it simply circumvents the technical restraints that prevent them from editing, much as the creation of a sock would. Neither is allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I had nothing to do with the bringing of this case. I only asked for clarification when I removed a segment and got it. Though I guess there are multiple thoughts about the issue. I don't want people to think I was canvasing. --Tarage (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage - I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of canvassing, but your comment is appreciated nonetheless :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Same here, Tarage, nothing at all wrong with asking for experienced advice when you're unsure of something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of TPA being blocked, especially indeff, does not mean business as usual. Indeed, it's the cumulative behaviour has led to this more than any isolated issues. It's a shame when an editor with extensive knowledge of their preferred topic area has to go, but when they constantly corrupt our collaborative sprit, they have to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: at [27] I made a good-faith offer to Ihardlythinkso. He silently reverted it,[28] so I went back to avoiding interaction. I did notice that he has been pinging other editors with suggested edits, which is a bit different -- and a bit more disruptive -- than someone like me volunteering to make the edits. I am now Neutral on TPA removal. I can see good arguments for and against. That being said, I don't believe that Ihardlythinkso understands why he was blocked or is willing to follow our behavioral policies, even on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA Having looked at the talk page, it seems like the blocked user views it as a way to get others to make edits while blocked. This is not acceptable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA: It's only a token, I know, and obviously the consensus wins. But it's not clear in policy exactly what is and is not allowed on the talk pages of blocked users - and as long as a user is using their talk page for the good of the project in a way that is unrelated to their block reason, it seems petty to me to deny that help. Our actions should be based on what's best for the encyclopedia, not on who's allowed in the club today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA (Non-administrator comment) such behaviour should not be encouraged. The user and his supporters in the community should rather focus on how to improve contributions and preventing the situation that led to the block in the first place. If all blocked users are allowed such activity, it would be a nightmare. Policies are respected, a block and its rationale also needs to be respected. The Block is a forced time off for the user to contemplate on his actions so that they are do not recur. User should not be finding out ways to bypass the block. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA until the policy actually says you can do it. At the moment, it says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Now, that may not mean a blocked editor can ping a particular editor and ask them to make an edit (that might violate the second part of the policy - it's unclear). However, currently there is no reason why, if I was blocked, I couldn't keep posting "Hey, someone might want to look at this edit and see if you think it's an improvement - if so you might want to make it". No reason at all. Now if someone wants to change that policy - and I agree it wouldn't be an unreasonable suggestion - I suggest they start a discussion about it. But in the meantime it might be an idea not to ignore it? Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment by neutral third-party - I took a look at different policies and guideline pages, and I agree that the content within policy doesn't clearly define this exact situation - where edit requests, user page-like edits, and other such edits that don't fall into the definition of "malicious abuse" (which would result in TPA being removed) are made on one's own talk page during the time in which they are blocked would result in TPA being revoked. I would highly recommend to everyone here that, after this discussion closes, that a discussion is started in the proper channel in order to clarify policy in this situation (probably the village pump or possibly at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy since people cited WP:PROXYING here). I believe that any policy content clarification (if such is done) should be made to the blocking policy as well, since this is where talk page access revocation details are located. Again, this is simply a neutral observation and recommendation. I plan on keeping an eye on this discussion as an uninvolved party so that it can be closed by someone who won't insert bias :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This has already been discussed in March 2018. The consensus there seems to have been to leave this to a case-to-case basis. I don't think additional policy discussion would add much to this (I think it was at CENT at the time). It's up to admin discretion as to whether or not it is disruptive editing. Removal of TPA in these circumstances is not automatic, but it isn't outside of normal practice and understanding of PROXYING. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - Ah, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware that this discussion has been held before :-). Now I feel stupid... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the March 2018 discussion included a specific suggestion to modify wording to clarify that blocked editors can only use the talk page to appeal the block. It was rejected. Anyone who is supporting removal of TPA on the basis that it is policy should reevaluate their position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of TPA Blocked doesn't mean that you are sequestered to one small page where you can make edit suggestions and continue to go against the wishes of the community; it means you are blocked from editing, period. There are no rules being ignored except by those wishing to overturn this and IHTS himself. Nihlus 11:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - Obviously I was the one making a bunch of noise about this and challenging SQL on their action, but I see this as a heavy-handed application of quite a grey area where policy is not clear. To be done without warning is an aggravating factor that makes this a poor administrative action. We should be clarifying our policy if editors are indeed not allowed to comment on content matters while they are blocked. Instead of taking action and then having the debate later. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Laser brain, the user was warned by Tarage on his talk page and removed it without comment or consideration. I am not sure what more you want. Nihlus 12:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, and here is the warning diff--DBigXrayᗙ 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And, there's this. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, right? SQL^{Query me!} 03:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA I confess I had been under the impression that when a user is blocked, they are permitted to edit their talk page but such editing should be limited to appealing the block. However, now that I've read Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process, I see that it does not say that. I looked at the summary of the community discussion which led to the block To see if it specifically included additional limitations on talk page activity, and I don't see such a statement. There is precedent for editors posting request for edits on the talk page while blocked, and while this situation might be different, I haven't seen any community discussion explaining why this situation is different, so I don't see any rationale for removal of talk page access. Of course, the community can make such a determination and arguably that's what's going on here, but the talk page access appears to have been revoked based on a misunderstanding of policy. I think it should be restored and a separate discussion should be held, to help ensure that those supporting TPA removal aren't doing so because they think it's policy, and I doing so because it is specifically warranted in this situation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (since we're now doing this) revocation of TPA, per my remarks above with augmentation from Laserbrain's original iteration and SPhilbrick's reiteration of the dearth of basis in actual policy. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Policy sometimes lags behind actual practice, which is an argument for updating the policy, not for stopping the practice, which is a de facto consensus-in-action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that it's certainly an incentive to update policy. RfC, anyone? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA I don't see how this helps the encyclopedia and the policy is not as clear as some appear to think it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• It was dysfunctional that it took so long to indef block IHTS for years of rather relentlessly attacking other editors. It is also dysfunctional that once he stopped attacking other editors, and was only making edits that would improve the encyclopedia (if and only if agreed to by other editors), he had his talk page access removed. Against the apparent wishes of the blocking admin, no less. I am, of course, stunned and amazed that two dysfunctional things happened on Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• endorse removal of TPA So hm. First, the close at ANI was interesting. The closer made it an admin action; it is arguable that this was a superclose (bending over backward to be kind), and the correct close was community-imposed indef. I only bring that up, to emphasize that the community said basta. IHTS had became only more disdainful of the community as time went on, not more moderated and more heedful from the many blocks. Yes Floq, it took too long to get there (a long history of bending over backward, trying to accommodate IHTS), but the community got there. Done is done. It is neither dysfunctional nor surprising that when IHTS showed yet further disdain for consensus and kept on trying to edit via proxy, TPA was revoked. It was appropriate, in this case. It isn't happy. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA. If IHTS wants to keep editing Wikipedia, they can do so once they successfully appeal the restriction. If blocked users can continue to edit via talk page edit requests, what's the point of blocking them other than adding additional work for people who review requested edits? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA. I am going to echo the comments by Boing!, Black Kite and SPhilbrick. The current policy is unclear about this, and there is no clear community consensus mentioned above on what to do in this specific kind of situation. Until both of these concerns are clarified by community wide process, it is unwise to pretend that we have always been consistent and firm about "common practice", because we have not been. Also, to partially reply GorillaWarfare's comment above: No one is under the obligation to "review" these "requested edits". WP:PROXYING is pretty explicit about what's acceptable here: unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. So if folks wants to be consistent, start an RfC and have this part removed, otherwise we run the risk of opposing explicit policy wording based on purely personal sentiments. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No one is obligated to make the edits that IHTS is requesting, but unless they are ignoring all pings by IHTS they are spending time reviewing the edit requests. I hope this discussion does not set the precedent of allowing blocked editors to request edits from their talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA - So, here's what I'm reading. IHTS is making constructive suggestions for improvements to chess articles on their talk page. They're getting in nobody's way and causing no disruption. Nobody who has been pinged has registered any issue with this, at least, not that has been presented. We're here bickering over whether this is abuse of the talk page – hint: it's not. Blocks are meant to prevent problems, not prevent constructive contributions. This smacks of punitive "we don't like you, didn't you get the hint, now piss off".
  Why am I not surprised to find that the admin who enacted the tpa removal, SQL, has a grand total of 7 edits to mainspace in the past month, and less than 200 in the past two years? Relevance? You may wonder. IHTS consistently makes more than that every month.
  I'd like to answer GorillaWarfare's question. The point of blocking IHTS, was to curtail their abuse of other editors. Now if they carried that shit on their own talk page, you'd have a solid justification for removing the TPA. You'd have my support too. However, no evidence has been presented to suggest they are doing anything besides being constructive. So there's no problems to prevent. The additional work created, as with all work here, is voluntarily handled. Anybody who wants to review the suggestions, can do so. If nobody wants to, nobody is forced to.
  That's about all I'll say. I don't agree with the community, and I don't like the way this has been handled. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. Oh, and I'm unconcerned with the policy here (though it appears not to exist). IAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Relevance? You may wonder. Despite your comments above, I'm still wondering why SQL's edit count matters. If IHTS is a productive editor who can't edit productively in certain aspects of the site, they should request a change to their restrictions that will allow them to keep editing where they can (such as chess articles). And no, IHTS is pinging individuals to review their edit requests, so unless those people are specifically ignoring the pings it is taking up their time. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  OR below puts it well, below. An editor who is being constructive, who is not causing problems, has lost his talk page access to an admin that has done jack all little (constructive wise) in the past two years. SQL's action does nothing positive for the encyclopedia. That's why it matters. I don't see why a change to the editing restrictions is needed, he hasn't caused any problems on his own talk page, so why has his access been removed? I know "blocked means blocked", and so god forbid if he does something useful. Personally, it won't keep me up at night if people who are abusive (your words) to other Wikipedians can't edit Wikipedia - The abuse has been successfully curtailed. That is the point. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  So then why is he blocked? I wasn't aware we had a second set of Wikipedians who are useful content contributors and terrible at interacting with other people who are coddled by others facilitating each edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Largely irrelevant, isn't it? talk page access is not normally revoked for being blocked, it's revoked for being abused. Point me to the abuse of the talk page, and no, being constructive does not count (and neither does pinging editors, unless the editors being pinged, specifically, have a problem with it). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, it's not irrelevant. If IHTS can productively edit, why are they blocked to begin with? They were blocked for a reason: the admin who placed the block decided they couldn't constructively edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare - I'll do you the favour of pinging you for this one. Floquenbeam, the admin who blocked IHTS indefinitely,[29] has come onto this thread to express disappointment for IHTS' talk page access being revoked for precisely the reason that Floq thinks that IHTS can contribute constructively. Strike reason: Clarified by Floq that they were referring to Iridescent's current block, not their previous block. Though the point that the current blocking admin is fine with IHTS using their talk page remains. To quote Floq: It is also dysfunctional that once he stopped attacking other editors, and was only making edits that would improve the encyclopedia (if and only if agreed to by other editors), he had his talk page access removed. Yeah, they were blocked for a reason. That block worked. The talk page access removal was not needed. Is this clear now? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Mr rnddude: To clarify, I wasn't referring to myself above, though I can see why you'd think I was based on how I worded that. While I have blocked IHTS in the past, the current block was by [[User:Iridescent]. Who has said he was fine with IHTS using his talk page in this way. Sorry for the confusion.--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Sigh. Repinging @Iridescent:. I suck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, thanks for letting me know Floquenbeam. Yes I had interpreted your comment differently. Struck and corrected. I still think your personal quote is relevant. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that the only positive things one can do for the encyclopedia occured in mainspace. Could you retract your attack on SQL stating that he has done nothing constructive for the encyclopedia for the past two years? Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Just noticed that Mr. rnddude tweaked his comment while I was replying; still not sure what SQLs contributions or supposed lack thereof have anything to do with the price of tea in china (also, noticed that I must've subconsciously imitated GorrillaWarfare's comment above, hmm) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is, imo, a bad action regardless of edit count. No, I brought up the edit count because it was predictable that an admin who does not create content would be the one to just jump in gung-ho. Hence the "why am I not surprised". If it's still not clear, well, we'll just have to live with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA - Anyone that desires blocked users be barred from posting the type of content in question here to their talk pages may start a proposal in the proper place and see if it gains community consensus. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Why are we boldface voting why does ANI do this good grief - you realize that what happened here is that someone hurried over to ANI yelling "help, help! this guy is improving the encyclopedia in an unauthorized manner! somebody stop him!", and then somebody actually did, and now a bunch of people are nodding solemnly that yes, this was a thing that made sense? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Opabinia regalis, this was probably the best comment in the entire thread:-) Thanks,∯WBG^converse 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, as I mentioned above, the community made it clear in the prior discussion that IHTS' involvement in the project is not desired at this time. Making edit requests on their talk page only serves to allow them to continue in that regard, against consensus. That's how I see it, at any rate. Waggie (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Waggie, He was indeffed, primarily due to behavioral problems and a complete lack of collaborative spirit, shall anybody opposed his edits.But, that his content-contributions are valuable is beyond doubt (at-least to me).Now, if he starts taking snipes at editors who chooses to revert his proposed edits, (proxied by others), removal of TPA is a no-brainer but not before that.Also, read Floq's comments.∯WBG^converse 06:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Seconded, very well put. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply, Winged Blades of Godric. I appreciate your opinion, and I can see where you're coming from, I simply disagree and will leave it at that. Again, thank you for your reply. Waggie (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Opabinia regalis, you can at least call me out by name next time. Subverting the will of the community is disruptive and is what should be stopped. People who sock yet still improve the wiki are blocked. Why should we make a special case for this individual? Nihlus 13:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• If IHTS starts with attacks based on responses to proxied edits, block whoever proxied - The policy is unclear, but is clear about proxying. Whoever proxies takes full responsibility. With IHTS, the block wasn't about article edits but responses to article edits. The problems were all on talk pages. Saying he can get proxies to edit, then put all of the comments on his own talk page doesn't fully accomplish the preventative function of the block. So if talk page access is retained, I'd like to see it spelled out that if someone proxies for IHTS and that leads to IHTS attacking another user (even if the proxied edit was, on the surface, acceptable), then the proxy should be blocked for creating the conditions that led to the abusive behavior to begin with. In other words, inviting IHTS back into article editing by proxy means taking responsibility for any talk page comments IHTS makes about those proxy edits.

I was torn on this, as I would've preferred to see a long fixed-length block over an indef in the original thread, based on the idea that indef with such a prolonged body of evidence would likely be infinite. So I'm sympathetic to an approach that would at some point make it so IHTS can make article edits again. That said, the issue is/was treatment of other editors on talk pages, not in the articles themselves. The block wasn't for the past, it's to prevent that in the future. Raising the stakes for proxying seems like an interesting middleground. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• As long as we are talking about punishing one person for what another person does, I propose that we block Rhododendrites whenever anyone does anything wrong on Wikipedia because reasons. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Call it outside-the-box. :) I think the policy must be light on [in]appropriate talk page use because proxying for a blocked editor should be strongly discouraged. If proxying continues to put other editors at risk of being attacked, that's a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Smile.) Agreed, but the solution to a blocked user attacking others on his talk page is removing his talk page access. As per your opinion that proxying for a blocked editor should be strongly discouraged, I refer you to the following comment posted on my talk page:

"The relevant policy is Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. That is, you can move IHTS's material into mainspace but you're taking personal liability for any errors or issues as if you'd created it yourself. This situation isn't that uncommon; Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard was copy-pasted by me to mainspace from a banned user's sandbox, for instance, while Giano and The Rambling Man have both worked extensively on their talkpage when blocked and relied on the goodwill of others to check their material and send it live. Be aware that although this is Wikipedia policy, some people really hate it, and anything copy-pasted at the request of a banned user will be scrutinized for errors with a fine tooth comb in the hope of tripping you up." (Posted by Iridescent to User talk:Guy Macon on 07:49, 31 July 2018 UTC.)

So current policy allows moving material from a blocked user's talk page to main space, but the person doing the moving needs top carefully review the material and is responsible for anything wrong with it, just as if he had composed it himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of TPA-Per Opabinia, BlackKite, Philbrick and Alex.Un-necessary process-wonkery (and that too in a gray area) and I don't know how it improves the encyclopedia..... Also per Floq:-)∯WBG^converse 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - If he was using it abusively that would be a different matter, but he was using it to suggest improvements to the encyclopedia. Nobody is obliged to make those edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy, per WP:OPTIONS:

* Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page. The protection policy has further details in cases where other users are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk pages of blocked users.

I don't see any "continued abuse" here. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It's worth considering that there was more support for a site ban than a mere indef block at ANI. The final stats were: 8 site ban; 6 indef block; 3 opposed to any longterm action. I think the fact that the most support was for site ban would equate to no TP access, per WP:BMB. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA - The user asked respectfully for a change to be made to improve the encyclopedia. I don't see any harm in that as long as he remains respectful and courteous. Kadane (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of TPA I don't give a good goddamn over the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments over whether it's a ban or block: the bottom line is that IHTS's contributions aren't welcome here -- if they were, then there'd be a topic or behavioral ban -- so whether IHTS is being polite or whatever basically means fuck-all. --Calton | Talk 09:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TPA largely per Opabinia Regalis. IHTS is suggesting edits that would be productive. Nobody that he has pinged has complained, that I am aware of. His suggestions are unrelated to his block. Why do we want to revoke TPA again? If someone asks IHTS to stop pinging them and he doesn't; or if he starts using inappropriate language; or uses his talk page for anything that is explicitly forbidden; then this would be appropriate. Oh, and there's precedent, as others have noted. TRM used his talk page to suggest edits while blocked; Darkness Shines used his to alert watchers to vandalism and sockpuppetry; and it's a good thing that they did so. Vanamonde (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Talk page back on please Complete the following sentence : we are here to a) argue process ad-infinitum b) ban people we don't like c) write an encyclopedia. As long as IHTS is making suggestions to improve articles on his talk page, that's fine and anyone arguing otherwise has not chosen the right answer in this mini-quiz. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Ritchie333 the quiz is incorrect. c) "write an encyclopedia in a community". If you add that essential missing piece, the !votes to remove TPA will perhaps make sense to you. That said, I understand where you are coming from. I just don't agree that content creation is the only thing that matters. If it did, IHTS would not have been (finally) indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have been following this discussion since my modification of the block, and it appears consensus has turned against what would have in almost any other case been a routine removal of talkpage access for abuse of talkpage access while blocked. I believed at the time that I was doing the right thing in order to protect the project from disruption - something I have done, and seen done many times before, and something I'll definitely think twice about before ever doing again. As I'm going to be mostly unavailable for the next two weeks - I'm going to re-instate talkpage access. I would suggest that if we feel the editor is doing a good enough job to make proxy edits, we should take a serious look at unblocking them. SQL^{Query me!} 08:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @SQL: I just want to say that, yes, you absolutely acted in good faith here and did what many would have seen as routine and uncontroversial. For a long time I also thought blocked users can only use their talk pages for working on an unblock, based on what I'd seen many admins do, and I was surprised to learn there is no clear basis in policy for it - policy is far more vague than that and relies on individual judgment (which I think is correct). If nothing else, I think it's been a useful learning process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Boing! said Zebedee: - Is the process used described by our policies, or do our policies mandate the process used? I've always thought that the former was the correct answer here. I feel that it's unfair to the editor to wait if I'm not going to be around however - and on top of that if editors I have a lot of respect for are telling me that I'm wrong - there's a pretty good chance that I'm wrong. SQL^{Query me!} 09:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
      • That is indeed the big question. Ideally, policy should document consensus and established practice, and consensus can certainly change policy. But there doesn't appear to be a policy that adequately describes a consensus here, and practice appears to be considerably more variable than I used to think. The big thing here is that there is no clear right or wrong, but maybe we're heading in the direction of establishing it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about it. I think it's one of those oddities where huge amounts of people think they're clear on the policy, but it turns out that the policy doesn't actually say that. Another example would be the number of people that reinstate block notices on editors' talkpages when they remove them - nope, they're allowed to do that, it's block appeal declines they can't remove ... Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal of Talk Page Access - I don't see the slightest problem with the way that page is being used. Why this drama? Carrite (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Malik Shabazz continuing personal attacks

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

---

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) just called Sandstein an incompetent and corrupt piece of shit[30] because of his work at WP:AE.

Last month he was blocked for personal attacks at AE and his refusal to strike them for 31 hours by GoldenRing. He used his alternative account MShabazz (talk · contribs) to make a personal attack on the blocking admin: You're almost as stupid as Sandstein, with your attitude that "only the editor who is factually wrong is being disruptive". What a bunch of fucking morons [31] The block was not extended for this.

Similarly, he reverted Icewhiz's standard AE notification (which he is required to post) as "vandalism"[32] so he's clearly being toxic to everyone that has to interact with him because of AE.

Considering Malik Shabazz was desysopped for personal attacks in 2015 by the ArbCom[33] and has been blocked for them several times, including revoking talk page access, it's clearly a long-term pattern issue. So, are egregious personal attacks alright as long as he has a little pause between them, or is it time to show the door? --Pudeo (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo - Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that Sandstein's recent comments at AE have driven another editor to retire in what can easily be described as bullying by an admin who lacks even a basic knowledge of the topic area. I feel any actual investigation here needs to take a hard look at the process that led to Malik losing his temper. I am far from being a fan of Malik, but this is utter bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end - If you feel that an investigation is needed regarding Sandstein's conduct, you should open a new ANI discussion, state your concerns in-depth, and request one - we'll be happy to objectively look into the matter if you do this. This discussion here is focused on Malik Shabazz's civility; a separate discussion regarding the issue you're mentioning is what should be done so that concerns and independent events are not diluted into the same report. Let me know if you have questions or concerns and I'll be happy to talk with you about them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that when an ANI report is opened, we look at all sides and all participants in what led up to the problem. We don't only consider the actions of the editor complained of and tell people to take consideration of other involved parties elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - I took another look at Only in death does duty end's concerns. I initially believed that his concerns and the concerns raised on this ANI report were about two different events that happened to involve both parties. I see now that I was mistaken; I've redacted my response above. Thanks for responding and pushing back at my suggestion (which was incorrect) :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end - I also owe you my apologies for the incorrect assessment I made and the response that followed. I hope that you didn't interpret my response as an attempt to "pass you down the line" or that I wasn't taking your concerns with the same level of care as the concerns raised by Pudeo - it was absolutely not my intent at all. Please forgive my stupidity... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pudeo - Both of Malik Shabazz's accounts are blocked for 72 hours for his unacceptable comment containing a clear personal attack. This block only takes the uncivil comment into account; a further investigation regarding Malik Shabazz's conduct may find that a block of a longer duration is necessary. Any administrator is welcome to modify or extend the block I placed upon both accounts - just let me know that you did so and what you found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked further into this and found that the hostility towards Sandstein has been going on atleast since May. Malik Shabazz made an uncivil AfD comment about "did your parents drop you on your heads as infants?"[34] and Sandstein warned him for using the personal attack in WP:ARBPIA area[35]. Shabazz reverted him with the comment "taking out the trash"[36]. AE topic banned Shabazz from Israeli-Palestine topics for 6 months because of the comment, and Sandstein notified him. Shabazz removed this notification with the summary of "go to hell".[37] He then made the following comment at AN with his alt-account: I would sooner jump off the Empire State Building than grovel before a "good German" like Sandstein[38]. He refused to remove the "good German" description because of "if the shoe fits..."[39]. Then there are the two newer personal attacks mentioned in my first post. So this is pretty extensive already. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What brought you to User talk:Nishidani in the first place? I thought we had rules against following editors to instigate conflict. nableezy - 16:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That is both tendentious and irrelevant. It's also silly, as the answer is almost certainly related to follow-up of the WP:ARE thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly was there for Pudeo, not an admin who can do anything with an AE thread or follow up on it, to follow up there? I appreciate your answering for Pudeo, I am genuinely curious as to when it became acceptable to troll through people's user talk pages to bring attacks against third parties to ANI? nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to entertain your argument that unacceptable comments can by excused by claiming that anyone that acts on them is engaging in WP:HOUNDING. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thats cute, but the question wasnt directed to you in the first place, and it ignores that this happened on a third parties user talk page, a user talk page the reporting user has never before edited and would likely not have in their watchlist. Its a good thing you arent the arbiter of these things though, isnt it? nableezy - 16:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - It's not hounding for a user to run into a discussion or another editor, take a look at the contributions and edits for that editor, and then report problematic edits or violations of policy that they find. If you call that "hounding", I'd be guilty of it a million times over and every time I've investigated a suspicious user, an LTA, sock puppet, dug further after reverting an editor who added vandalism or made malicious and disruptive edits to the project, or even looked into someone's contributions when they apply for user rights. Looking into one's contributions or the edits and comments made to a discussion is completely in one's free will to do. An example of hounding would be if you and I had a heated argument and uncivil discussion over a dispute on an article, and I then began following you to every discussion you participate in afterwards in order to confront you, inhibit your work, engage in battleground conduct, and attack your character as an argument. Or I began following you to each and every article you make edits to (even minor ones) in order to revert them all and for reasons I come up with by gaming the system. Hounding is the intentional and malicious act of following you around in order to engage in disruptive editing in places you participate in with the sole purpose of harassing you and making your "Wikipedia life" hell. What Pudeo did was absolutely not hounding, and it's disappointing to see that you're not giving him any benefit of the doubt and instead making the assumption that his intentions are malicious :-(. He did the right thing by filing an ANI report over what was clearly an unacceptable and uncivil comment made toward another editor, and we shouldn't be quick to jump to assumptions or assume bad faith like that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont think it was hounding so much as looking for a problem without having a reason to. I agree, "piece of shit" is not an acceptable thing to call another person on Wikipedia. But. This happened in the immediate aftermath of the person that was directed at having made a closure of an AE thread with an implicit threat towards another editor, a threat that said editor has at least momentarily (one might hope) would lead him to retire. This same admin has a history of imposing sanctions on Malik without discussion and in ways that have aggravated what in my view is a shameful moment in the WP:A* namespace, from ANI to AC, in which a years long productive and widely respected (see his RFA for both the nominator and the view of the community on him) was successfully goaded by a sock-puppet of a user who has what I think the notable distinction of having two sockpuppets in the same arbitration case into losing his temper and his bit. That benefit of the doubt you speak of was never given to Malik. I see an editor upset with what he sees as a long-term pattern of misconduct by an admin, and one who, rightfully in my view, doesnt actually see any avenue to address that misconduct. And he vented that frustration, poorly perhaps, on a user talk page. Where it could have died among the 4 people involved in the discussion without the need for a third party that has no real familiarity with the histories involved playing hall monitor and making a petition for a citizens arrest here. nableezy - 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - Boy oh boy... I'm realizing that there are more and more layers I need to peel back regarding this discussion and issue as a whole... I appreciate that you understand that the comment was uncivil and certainly not acceptable - thank you :-). But, as people have stated here - there's a lot more that needs to be addressed than just the uncivil comment that was found. This is why I imposed only a 72 hour block pending further investigation into the matter entirely. The question I have is... shoot, where do we even begin? :-/ ... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What brought me to his userpage? I follow WP:AE and the report on Nishidani was closed there. Simple as that. --Pudeo (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• He probably should not have called Sandstein a piece of shit, Ill grant you all that, but are we really not allowed to criticize admins as admins? If one thinks an admin is incompetent they should do what? Sit on their hands? And seriously, why does anybody care what is said on a user's talk page? Yall have entirely too much time on your hands if you are reporting people for attacks on other parties on pages you have no reason to even see. nableezy - 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  He should itemize and put forward for discussion the actions he thought were taken in error. --Jayron32 16:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Youve been here a while, surely you recall a Malik Shabazz that was a real asset to this project. I was on a hiatus of sorts when this slide towards I dont know I guess dissatisfaction would be the most civil way of putting with the project on his part began. But do you not think that it would be better if actions were taken to arrest and reverse that slide took place rather than accelerate it? Everything that began with Malik, from his losing his temper and the bit with it, began with a NoCal100 sock incessantly baiting him, racist overtones and all, and nobody doing a thing about it. And from that Wikipedia took one of the better admins on here and is now continuing its quiet march of him out the door, with a user going to a third parties talk page to report him and ask if it is time to do exactly that. I realize I didnt reply to your suggested course of action, so for that Ill just say I agree with Malik on the futility of that course of action. nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

He may have been an asset to the project, but that doesn't mean he isn't being a net liability today. I agree that we should be taking actions that encourage editor retention, but I'm also not fully aware of every detail of every interaction that Malik and the other principals here have been part of over the many years. If an admin does something incorrectly, there are ways to go about getting that corrected. Calling them names or using abusive and inflammatory language are not those ways. If Malik is going to do that, then Malik is not going to be allowed to continue to do that. --Jayron32 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are times where that is true, as far as ways to go about getting that corrected, but in the specific realm of AE that is made as difficult as possible. I see Malik's anger here as something that is justified but resolvable. And we should be doing what is possible to help create such a resolution. nableezy - 19:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you are okay with the "corrupt" part N? Please read WP:NPA again MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am, as far as a statement made on a user talk page. Do I think it applies to Sandstein? No, as I said on that user talk page. Should it result in a block? No. But however you want to classify admins, as a type of police, or a ruling class, or whatever, they certainly have greater privileges here, and with that, in any non-fascist organization, should allow for criticism of the use of those privileges. Including calling them "corrupt". nableezy - 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• At least as important a question to be resolved is whether Sandstein should be involved in matters of Arbitration Enforcement. I've been voting No Confidence on his actions there for years. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  Count me in. Unfortunately, it seems that WP:CIR does not apply to admins. No such user (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a longer block

I don't like these kind of !vote type of things, but since the discussion doesn't have a direction otherwise, I'm proposing a longer block than the initial 72 hrs one by Oshwah (who said that it was based on this one comment, and a longer block is possible on examining the pattern). Block log: Desysopped for personal attacks in 2015. Topic banned from WP:ARBPIA for 6 months for personal attacks in May 2018[40]. Blocked for 31 hrs for personal attacks at WP:AE on 6 July and then attacking the admin who did the block[41]. Then blocked for 2 weeks by AE on July 30[42] for incivil comments again and now this. There is a pattern of incivility and he just seems to be doubling down on his attacks on admins who enforce the sanctions. A longer block, atleast 1 month or 3 months is in order. So, support --Pudeo (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - literally no reason for a proposal like this. Malik has a problem with a specific user, that problem should be discussed and worked it out, ideally between the two of them. Something that is not part of the solution is a third party going through a user talk page for reasons that escape me to report an attack on somebody else entirely. Sanstein is a grown up, if he feels attacked he can say so. But, again, ideally this is worked out with a discussion, not a rather absurd length of a block for a comment on a user talk page. nableezy - 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • AE is a public venue and his attacks have been going on since May (see my post about the background[43]). It is increasingly disruptive for everyone if egregious personal attacks are normalized and the AE board's atmosphere made toxic. Doesn't matter if the comments have been made on talk pages after the AE threads have been closed. --Pudeo (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The attack you are complaining about here was not at AE. It was at a user talk page. Im well aware of your previous post, thank you very much. I will restate, a comment made on a user talk page that not even the supposedly aggrieved party has cared to complain about has no business even being brought to ANI, much less being used to propose a months long block. You literally went searching for a problem here. nableezy - 19:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I do not think we have such entity as a "community imposed block". If you want to propose a community ban or a community imposed topic ban, you should start the discussion accordingly. If you find Oshwah's action inappropriate you should go to WP:AN and ask uninvolved admin to review the block. But voting for a longer (or, for that matter, shorter) block does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it in appropriate, he himself said a longer block could be made by another admin. This would be a community discussion for that, if any admin wants to do it based on it. I'm not an expert on ANI policy, but indef block !votes seem to be fairly frequent. Feel free to close this subsection if I'm using incorrect terminology. --Pudeo (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Let's wait to see what happens in 3 days first. I'd like to extend more than a little grace to someone who wasn't shown any real grace back when he really needed it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although I will never use the language that Malik used, I share his anger at the way Sandstein handled that AE case. I think that Sandstein's threat to act against consensus on Nishidani's talk page was wandering into de-sysop territory. I've always been reluctant to criticize administrators who (unlike me, usually) undertake the difficult and thankless work on the noticeboards, but there are limits. And the system is fundamentally broken, with "behavior" taking center stage while "building an excellent encyclopedia" is pushed to the background. So bad editors who doggedly push their personal POV with NOPV and V violations every day while being careful with the language and revert rules are allowed to go about their business unmolested, while those good editors who (like Nishidani) express frustration at this state of affairs are sanctioned. Zero^talk 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Would better see how things go from now on. Excelse (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We all get heated, from a quick review of his/her last 100 edits, Malik seems to be a great editor in a tough topic area who sometimes lets his/her passion get the best of him/her. Maybe keeping the block as is and applying WP:Rope would be a better course of action. JC7V-constructive zone 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia is the unequal distribution of justice. As someone said: "On Wikipedia everything is allowed, .....and nothing is allowed." I do not condone Maliks use of words, but frankly, the goading he has been subjected to (for long with no Admin intervention) has been far worse. And that is the shame of Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Floquenbeam and Huldra. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Allegations made on PaulCHebert's talk page

I do this with great hesitancy. I would appreciate it if an admin could look at the thread titled "Kate Bolduan" on my talk page and evaluate whether or not Tlmw's persistent attempts to make (unfounded) assumptions about my politics, using those assumptions to evaluate my edits, and accusing me of being "guilty" of participating in a "cover up" are appropriate or not. I am beginning to feel harassed by his commentary. Many thanks. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Addendum: @Ponyo: is somewhat familiar with this case -- I only now realized that they are an admin. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As you know I've tried to reason with Tlwm on their talk page, but have not had much success. It would be helpful to get fresh eyes on the subject.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert:, please notify Tlwm of this discussion as noted in the yellow box when you edit this page. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for the continued personal attacks after warning. The IDHT is strong with this one...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification  Done. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about missing the notification. Thanks to @FlightTime: for covering me. @SarekOfVulcan: IDHT? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaulCHebert: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, sorry, should have linked it the first time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As a completely disinterested party, having taken a look at the thread in question, the thread on Ponyo's talk page and the articles where the dispute was taking place, my thoughts are:
  • Tlwm has some serious competency issues with the English language. I do not think that he should be writing prose. List articles, templates, talk page discussions and other outlets remain open to his contributions, but I strongly feel that he should not be writing prose for article bodies.
  • Tlwm also seems to have a battleground mentality.
  • Tlwm does not understand American politics well at all. PaulCHebert's editing (in the areas I mentioned above) does not, in any way, appear to be indicative of an editor with conservative political views, much less a right-wing POV pusher.

I'm not sure what to do. My instincts are to try to retain this editor, but the logical part of my brain says "indef per WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE". I don't see how they could improve their editing to the point of being a net positive. But as I said, my instincts are to try to retain them and I trust my instincts. So I am refraining from suggesting a course of action at this time. But I agree fully that Tlwm is the source of this conflict. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I did not harassed him, no interest. I am open for critics and improvements but not for massive cuts because He doesn't like my writing style. I asked him to improve it, but now we are here. I have to ask myself about his intentions. Every word I posted in his discussion went very fast to Jezebel's Ponyo. They were hunting. PaulCHerbert was very belittling like many here. He introduces false information (I think by accident) and typos. I can not write like this. I am not here for my ego or winning, then I prefer to leave wikipedia. Tlwm (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (Copied from Tlwm's talk page - FlightTime (open channel) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC))

I'd prefer Tiwm leave Wikipedia as well. Severe competency issues. --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to note that Tlwm's English compositions skills seem to have improved somewhat between the bulk of this issue and their responses at their talk page. This may be more of a case of anger interfering with Tlwm's abilities. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree -- if you look at his mainspace contributions, they are often very difficult to decipher. The stuff I removed here is a quick example. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That truly is atrocious syntax... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There are definitely CIR and IDHT issues here. I don't think Tlwm has done anything deserving of a ban, but it is likely he will be back at ANI if he doesn't either drop this topic area, or undergo a major attitude readjustment. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, but comparing reverts to the Holocaust kind of tips my vote towards an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That certainly shows a certain lack of perspective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In fairness to him, he wasn't comparing reverts to the Holocaust; he was comparing reverts to Holocaust denial, in that he sees them as attempts to cover up history. Still massive hyperbole, and problematic, but not quite on the same level. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested

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

---

Yesterday at 8:00 User:GorillaWarfare posted a comment[44] to a Signpost article written by User:Kudpung. I explained why this was a personal attack at 9:30, and asked her to remove the post[45]. Her reply was "I won't be removing it."

After I read this, I removed the PA, only to be reverted by GorillaWarfare nearly immediately. I warned her on her talk page that further reversions would lead to a block, she reverted again anyway, and I blocked her for 24 hours.

The PA was then reinstated by User:Drmies, and the block undone without consultation by User:Fuzheado.

Inbetween, there was discussion at GorillaWarfare's talkpage, in the sections "You are getting things consistently wrong" and "Personal attack". Opinions were divided about nearly everything, with some people politely disagreeing, and some people adding inflammatory[46] or baseless[47][48] statements, which didn't help the discussion one bit.

So, how to proceed? Is the original comment (about Kudpung continuing a misogynistic campign by writing that Signpost article) a personal attack or not? Is repeatedly reinstating that comment despite warnings a blockable offense? Is undoing the block without consultation, or reinstating the comment, a problematic action? Or are the removals of the comment and the block the problematic actions? Review please. Fram (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Note dropped at the talk page of the people I mentioned or linked to here, not to all others who already commented one way or the other. I'll be offline for a few hours, sorry about that. Fram (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a situation that calls for de-escalation, and instead, you have chosen to escalate, Fram. Please ponder why. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How does one de-escalate a personal attack? Instead of immediately removing it (which I should have done), I asked GorillaWarfare to "Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost". They have not given any indication of being willing to discuss this or consider this, and couldn't accept someone else removing it either. Then what? When you have an editor who is not giving any meaningful answers, doesn't indicate why they think the comment is acceptable and not a personal attack, and isn't willing to let the comment be removed, then with any editor, a block would follow. As it stands, after all this, all we have as justification for the comment is that Kudpung made comments about or against GorillaWarfare two weeks ago, and that somehow this make them fair game to make a totally unrelated Signpost post the battleground to label the post as "misogyny" and the editor as being on a campaign of such. Without any justification or explanation why comments about GorillaWarfare and a Signpost post about the WMF and its CEO would be part of one campaign, or why the latter is misogynistic and not just critical, wrong, too aggressive, whatever... Casting such aspersions on the underlying motives of an editor, and not providing any justification for these aspersions wrt to the page where they were made, is a personal attack and harassment. And this is not acceptable no matter where it comes from. Fram (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How does one de-escalate a personal attack?

You could start with the question-begging underlying that comment, and perhaps could have considered the possibility that you were wrong? --Calton | Talk 09:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, if GorillaWarfare (or for that matter anyhone else) had perhaps done some effort into explaining why the Signpost page was misogynistic and part of a campaign? Without any evidence for this, it is a personal attack, as described in the PA policy. I recently warned someone that they were posting copyvio's, and that I would remove their articles. They explained to me that I was wrong. I apologized, end of story. I'm not infallible, and have no problem considering that I may be wrong. But not just because someone says you are wrong. Give me some arguments. Fram (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So basically, no, you're not going to bother with that whole pesky self-reflection business. Maybe you should put down that shovel and stop digging yourself in deeper. --Calton | Talk 10:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the notification, Fram. I'll happily participate in this conversation and will hopefully be fairly available in the next few days to do so (Tuesday on may be a bit fraught due to work engagements but hopefully this won't take four days). I am happy to explain both my interpretation of Kudpung's comments to me in our earlier interaction, or my interpretation of the Signpost article and why I felt it was a continuation of the misogyny shown in Kudpung's earlier comments, but for now I will hold off unless that's requested to avoid clogging this discussion if the interactions are already understood. You know where to find me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. Also, in my opinion Comment sections should not be censored unless something really egregious is occurring. Edit-warring with an admin over a strong statement, and then blocking them for it, should not have happened. Instead, if it was that much of an issue, a noticeboard discussion (on ANI or AN) should have been opened to determine via community consensus whether the statement was a removable WP:PA or not. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I explained why this was a personal attack...

No, you ARGUED why it was a personal attack. And what Cullen328 said.

So, how to proceed?

Trouting you for admin overreach might be a good start. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm trying to remember a worse block than yours, Fram, and recent memory is failing. You were both edit warring, and an uninvolved admin could have been justified in blocking both you and GW, but there were no personal attacks there, and certainly none that called for you to ignore the rules on edit warring and involvement, which as the other side in the edit war you clearly were. Courcelles (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The initial comment, Misogyny, was unnecessarily provocative and out of place. I would consider it to be a personal attack. Imagine seeing a comment titled "Racism"; "Neo-Nazi advocacy"; or "Transphobia" in the comments section of a piece that you have submitted to Signpost. That's a personal comment about an editor as the sole author of the piece.

If there were concerns about the author's prior behaviour, I think it would have been best to discuss with them directly, or at an appropriate noticeboard. The Signpost commenting section was certainly not the right location in what appeared to be a continuation of an on-going dispute. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either party (GorillaWarfare or Fram) has shown wise conduct here, regardless of whether or not it was a "personal attack". --Rschen7754 06:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• For that matter, neither has Kudpung. --Rschen7754 06:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Fram, as I look over the various discussions, it would seem to me at this point that the issue isn't really whether something certain comments at the SignPost and elsewhere were misogynistic or not. It seems that we've gone far past that now. You've asked for a block review, and I see that as being about whether you were WP:INVOLVED when you made the block of GorillaWarfare. Consultation with a blocking admin is suggested and is common courtesy, but is not required. Given the circumstances, I'm not surprised that you weren't consulted, as your stance in the matter was clear (so no consultation was necessary, they took action knowing your stance). My opinion, fwiw, is that you were most definitely WP:INVOLVED and that using advanced tools was, at best, ill-advised. You were having heated discussion with GorillaWarfare and others on several fronts, discussion where neutral administrators were clearly reading and urging calm. If GorillaWarfare's comments were truly personal attacks, then an uninvolved and neutral administrator should have been the one to make the block. Even if uninvolved administrators weren't actively reading and urging calm, there was certainly no urgent need for a block, and an uninvolved administrator could have been sought out to review the situation. Waggie (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• GorillaWarfare's comment about the Signpost article was linked to the earlier incident with Kudpung, and in particular his response to that. Fram, if we've reached the point where women can't offer the view that something on this site is sexist, we're in worse shape than I thought. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to go all 'English major' here, but misogyny and sexism are not the same things: Dictionary.com: Misogyny vs Sexism. Likewise, compare this article has sexist undertones with Misogyny (apparently directed at the author in an on-going dispute, as is clear from the comment in the post).K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

They didn't offer the view that something is sexist, they offered the view that someone was having a campaing of misogyny, and did not, at any time, explain how the Signpost comment they posted that comment to was in any way evidence of that statement. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Fram (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fram's blocking of GW was uncalled for (at least, so soon, although I completely understand Fram's perspective in this – that this was a clear personal attack); however, there's no "involved" action here. Fram's comments, removal of GW's comments, etc were purely administrative (see it from the perspective of GW being a normal editor; and not what I suspect most are doing here, considering her as a person they know well and are close to). GW's statements directed at Kudpung's character are silly and childish, and especially seem a distant run off of some campaign she feels a strong need to support and continue. That said, I don't agree at all with how Kudpung placed his initial statements on GW. I would strongly urge all parties (including me, perhaps) to just stop frequenting each other's posts and lay it off for some while. Knowing GW's opinion (that she's not going to take it quietly... or something like that), I can only hope she sees better sense. If she does continue her ill-directed campaign at Kudpung, I would recommend an immediate indefinite re-block of GW until she realizes she cannot walk this path. Lourdes 07:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• It's not ideal to review this situation without the context. My thoughts on the original comment was placed here ([49]); to me, GorillaWarfare's comment at Signpost made it clear that her original comment ([50]) to Kudpung a while ago was neither a "minor point", and had the explicit implication that Kudpung was "being misogynistic". In the Signpost comment, it was unclear that whether GorillaWarfare's comment was directed at the comment or the editor; I am fairly certain it is the latter, but one needs to acknowledge that how her Signpost comment was phrased can be easily and reasonably interpreted as being directed toward the editor. Now I do think Kudpung has overreacted on several of these occasions, but to put myself in his shoes, I think it takes extraordinary ill-faith to assume that he was being misogynistic in this comment when he was in the middle of a discussion about combating sexism in RfA. Alex Shih (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

And onto to the administrative actions that were taken here. The idealistic premise is that all editors and administrators should be held equally, and be held accountable for their words, conduct and behaviour. But that is not the pragmatic approach in reality, so to echo the comments by Cullen328 and Softlavender, the only approach here should have been to de-escalate the situation, and to solicit community feedback before taking extraordinary and unilateral administrative actions. My opinion is that without a strong community consensus formed after a wider discussions at noticeboards, any similar administrative action should not be taken (this is a general comment that applies to all similar extraordinary situations). No comment on the subsequent development, as they were inconsequential due to the legitimacy of the initial action being contested. Alex Shih (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Kudpung's not a misogynist. Not by a long shot. Kudpung jumps in to fight sexism and bias, not create it. That this is up for debate, genuinely makes me sad. :( Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This was a bad block. Discussion clearly showed at the time that there was not a consensus that GW's comment was a personal attack (I'm not interested here in whether it was or it wasn't, that isn't the point), which means that Fram's actions are not covered by the edit warring exemptions, which are only for things are clearly and unambiguously inappropriate, making Fram WP:INVOLVED. Discussion was ongoing, the focus of the dispute was very small and the involved parties are all experienced Wikimedians in (generally) good standing so there was absolutely zero risk of any disruption spreading and no other reason at all for urgency. How many times is it now that we've been here (and at other venues) because Fram has needlessly escalated a situation when they should have been de-escalating it? How many more times does that need to happen before they get the message? Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • When there are policy violations (like PAs, or BLP vios, or copyvios), even when there is no general agreement that they are violations, we remove them, then discuss them, and if the consensus is that they were not policy violations but acceptable comments, then we reinstate: not the other way around. I gave GorillaWarfare plenty of chances to de-escalate the situation, but she clearly wasn't interested in either de-escalation or explanation. Upholding policies doesn't make me involved. Fram (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is... not ideal. The comment is defensible, and escalating the whole thing is rather unhelpful. You blocked an administrator and former arbitrator based on your own interpretation of a comment without any consultation? Really? What did you think was going to happen? Bad block, good unblock, now discuss it in your normal calm way please. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't care when blocking whether someone is an admin / former arbitrator or not. Leeway may be given for a new editor who doesn't understand the rules yet, but apart from that no distinction should be made between non-admins making PAs and admins or former arbs making them. Fram (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Per Guy, above. It was clearly an involved block by Fram, if you can't see that Fram, you know the way to hand in your bit. Nick (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How was I involved? I gave an editor a warning about a policy violation, to give them the chance to undo the violation. They declined (and neither did they explain why they declined or why it wasn't a policy violation). So I removed the personal attack (removing a personal attack made by editor X doesn't make one involved with editor X). They reversed my removal. I warned them that further such actions would lead to a block. Warning an editor doesn't make one involved. They reversed the removal of the PA again. I blocked. What in this sequence makes me somehow involved? (Never mind the rather illogical conclusion that if I can't see that it wsa an involved block, I should resign the tools. No, if I had knowingly made an involved block, that might be grounds to resign.) Fram (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I gave an editor a warning about a policy violation...
    • Nope. You ACCUSED an editor of a policy violation -- against multiple editors telling you it wasn't -- and then enforced your own interpretation using admin tools. Since you don't seem to understand this very basic point, maybe your admin bit should be removed until you do. --Calton | Talk 09:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Never mind the rather illogical conclusion that if I can't see that it wsa an involved block, I should resign the tools
    • I have rarely seen such a strong example of motivated reasoning. Have you heard of "Competence is Required"? "Lack of self-awareness", strangely, isn't much of a mitigating factor. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yikes. I'm not touching this! Okay, fine, I'll bite:

• Fram should not have repeatedly removed the comment, or blocked, without consulting other admins, given that Drmies had disputed whether it was a valid PA for removal.
• Lourdes is correct. Removal of personal attacks is a legitimate admin action, so the "edit war" over it shouldn't render them involved. I can't see any other way of objectively interpreting this particular point.
• I don't see how anyone can unequivocally state that accusing someone on-Wiki of "misogyny" is not, at least arguably, a personal attack.

• But, if it's happening between two highly respected, veteran administrators in good standing, we're probably not dealing with a petty behavioral issue that is correctable via standard blocking.

• GW's comment was unfiltered and aggressive well beyond normal Talk Page standards, but so was the article she was responding to, which itself could be reasonably construed as a personal attack. (To be clear, I 100% endorse freedom of speech in the press, including The Signpost)

• We can not reasonably enforce a conduct standard for the comments section that isn't enforced for the article itself. Any editor should be within their rights to make an equally unfiltered and aggressive comment in disapproval of the article.

• However, if that's going to be the case, Kudpung equally deserves the right of response, and the immediate threat to block him from TNT was excessive, counterproductive escalation as well (they did not even provide a policy-based reason for the block they threatened).

• Two administrators with serious interpersonal—not behavioral—issues need to be able to discuss their shit, even if it gets heated, ugly or unpleasant. Trying to "conduct policy enforcement" on them or forcibly separate them like children won't help.

• Bumbling, aggressive, heavy-handed admining, warnings, admonitions, threats, blocks, side-choosing, and any other behavior from the peanut gallery, admin-or-not, that only serves to "jump in" to the dispute, and/or further escalate the situation, won't help.

• If you're not going to leave calm, thoughtful comments aimed at deescalation like Worm, GRubin, or Cullen tried to, the least you can do to actually help, is to not add fuel to the fire.

• Admonishments primarily to those users who only escalated the situation. They are not limited to Fram and they who know who they are.

• GW and Kudpung need to mutually steer clear of each other from now on, or take their conflict off-wiki where it will not disrupt the project, until they can bury the hatchet and come to a mutual respect. No exceptions.

• The "full history" doesn't matter. Grudging between admins is unacceptable.
• Whether us observers feel that Kudpung is actually a misogynist or not, he still needs to respect that he made GW feel that way. That's the primary issue. Not that she spoke up about it, and not Fram’s intervention.
• I think all of us, Kudpung included, would encourage any women on this project to speak up if they feel they're experiencing or witnessing misogyny, intended or not. It may not have been the correct forum, but GW should not be blamed for speaking up.
• This is not an argument that either party needs to "win". Kudpung should be open-minded to GW's experience and perception, and try to repair the damage done through civil discourse and respectful consideration. If Kudpung makes an effort, GW will, I'm sure, reciprocate in kind.

• Even if this doesn't make them friends, it's the bare minimum resolution that will be acceptable. Swarm ♠ 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to ask Kudpung to tone down his Signpost writing. There's no need to so repeatedly put the boot in towards someone. We get it, you don't like Katherine Maher. Fish+Karate 09:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ugh, no-one comes out of this brilliantly, do they? The Signpost article is frankly poor (and this appalling comment by Kudpung to GW appears to have been forgotten and probably led to the following issue), GW probably shouldn't have restored the disputed sentence once it had been removed, the block is ... well, "defensible" is the best thing I can say about it, and everyone knows that's code for "not ideal", and Fuzheado reversed it without discussing it with the blocking admin. However, I don't think there's anything else to do than suggest that the participants steer clear of each other for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• I too have been following this whole sorry saga in the background, and I don't think anyone involved here has made the situation better. I don't think the "misogyny" comment was needed, but the block was not appropriate, especially as its suggestion was disputed by several others. As above, the solution here is for GorillaWarfare and Kudpung to not interact with each other, or refer to each other in any way, implied or directly. As for Fram, at least a wet trout is needed. Aiken D 10:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• If we get could the major protagonists to sign up" to Swarm's assessment—in the spirit of codification? (but not in the sense of a logged action, more as acknowledgment)—then this can be swiftly closed. Frankly, and not to put too fine a point on the matter, Swarm has said the last word on the subject, and everything else is just going to be adhoc commentary from the peanut gallery. IMHO of course (including, I don't doubt—me!), pace those who have previously commented, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NPA - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Accusations about other editors behaviour without providing evidence is a clear personal attack. Then reinstating it, without evidence, is still a personal attack. Regardless of if you agree with it. Dont like it? Propose to rewrite the policy. Special treatment like this is why people complain about the super mario effect. If this had been anyone else they would have blocked and given little further thought. Admins are expected to know and obey policies and frankly the convolutions going through above in order to excuse flouting policy is just rewarding bad behaviour. You want to accuse someone of being misogynistic? You line up evidence as per the policy and provide it in the form of diffs at a relevant noticeboard or to arbcom. You want to turn ENWP into another online gender-battleground by making drive-by comments? There's probably a mailing list for that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• And lest anyone think I am one-sided here, this should serve as an example why the signpost should be nuked. When it was reporting on wiki-related issues it was fine. After a succession of editors have turned into their pet loudhailer, its just a magnet for crap like this. If you want to let other wikipedians know what they may have missed, great, if you want to tell other wikipedians what your opinion is on <insert editor's personal gripe they want to bitch about here> go start a blog. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This was a terrible block, and the inability and/or refusal (so far) to understand why it was a terrible block makes me wonder if a new ArbCom case evaluating Fram's suitability to make such blocks would be the logical next step. If Fram can assure everyone here that he understands why this was a bad block and that he will never make such a block again, I think that would (probably) obviate the need for such a case. 28bytes (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block: Not only was that claimed PA substantively in dispute at the time, and Fram was at the center of that dispute (commenting on comments and sign-post articles is not PA, but where there is substantial ongoing disagreement, it means there is without consensus admin action), Fram was INVOVLED in edit war, and thus INVOVLED in winning a dispute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry to say I have to agree with both 28bytes and with Alanscottwalker. Might make the basis of a useful question to candidates at WP:RFA.Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think GW assuring everyone they are not going to make personal attacks on other editors would negate the need for an arbcom case as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what GW does, does not, should or should not do, this individual dispute is not nearly worthy of arbcom attention on its own. However it is yet another example of many admin actions made by Fram that are at the very least questionable and it is almost certain that there will come a time the Committee examines this as part of a case investigating his continued suitability for the administrator role. Whether there is a wider pattern centred around the Signpost is not something I have looked into. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

GW did not abuse admin tools, which is what is at issue here. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with User:Alanscottwalker, User:28bytes and others: this is yet another moment of Fram showing a lack of judgement when using admin tools -- its at the point where they should be rescinded. Sadads (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Having only become aware of this situation this morning, I agree largely with what Swarm detailed above. I'll add that I don't see any personal attack in GorillaWarfare's comment that Fram referred to, only fair criticism, and while you might disagree with her criticism, Fram ordering her to remove it was bullying and GW was right not to concede to it. I'm also going to add that a male administrator responding so aggressively to a female editor's observation of misogyny is especially horrendous. That said, I do believe that Fram acted in what he believed to be good faith and the project's best interest, but it was a bad block and it was right to have been undone and the comment restored. From what's been presented here, I don't see how this makes him INVOLVED, but it was a poor exercise of admin authority. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Fram might need a better filter.

-EEng

• One more echoing Cullen's "de-escalation called for" comment. There are so many different stages this could have stopped at before blocking a current admin and recent arbitrator that this is like a set of stairs. Every single participant here is (a) experienced and (b) well meaning and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Surely that means we can reach a peaceful resolution? Swarm's proposal is excellent (I wrote a long statement, then realized I was writing almost exactly what they wrote, just not as well), but even if it's not accepted, can we please stop before this reaches WP:RFAR? --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the thing. Fram is not hearing what the majority of admins and experienced editors are saying here. He says he wants a review, but he doesn't accept the results of that review. The way to avoid an RFAR is to take in what is being said here, and to not repeat the unilateral decision-making, edit-warring, and block (judge, jury, and executioner). The pattern has come up repeatedly in the past couple of years, and this is possibly the most extreme example (since the matter was disputed, and the block was of a respected long-term administrator and recent arbitrator). Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• This. This right here is why I have absolutely no aspirations to be an admin. If becoming an admin would help me tamp down the drama so people could get on with editing, I'd be all for it. But this sort of thing just goes to show that becoming an admin just requires me to deal with drama not just over editing, but over using the damn tools. It shows me that my peers would not be the most dedicated Wikipedians, but just more Wikipedians who are just as prone to fighting as everyone else.

For what it's worth, according to WP:NPA, it's not a personal attack if evidence is offered. Per common fucking sense, if that evidence is reasonable, it counts. The link GW made in the posting sure as hell looked like some misogyny to me. But I don't know for sure that it was, so I'm not about to overlook the fact that there seemed to be absolutely no point to GW posting it where she did.

The rest of you went to the tools and posted your thoughts here like you were the final word on the matter, almost without exception. Yet you all damn well knew that you weren't.

You want to know what you should do? Everybody should fucking drop it, and Kudpung and GW should avoid each other and stay busy working. That way, the next time they run in to each other, it's at least possible that they'll be in agreement, which can make patching up hurt feelings a lot easier. In other words, stop feeding the fucking fires. Everybody gets so caught up in seeing the ensuing drama from this stuff as a symptom of a problem that needs solving, that nobody stops to think that it's the drama itself that is the problem. GW's and Kudpung's hurt feelings don't matter one little bit to WP. And neither do Fram's, or Calton's or Swarm's or FnK's, or mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If your point was to avoid drama, your post certainly did not achieve that. This isn't about drama; it's a simple matter of WP:INVOLVED. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having read this this morning I have to agree with everyone above that this was a bad block, GW took an offense to the article and wrote her opinion and so it should've been left at that, As a few editors disagreed with it being a personal attack Fram should've stepped away or atleast let the discussion continue instead of wading in with their size 12s, Unblock GW & end this silliness. –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just for the record, GW has already been unblocked. And while we're talking about ungraceful segues, I endorse what Swarm has stated above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah thank you User:78.26. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Swarm and Ivanvector. However, I have a pretty high bar for what constitutes a personal attack, so I probably would have read right over it and not given it a second thought. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• None of this had to happen. Even if an admin isn't involved, it hardly vindicates a bad block. GAB^gab 14:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• The original comment, the block, the unblock, the comments on usertalk pages, the comments in this thread... there are additional communicative steps and measures of caution that shoulda coulda woulda been taken all around. Let's call it a day. The only thing that should really happen at this point is for GW and Kudpung to hash things out a bit more, without a crowd doing the work of making it a spectacle. (Though I appreciate that Kudpung has good reasons for not being able to engage in the immediate future). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've been mulling what to say all day, but I think Swarm and Mr Pants have pretty much said it already. So I'll give you the short version: the major players in this dispute should apologise to each other if they can (I realise you can't force an apology but if you can offer one off your own back, that's great) and then go about their business in separate corners of the encyclopedia. That's pretty much it. I've got common ground with Kudpung in music, and common ground with GorillaWarfare in cats, so if I can be a sounding board for the pair of you to resolve your differences, I'll offer that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the evidence, I'd say one would have to reach pretty far to claim that GW's comment was nothing more than a personal attack. I don't feel she owes anyone an apology. Kudpung and Fram, however... Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ay caramba.

  It is indeed a misogynistic canard that women lack executive ability and even aptitude, and the criticism in the Signpost piece overlays almost perfectly with that canard.

  Kudpung's initial and secondary reactions to GorillaWarfare's requests about how to refer to her, were inappropriate. Especially the secondary ones about withdrawing from WiR, which were very bad judgement.

  The WMF does have issues of organizational competence. Those criticisms are rightly aimed at the top. (I wish the post had also discussed the board and also discussed the culture and structure of the WMF (the macro structure as well as job descriptions), but criticism of the ED is appropriate). Yes, the current ED is a woman. But if I read the Signpost piece and swap genders, it seems to me to be as valid.

  I understand GorillaWarfare's post at the Signpost, but it was in my view poor judgement. I have seen organizations tear themselves apart with uncarefully handled discussions about internal systemic bias or bias of specific people. That post is very much less than careful.

  I understand Fram's block, but it was also unwise. The unblock was good.

  I urge GorillaWarfare to reconsider her post at the Signpost. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to take this opportunity to serve mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, since I have a bit of a stake in this (or steak, with the mustard!). I was at the dentist this morning so I missed the party.

  I do NOT see how Fram was INVOLVED making this block. An admin removes something, an admin warns, an admin blocks: that is standard operating procedure. To my knowledge Fram was no party in the original discussion(s); thus, they were perfectly in their right to make the block--in principle.

  It was, of course, a terrible block, for a few reasons--diplomatically, since nothing good could come from it, and policy-wise, since it was quite obvious that there was no agreement among admins (certainly not Fram and me, never mind GW, who is also a longtime, experienced admin, someone who has seen so much shit, and has had so much shit thrown at her, that she is perfectly capable of judging whether something is a PA or not) that there was a personal attack. Fram, who I respect greatly, can tell me I'm wrong about that a thousand times but that doesn't change the fact that therefore it was simply an unwise block. I note that the discussion here indicates I was not crazy to say it wasn't a personal attack. And I also note that Fuzheado wasn't raked over the coals, which I think is a good thing: Fuzheado, if I make an unwise block, don't wait for me to respond--do the right thing and unblock. Finally, one can argue that GorillaWarfare was unwise in reinstating what an(other) admin thought was a personal attack. I won't, and I appreciate her persistence. Finally, thank you to Cullen328 and others who have spoken calming words. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Eyes needed on articles about alcohol consumption

Could someone please look over the edits of Sbelknap (talk · contribs); he's got a particular personal vendetta against alcohol consumption and has been removing any statement from articles about alcohol and alcoholic beverages that do not conform to his beliefs; he shows no regard for WP:MEDRS, and is cherrypicking sources based only on those sources that reflect his personal beliefs, and removing those that do not. He calls material "deprecated" without providing any rationale why, and then just removes it. He calls sources like JAMA and the American Heart Association "low quality sources". See here where he removes a JAMA reference, and here where he dumps a bunch of sources that he doesn't think are "recent" enough merely because they contradict his narrative. Can someone else please review his editing and take corrective measures as needed; I want to avoid an edit war here. The user has been topic-banned previously from other medical topics for similar editing (see his talk page for notices of that topic ban); and I'm not wondering if he's now transferring the same behavior to other medical fields. Perhaps an expansion of his topic ban to cover all medical-related topics is in order. User has been notified. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking the topic ban discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for a topic ban? Only one answer... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the topic of alcohol consumption was not covered by the details of his prior topic ban; but what is evident is that he's engaging in similar behaviors (using the cherrypicking of sources to enforce a particular viewpoint) in a new area. --Jayron32 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, apologies, I misread the TB as saying "health" (in general) rather than specifically, "sexual health". Although, of course, there's always the "broadly construed" appendage; and as far as appendages go, alcohol consumption has been known to affect sexual "health"  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a violation of their existing topic ban, but it is pretty much the exact behaviour that got them topic banned applied to an adjacent (but not overlapping) topic. I see basically three options here:

1. extending the topic ban to all medical content.
2. a sanction targetted at enforcing proper use of sources and proper talk page behaviour, regardless of the topic area (I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't recall the details).
3. both of the above.

I'm leaning towards options 2 or 3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't know how much weight my input has, but I'm also inclined to agree with a sanction and topic ban. The editor has already shown that they won't learn from his previous topic ban on other similar topics with his belligerent editing. Sbelknap clearly really cares, but the lack of ability to rein things in and have productive discussions about their changes is really concerning for me. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An escalation of the behaviour they were topic banned for into areas not covered by the topic ban calls for blocking, in my opinion. But I endorse option 1 at minimum. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

cymru.lass - Your input in a discussion has the same exact weight and significance as everyone else. Administrators do not have any additional "status", "authority", or "rank" than non-admins. The only thing that's different between us is that I have a few extra buttons - that's it. We're trusted to perform actions that aren't given out to everyone and nothing else is different outside of that. I'm no more important of a user than you are (if anything, I'm less important than you, as my job is to help and serve you) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• We tried to tailor the TBAN narrowly to give this person, who is an expert in the real world and wants to contribute to WP, the opportunity to learn with the hope that they could become better oriented to the mission and the P&G through which we realize it. The behavior described here is a huge bummer; this person could have been so, so helpful to us. He has now demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to set aside his convictions as an expert as well as his real world advocacy when he works here, and that makes him a bad fit here. I support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") Damn. I've posted a notice of this discussion at WT:MED to get others' input from there. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)(sorry I want to think about this more Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
  • concur w/ Jytdog, (support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") )based on rationale above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my motivation suggesting option 2 - making it clear that it is the behaviour not the topic that is the problematic thing. Option three is the same but a time-out from medical topics while they are learning and anticipate that the topic ban would be relaxed first. It would require someone far better at wordsmithing than me to craft though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I hear that. However I believe that the finasteride thing (the subject of his initial ban) is important to him in the RW. If losing his ability to edit that topic was not a sufficient wake up call, I have no basis for hoping that anything else will be. Hence my recommendation. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
• Support extension of TBAN to all biomedical topics. Reviewing the recent edits, such as at Cider there was clearly an attempt to crowbar undue content in about the effects of alcohol. What is worse, this is done using the recent Lancet metastudy in the same kind of vague and scary way that has been done lazily in the media, by saying just that alcohol consumption "increases the risk of all-cause mortality" (see [51]). Wikipedia should be so much better than this, and we expect much higher standards from medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a look at (only) his edit to Cider, and what I saw didn't line up with the description at the top of this section. It's probably undue – I'd probably have written two sentences that did little more than Wikipedia:Build the web to the relevant pages on the Health effects of alcohol – but he accurately presented both the current mainstream POV that zero alcoholic drinks per life is best for longevity overall, and explicitly presented the previous mainstream POV by saying that some prior studies found that one drink per day was better than a current consumption of zero per day in certain categories. Where we could do better in presenting this research would be to add that the difference between "zero per life" and "one drink, but not every day" seems to be pretty minimal.
    For those who don't follow this kind of stuff, while the Lancet article has made a big splash in the media recently, the idea that alcohol is a net negative is not really a new idea. This change in the medical establishment's POV has been visible on the horizon for a number of years now. I have no doubt that it's annoying to the industry (I happen to know a small cider maker) and feels personally threatening to some drinkers, but this barely counts as "news" if you've been following the literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• See also here. Alcohol is rapidly becoming the new tobacco. The attitude toward alcohol is, despite the latest Lancet article, still quite similar to that of tobacco in the 19th century. As pointed out here: "In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day." It's then no surprise that the disparity between where the evidence is leading to and the general attitude (that to some degree will end up in Wikipedia, as there is more to alcohol than the health aspects of it and Wikipedia must cover the entire topic) will attract activists who feel strongly about the health aspects. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure and there's no doubt alcohol, especially in quantity, isn't good for you. The problem is the "activist" angle. There's no doubt driving a car risks a crash which can kill/maim you. We don't put that information in every article about every brand of car. Adding a socking great section to Cider and Whisky and so on is the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing the addition of relevant information from the Lancet article to proper context within the proper Wikipedia article. What is the behavioral issue here is the existence of that one article to justify sanitizing all other valid WP:MEDRS sources from every article if the results of those studies contradict the Lancet report. --Jayron32 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but what strikes me about this complaint is that I don't see any attempt at either Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol consumption or User talk:Sbelknap to discuss this with Sbelknap. In fact, I see the opposite; Sbelknap opened a discussion at the article talk page explaining why he made those edits, and no one objected or suggested he was doing the wrong thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Will give this a little more time, but I'm seeing a clear consensus to extend the TBAN to cover all health and medical topics, as well as for an editing restriction requiring proper sourcing and proper talk page conduct. Swarm ♠ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox cross and User:W

User:W persistently pushes his opinion about the article name diff_1, diff_2, diff_3 against last community decision of move request (diff) and against the majority of provided reliable sources. Moreover User:W started a new move request without new sources or arguments and now doesn't participate in discussion. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as edit warring goes, that's pretty slow moving, but it is still disruptive. I have left a warning about edit warring on his user talk page, as it does not seem anyone has done so yet. --Jayron32 15:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please indef Ilwd

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

---

users

• Ilwd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sozerburk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

pages

• Rueben Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• J Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Spaced Out Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:QT Jazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Prior discussion with this person is here. To save you clicking:

• The account name was formerly Sommedia and was changed to "Ilwd" after I gave them the corpname notice.

• Every edit they have made has been related to SOM Media.

• They have very obviously evaded scrutiny at AfC. Only admins will be able to see this in the history of the deleted pages but an obvious SPA/sock Sozerburk, moved the Rueben Wood page to mainspace from AfC, and FoCuSandLeArN moved the J Metro page to mainspace. We banned FoCuSandLeArN here at ANI for UPE here, back in January 2017. I don't know if all three accounts are one person or if there is 1 or 2 paid editors + a company representative, or some variation thereof, but this stinks.

• Ilwd has denied paid editing as well as any connection with the company four times (diff, diff, diff, diff)

• This edit makes it appear that the person using this account is more experienced than the contributions of this account would lead one to think.

• This person's responses completely lack credibility. This person is here solely to promote SOM Media (including refspam that remain and everyone can still see, like this) and is obviously evading disclosure and review of their edits. Please indef. The Sozerburk account is stale or I would have taken that to SPI. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per OP, clearly NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 15:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I blocked indef per NOTTHERE. If there is consensus it was a bad block, any admin can lift it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

User Jytdog Should Be INDEFINITELY Blocked

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

---

• User Jytdog has deleted an article on bases of no proper reasonings

• Interaction with this user has been very hostile and has abused his abilities

• Repeatedly harrassment to a user to prove something they have no ties to

• Also making accusations of having multiple accounts that also do not have any relation

Ilwd (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive RM proposal that opposes what it is proposing

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

---

Crouch, Swale has started what I think is a disruptive and pointless RM proposal at Talk:Bend#Requested_move_31_August_2018 that is improperly formed (proposes moving dab page to ... (disambiguation) but moving nothing to the base name), presents no argument in favor, and they explicitly oppose. I've asked them to close it but they say they can't. User_talk:Crouch,_Swale#Why_are_you_making_a_proposal_you_don't_support?. I'm requesting an immediate admin's WP:SNOW close and for an admin to advise the user that making proposals they do not support is a disruptive waste of editors' time. Someone who favors the move may make a formal proposal in the future that is properly formed and presents a supporting argument, but this one is just ridiculous. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I started the RM because В²C was proposing to redirect "Bend" to Bend, Oregon and I opposed to it and this comment was later posted, that the discussion was taking place without a template. I thought I was doing the right thing and I'm pretty sure that such a move would be controversial enough for RM anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I proposed nothing. I started a discussion that was intentionally informal just to see if there were sufficient interest to warrant making a formal proposal by someone who favored the proposal. --В²C ☎ 17:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(Re-opening this - sorry, Jayron32) Born2cycle, you shouldn't be doing anything remotely controversial regarding page titling or moving, nor making repeated comments at move discussions. Your indefinite block in March short-circuited a WP:AE proposal [52] that you be topic-banned from all page naming topics for doing exactly this - if you continue to do this, it will only take a simple filing at AE for this to be - inevitably - be the outcome. Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation) and Talk:Freston, Suffolk amongst others do not give me confidence that this is going to be the case. Please consider limiting your comments at move and rename discussions to one comment for or against. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My original closing comment was as follows: " I'm closing this down because this is a non-issue, and there's no need for this. My advice to both users is to drop it. Let the discussion play out, and there isn't any need for either person to comment further. Their opinions are well known now, and it does not benefit reaching consensus to continue to snipe at each other. Just let it go. No one is going to get blocked right now, and I'd like to keep it that way." Otherwise, if you want to take responsibility for this drama, Black Kite. Be my guest, it's all yours. Vaya con dios, my friend. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, if you still want to make the city primary, please comment there, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm very surprised В²C filed this and we have had a few disagreements I don't want to see В²C blocked/banned, hopefully В²C (and I) can work things out. FWIF I was also banned from geographical NC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

2600:1702:3310:6C30::/64

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

---

Private Kendall reporting for duty at ANI

• Special:Contributions/2600:1702:3310:6C30:0:0:0:0/64

Admins on ANI --DBigXrayᗙ

Lots of vandalism from this range, adding random CD track lists to random articles. I don't see any good edits in there, so maybe a candidate for a range block. More info and some other IPv4 addresses here: User talk:Binksternet#IP-hopping vandal.

I have not notified the editor, as I don't know how to do that for a range. Please don't shoot me! Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Why would we shoot you? Blocked for a month for obvious disruption. The IP range, that is. Binksternet, you must have quite the archive on those kinds of users. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like ANI is a cross between a big hammer and a minefield. So far I have always escaped uninjured. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked one month for disparaging ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

DRV Review

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

---

Per this discussion please can an independent admin review the close of the DRV for Kane Tanaka. The closing admin Fish and karate has ignored blatant canvassing. Thanks. What a shit final edit to have to make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I had a look. In my view, the DRV should be closed as "endorse". Your close of the AfD was within policy (I personally would probably have closed it as "No consensus - go and play elsewhere" but that's me) and an acceptable compromise and reasonable admin action in my view. The DRV should not be "AfD round 2" so all of the "overturn it meets GNG" comments are a bit wide of the mark and should have been geared more towards policy and procedure. A comment like "overturn to NC, the AfD was full of conflicting views between keep / delete / redirect and the arguments got ridiculous" would have been fine, but nobody really said that. Is that enough or do you want me to fill out paperwork elsewhere? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when Spartaz disregarded numerous keep !votes while closing the AfD in question, did any of those keep !voters throw a tantrum and quit because their contributions are clearly neither valued nor respected? [53] Lepricavark (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I simply looked at the AfD and DRV and gave my opinion, nothing more or less. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have made that a directly reply to you as it wasn't really relevant to what you said. Lepricavark (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The irony that these comments are from one of the canvassed voters is too startling not to be highlighted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ritchie, the fact that you would have closed the original move a different way shows unequivocally that the result of the DRV was correct. There was sufficient doubt in the matter that a no consensus is the correct outcome. That's not to say the Spartaz's close was in itself wrong, admins have the prerogative to assess the debate as they see it, but the whole point of the review process is for those who feel it could have been closed differently to air their views. In this case, there was a consensus at DRV that there was doubt about the close, and Fish+K was correct to call it that way and restore the article. This is not in anyway a reflection on Spartaz or their competence, it is simply due process. I have been on the wrong end of these myself on occasion and it can seem. Annoying, but in the end the community's consensus come first.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I get annoyed with comments like "clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT supervote, by someone with a bias against longevity articles no less" - why can't people accept the other side of the debate might have a point as well? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite phlegmatic about being overruled but closing that I supervoted is to me a massive accusation of bad faith against my judgement and my integrity. That F&k doesn't know how to close a DRV properly, thinks no one who was canvassed should have their votes discarded and accused me of assuming bad faith when I asked them about their close simply reinforces that this DRV should be reclosed by someone else. That needs a consensus at ANI - which is what I'm asking for. The outcome I don't care about. Just do it properly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

As one of the editors who was of the view that the closure should be endorsed at DRV, I believe, like Ritchie333 above, that Fish and karate acted in error when they closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 14 as "overturn". That said, Spartaz, resigning in protest at this kind of minor and routine disagreement isn't really a sensible action to take. Sandstein 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but I only used the bit for closing AFDs. Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby and help me relax. I'm not going to close AFDs anymore because I don't find getting angry about stupid shit the slightest bit relaxing. Ergo, I don't need to remain an admin. This isn't the project I joined in 2006 anymore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at this DRV and most "overturn" arguments in the DRV were "if you count heads you have a consensus for keeping" which is squarely at odds with the deletion policy and the wiki-policy definition of consensus none of which allows mere headcounts as a standard for consensus. A bunch of commenters want to overturn because "people were arguing that GNG is met" and that carries more weight but against the counterargument "no, all coverage was routine and that was pointed out in the AFD" that probably does not justify an "overturn to keep" close. If I were to close the DRV I'd probably close it as "no consensus to overturn" or "overturn to no consensus" (depending on how one wants to weigh the canvassing concerns or the debate on GNG suitability of some sources, such as the ones mentioned by Insertcleverphrasehere) and certainly without the accusation of supervoting (not only there is no evidence, a number of !keep arguments aren't addressing the notability concerns so the AFD closer might be justified in ignoring a number of their arguments). In general, both the DRV and AFD suffer from "the other side is biased/keepist/deletionist" personally directed comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the article should be kept, but that's beside the point. Regarding the DRV itself, it should have been closed as "no consensus to overturn". At least in my opinion. To a certain extent !supervoting is inevitable when closing a contentious AfD, because as individuals certain arguments hold more weight to our particular pattern of logical thinking. As a general rule we usually close things as our counterparts would because of policy, and where that fails, precedent. Yet there remain tough cases where personal judgement comes into play by necessity. I can see why F&K might close as "overturn to keep", even if I think it's incorrect, but I would gently ask him to remove the statement of !supervoting. I assume that it wasn't intended to be accusatory, but it comes across that way. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. I would probably have closed the original AfD as No Consensus but the original close wasn't a supervote because a lot of those "Keeps" are "she's the oldest person so she's notable".

In fact, if you've got time; (1) "This is a useful article" (2) "Being the oldest living person is worth including the article" (3) ""Age in and of itself is not a reason for notability." Counterpoint: Yes, it is." (4) "Common sense dictates the subject is an encyclopaedic entry by just the length of her biological existence" (5) "She is a notable person for being the oldest verified living person in the world" (6) "being the oldest known living person in the world is indeed a claim of significance and notability" (7) "I believe she's notable for being a longevity record holder" (8) "notable as the world's oldest living person."

That's 8 of the first 9 "Keeps" that are effectively worthless. This isn't a supervote. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator, and supported the “Keep” and “Overturn” positions. That said, I salute Fish and karate for making a very difficult and courageous call to overturn what I agree to be a flawed AfD closure. As a point of procedure, discussion at the AfD was not over, and trending very strongly towards “Keep” when the “delete” decision abruptly came down. If that isn’t a Supervote, what would you call it? In any case, An/I is not the place for this discussion, and relitigating the entire matter again. I strongly urge this thread be closed, and all parties walk away. It’s time to move on. Jusdafax (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your assessment of the original close - it was made in good faith, and the charge of "supervote" is not merited. I do agree with your last point though. This is not DRVRV, I don't see any serious wrongdoing or need for further admin intervention; as far as I'm concerned everyone's honour is intact, and we should move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: FWIW if you undo another admin's action like this, you should stick around to defend/debate it. You should not undo it, and then run off for a long weekend. That reflects poorly on Fish. --Tarage (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Tarage. This is not a paid job and we really don't need to stick around to defend an action over the weekend when F&K has already given his view consistently and in a sane manner to Spartaz. Lourdes 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As the creator of the deletion review it is not surprising that I think Fish's close was correct. Spartaz clearly went against the consensus in the original AfD, instead preferring his side. As I mentioned in the original, charges that the subject did not meet GNG were emphatically not refuted. Just because some people were canvassed does not remove from the fact that the majority of editors thought the close was incorrect. Clearly this was a case of inclusionism and deletionism on Wikipedia, with each side having some good points and worthless votes. There is nothing more to do here, F and k was in the right. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• No consensus here and Close this discussion please. It's quite clear that this discussion is only going to add to the miles of elongated text chaperoning ANI. I, like many other editors, have my own opinions on both Spartaz' close and F&K's decision and F&K's signature too (which yours truly, if I recall right, was the one to correct); but that should not be a reason for this ANI discussion to now decide on how to overturn F&K's close or how to criticize/commend Spartaz' initial close. Such stuff happens; I'm pulled up for the many AfDs I close and I don't even have the bit! I hope Spartaz just re-takes his bit and gets back to what they do best. We've had enough of good admins fighting with each other and the rest of the world for this week. Lourdes 01:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• It should be clear what my view on the discussion is, but I'm not so concerned about the individual admin who likely isn't (and has no obvious reason to be) aware of the problem in this topic area. The broader point is this; worrying about how this one discussion went is missing the forest for the trees. Deletion discussions (and associated DRVs as applicable) of longevity articles are so thoroughly poisoned with SPAs and stream of consciousness jeremiads about... something... that they need someone monitoring them throughout. Neither the original AfD nor the DRV should have ever gotten to the points at which they did, and some outside monitoring (I'd volunteer, but I've been dealing with the fanboys far too long to either be or be considered neutral) would make these discussions much clearer and less painful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree completely. This AfD/DRV and the previous one are among the most disagreeable discussions that I've paticipated in since a long time. Anybody who dares questioning a longevity article immediately is being accused of being "biased" and admonished to first go after articles about the tallest/fattest/shortest person. Those discussions are poissoned by off-site (and in the case of the present DRV blatant on-site) canvassing by what Blade aptly calls the "fan boys". --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Time should pass This is quite an unorthodox discussion as I have attended deletion discussions for over 10 years and don't recall a WP:DRV ever being challenged in this way before. The relevant policy page indicates that, if a DRV is not accepted then the next step would be another DRV, but that this should not be done immediately:

  Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly.

To act otherwise would be a wheel war because we have already had one admin formally revert the decision of another. For admins to continue to revert each others' decisions would be a breakdown in the process. Escalation to arbcom would then be appropriate to break the cycle and consider the fitness of the admins. In this case, Spartaz is not looking good because they have also quit. Spartaz has done this before, retiring in anger after a dispute at AE where their comments were hatted. In that case, their retirement only lasted a few weeks, so I suppose they will cool off again this time. The question to consider is whether their giving up the admin bit is "under a cloud" so that they have to go through RfA again. Their original RfA was in 2007, over 10 years ago, when the process was much easier and my view is that a rerun would be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nonsense, in no way did Spartaz leave under a cloud. Your comment is an apt demonstration of the poisoned atmosphere surrounding longevity-related articles. --Randykitty (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to edit this archived discussion, but if the serious concerns voiced here do not merit further discussion, then I think it is better that I stop wasting my time with this "eating eel is encyclopedic" nonsense. I'm joining [[u|Spartaz}}. Happy editing. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm going to be a bit bold here and reverse the close. This incident has caused Wikipedia to lose TWO admins. Surly that is worth talking about, if not here, then somewhere else. And that somewhere else should be started BEFORE this is closed. --Tarage (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you want to discuss. AfD/DRV can be just a huge reservoir of shit. I stopped closing AfD several years ago after a similar episode (I closed a highly partisan discussion, was taken to DRV and was overturned with comments of the type "I am surprised that this guy who can not even read became an admin"). I do not see how an ANI topic can change that.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This should be passed on to Arbcom to deal with, as this discussion has shown that the community is unable to deal with them. The problem appears to be directly linked to admin actions - closing DRVs, hatting discussions, which appears to have driven away two admins.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly going nowhere, as I said to Randykitty on my talk page, and it should be hatted so people can calm down and take a step back. The specific point of discussion here was F+K's close, and I don't see any prospect of any action on that, other than continued mudslinging. If there are specific complaints to be made about sock farms or canvassed editors, or any of that other stuff, then make them in a separate thread. Similarly, if you want to open an Arbcom case, you know where those guys live. Continuing the discussion here is pointless, and the fact that two admins have resigned, although very regrettable, and I hope they change their minds, does not change that fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Sullivan9211 and college football national championships

Sullivan9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long-standing and ongoing issues around college football national championship content, including WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:DE, and WP:SOCK.

See College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS as a topic primer as helpful

• There are numerous "selectors" who independently select college football champion(s) each year
• Multiple champions from multiple selectors is a common occurrence in any given year
• Associated Press (1936–present) and Coaches Poll (1950–present) are the de facto selectors in public perception
• There can ambiguity about whether a national championship is claimed or unclaimed by the school, often tied to the reputation of the selector; The CFB project use "claimed" and "unclaimed" accordingly, but an unclaimed championships is equally recognized as having been awarded in our articles
• The NCAA has designated ~20 "major selectors" and reports their national champion selections in its annual yearbook, pg 108-117
• It is very easy to confirm selections and source citation of "major selectors" with a google search for almost any era

January 2018 SOCK investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sullivan9211/Archive

• SOCK investigation from January 2018 - re Washington Huskies football
• Diffs for DE and V re removal of cited content [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]
• SOCK covers use of 2nd account and at least one IP
• Admin states, "This is patently transparent. What do you have to say?" [62]
• Editor did not directly respond to question from admin. Only response was "I admit that I didn't handle this well. When I edited anything related to the Washington Huskies football pages I backed it up with sources from the University of Washington website. But then my edits were changed almost right after. I then read the guidelines on editing and posting sources. I posted the source and an email I received from the Athletic Department of the University of Washington. How much more do I have to go?"[63] Emphasis is mine re NOR and understandings sourcing, after being an active editor since 2006.[64]

Army Black Knights football

• 7 November 2009 - Removes 1946 national championship[65]
• 1 February 2010‎ - Removes 1914 and readds 1946 without a new citation[66]
• 24 August 2010 - Removes 1914 and 1916[67]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 72-73 states 1914, 1916, and 1946 national championships (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Auburn Tigers football

• 11 January 2011 - Removes Billingsley, Poling, and Williamson among others as selections from 1957[68]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 74 states 1957 - "Billingsley, Poling, and Williamson"

Talk 2017 UCF Knights football team

• 10 January 2018 - Posts re a content dispute, "The Colley Matrix is NOT a major selector by the NCAA according to their record books for the 2016 season."[69]
• Another editor's reply "The Colley Matrix is indeed a major selector. It's listed as "Wes Colley" (the creator of the matrix) in the NCAA record book."[70]
• Replies "I stand corrected. I looked over it and confirmed it. Thank you."[71]

Knute Rockne

• 26 February 2018 - Removed national champions text by changing "The [[1919 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team|1919 team]] had Rockne handle the line and [[Gus Dorais]] handle the backfield. The team went undefeated <u>and was a national champion.</u>" to "...The team finished the season undefeated."[72]
  • Note, February 2018 version of 1919 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team states national champions in lede paired with citation and within infobox.
  • Is reverted with "Consensus NC from NCAA"[73]
• 2 April 2018 - Again removes the "...and was a national champion" text.[74]
• 11 April 2018 - Is reverted again "revert again, per NCAA cite in article"[75]
  • Readds with a pageless citation - "...was a national champion but Notre Dame doesn't recognize it as such.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nd/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/16-media-guide.pdf|title=2016 Media Guide Notre Dame Football|publisher=University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish Media|accessdate=April 11, 2018}}</ref>"[76]
  • Cite and copy were cleaned[77]

The 2018 NCAA Yearbook per pg 111 states Notre Dame's 1919 national championship.

Maryland Terrapins football

• 12 December 2009 - Reduces Maryland's national championship count from 2 to 1[78] while leaving both 1951 and 1953 intact elsewhere in the article.
• 6 November 2011 - Same, removes from some but not all locations[79]
  • Removes 1951 from relevant template[80]
• 10 December 2013 - Again removes 1951 from infobox (but not relevant template) [81]
• 12 August 2018 - Moves 1951 into a new/atypical "Unclaimed National championship" section[82]
  • Removes 1951 from relevant template [83]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 73-74 states 1951 and 1953 championships (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Missouri Tigers football

• 18 August 2018 - Changed header to "Unclaimed National championship"[84] which is non-standard within Wikipedia:WikiProject College football treatment, does not introduce a supporting citation, or resolve the article/infobox discrepancy of 2 vs 3.

Ohio State Buckeyes football

• 5 August 2008 - Re 1970, removes NFF and keeps FWAA[85]

The 2011 NCAA Yearbook per pg 74 states NFF is valid and FWAA is invalid (as does the current 2018 yearbook).

Purdue Boilermakers football

• 31 August 2018 - Removes 1931 national championship[86]
  • Note, the 1931 Purdue Boilermakers football team article states "Parke Davis" national championship

The 2018 NCAA Yearbook per pg 112 states 1931 Parke Davis championship

Texas A&M Aggies football

• 27 August 2012 - Sequential edits change TAMU's claimed national championship count from 1/2 to 3 with new cite ("Texas A&M football claims one national title" to "Texas A&M football claims three national title"[SIC]) [87]
  • Note, the new citation contains no pg paramter, however that document states on pg 150 "National Championship Teams.......1 ..............1939".

27 August 2012 - Editors use multiple reverts with edit summaries:

• "Please read the 2012 Texas A&M media guide that you cited: Texas A&M claims precisely ONE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Please see page 152." [88]
• "Again, Texas A&M claims exactly ONE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP per the 2012 media guide that was previously used to source 3 claimed NCs. Please quit inserting misleading information without valid sources per WP:V and WP:RS."[89]
• "Please see page 152 of the 2012 Texas A&M football media guide footnoted in the national championship section. A&M does not claim the 1917, 1919 or 1927 seasons as NCs. Thanks."[90]
• "edit section header to acknowledge that Texas A&M does not claim national championships for 1917, 1919 and 1927."[91]

Washington Huskies football

Per SOCK section at top and those DE/V/NOR diffs

Talk DE/NOR/TBAN warnings

• 24 December 2017 - Vandalism warning [92]
  • Replies with OR justification[93]
  • Same [94]
  • Same [95]

• 9 January 2018 - DE warning[96]
  • Replies with OR justification[97]
  • Requested to read DE, NOR, and review College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS[98]

• 13 January 2018 - Editor engages in OR[99]
  • Same[100]
    • Reply asking to review both NOR and the prior 9 January 2018 NOR callout made on their Talk[101]
  • Same[102]

• 12 April 2018 - DE3 warning, "You may wish to read WP:TBAN as relates to your ongoing inability to accurately edit CFB national championship content."[103]
  • Editor's reply "So I guess when I source my material from the University of Notre Dame's own website, it is wrong. Only YOU can decide if the material is accurate."[104];
  • My reply "There was no sourcing offered in either[105] [106] of your WP:DE edits."[107]

The long-standing pattern in the topic area includes DE of reaching a conclusion and repeatedly inserting that content after being reverted, incorrect content removal while ignoring existing citations, misreading citations, adding content without new citations, not using pg parameters within new citations, infrequent use of article or user Talk to resolve[108], lack of collaborative edit summaries when changing this content, and no clear improvement in skills over time. At this point, the editor is demonstrably creating much more cleanup work within this narrow topic than they are contributing to the topic within our articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a LOT of text. Can you sum things up a bit better? --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are going to have to tell us what you want (I don't know what you're asking for), you need to do it economically, and you need to do with recent evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So when I cite the actual Media Guides for the universities in question with page numbers, I guess that is not enough. The original research IS the media guides that are on the universities' websites. I'm following the guidelines for cites that on wikipedia's pages. Is there anything else I can do. In regards to the national championships for universities, on the recognized championships, I only put those that the university itself recognizes. The unclaimed championships are pretty much left alone by me. I hope this helps. Sullivan9211 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2018 (CST)

• Comment Some of this is ancient history. Are we talking about a multi-year pattern of disruptive editing that warrants a CBan or indefinite block? If not, I tend to consider behavior that is more than two years old and not naked vandalism as water under the bridge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinion column as a Ref for Bio related to a suicide ?

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

---

Recently, a New Zealand journalist Greg Boyed died. If you had any experience with NZ media, it was clear he took his own life, but as is is also the norm, none of the sources directly said that instead saying stuff like he died unexpectedly and was suffering from depression and with ample links to helplines. Recently I noticed as the main story on nzherald.co.nz (one of the major news websites in NZ) the top story was this [109] which is an opinion column on the Bay of Plenty Times (owned by the same company) which directly mentions that he died by suicide. Since I expect someone is going to want change our article (there have been attempts in the past but without sources), any opinion on whether this is sufficient sourcing for a WP:BDP case? In many ways the claim is not particularly contentious, as I said anyone with experience with NZ media has know it since the day is death was first reported. But opinion columns tend to be iffy for BLP statements of fact. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any rush to report it? Can't we wait till we have a coroner's report? --Tarage (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? You should be doing this on the article talk page. If you don't need someone blocked or banned or a page protected or something like that, this is not the venue. Please take this discussion to the correct place.--Jayron32 23:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just to reinforce Jayron32's post: remember, ANI is where we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 03:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

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

---

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

This editor continues to directly edit this article despite a COI and multiple warnings on his talk page. I still think we can get this editor engaged in a productive way, but it's probably time for a brief block, he takes it upon himself to edit pages without doing research and will revert edits if it does not appeal to him, If you look at his past history edits he will revert multiple users edits if they are not up to "his" standards, something needs to be done about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:4480:ca0:59ca:f634:742e:31d1 (talk)

You are in a content dispute. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The anon is talking about a content dispute on the California Clásico article where I have been removing an opinion that this "rivalry could become the most important rivalry in MLS". But it’s been six years and it hasn’t become the most important. In fact, none are most important. This is the same editing pattern by RealEarthquake (talk · contribs), but since the IPV6 address changes frequently, it’s hard to nail down. the clue that I have is that Earthquakes925 knows that I am a fan of another team, but a new editor or anon would not know.

No clue what conflict of interest I have, but perhaps the anon could elaborate, but if this is a sock, this would explain the issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and no need to notify me. I've seen the report now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Any article containing the sentence "Unified as one single state, Northern California and Southern California share a notorious rivalry" has serious problems, but blatantly poor content is nothing worthy of discussion at this noticeboard, since there is no need for use of administrator's tools. Just fix the darned article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Saladin1987

Saladin1987 has been entirely disruptive. Talk page is full of warnings with one IP noting last year that "Are we going to actually do something about it or just continue warning this user indefinitely?"[110]

Saladin1987 continues to add content not supported by source. He has been warned often, and even had the "last warning" that "next time you change sourced content to something the source clearly does not support .... I will block you from editing. In view of your history, it will be a long block."[111] but this pattern continues.

Yesterday he misrepresented a source on Chanakya for a name,[112] claiming that the person was born in " Takshashila(Present-day Taxila, Pakistan)", however the source states "a village in the Golla district".[113]

You have personal grudges with me as i never did edit war. As you reverted it, i know your group of wikipedians is very powerfull and you manouver the agenda according to your own biases. Indo Pakistan war 1965 was discussed by Indian users on talk page and finally Indian victory was introduced by Indian census. I doubt there was any other wikipedian involved. Also Chanakya has two legends, everywhere even in brittanica and major sources mention Taxila as his place of birth and origin. Now i added that and i introduced source with it as well but somebody reverted it and finally it was reverted back to include both the legends which is neutral and i agree to that. Please try and be neutral in your census. Saladin1987 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

After his edits were reverted on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,[114] he started to engage in blatant canvassing with his IP,[115] the message reads "issue on page are indian nationalists... people could not be misled by indian propaganda".[116] He got a reply,[117] to which he responded with his account as "but indian wikipedians can collectively propogate their agenda".[118]

I mentioned on the talk page of a senior Pakistan Wikipedian to take notice of that. Well can you not look at the talk page for Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and cant you see all users were Indian wikipedians who were discussing the Indian Victory and finally after several years of having the result inconclusive, it was changed to indian victory. Even India does not celebrate 1965 war as that was inconclusive and india went for Ceasefire. Now how can that be a victory. There are many neutral source that claim indian and Pakistani victory. I am sure Admin can look at my edits and the talk pages of the concerned pages and will decide for himself, who is right and who is wrong. Saladin1987 16:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

He relies on WP:OR. One example shows he edit warred, because he "have reservations as i personally know he is Rajput Punjabi."[119] Did i revert it back although i know this guy is Rajput as i have family relations. But thats ok i accepted it and moved onSaladin1987 16:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

He was also warned about copyright violation a few months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saladin1987&diff=827635271&oldid=823741033] but he is still violating them as recently as yesterday.[120] Lorstaking (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about this and i sincerely apologize for this copyright violation if i didSaladin1987 16:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the user is introducing deliberate factual errors in historical articles along with Copyvios, some of which I reverted. The talk page is filled with so many warnings but the user doesn't really seem to care much about what others have to say WP:IDHT. An Indef is expected. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Neverending BLP issues on Australian Liberal politicians

We have an ongoing problem with an IP making dreadful-quality contributions across various articles related to the Liberal Party of Australia. He has been repeatedly warned and previously blocked for 72 hours for adding incredibly defamatory material about a politician and hasn't learned a bit. This edit to an article about the party's state branch and this edit attempting to smear someone because she went to someone else's event from the last day or two are typical of his average edits: random negative trivia intended to impugn his factional rivals, often including very poorly sourced and potentially defamatory allegations (although he's stooped into very defamatory edits multiple times, I just can't be bothered digging through tons of diffs). This really needs a ban/long-term block - none of this IP's edits ever actually improve the project. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilidor

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

---

The page Narragansett people has been closed to editing following an edit war between myself and User:Dilidor, in which Dilidor broke the three revert rule. The state of the page at the time of the freeze was nonetheless that of Dilidor's illegal revert. I am requesting that the page be restored to the state of my last edit, and that Dilidor be sanctioned for uncivil behavior and for violating 3RR.

The edit war began when Dilidor reverted wholesale a series of edits made by me, with no explanation other than a claim in the edit summary box that my work was "original research". I reverted his revert, referring the matter to the article's Talk page, where I replied to Dilidor's allegation of original research by showing that Dilidor had misread my citation, mistaking a citation to a reliable historian for a citation to an original document. I also pointed out that the prior state of the article, whose last editor prior to me was Dilidor himself, was deficient, in that a historical claim was made without adequate reference and without even clearly explicitating its own argument. My added material was in large measure intended to remedy this deficiency.

I then made several new edits to address Dilidor's concern, making my reference to the accepted historian more obvious and moving a fair amount of material into footnotes so as to restore the concise flow of the article as it had stood prior to my edits.

Dilidor then reverted again, and left a note on the Talk page which was rude and did not acknowledge the substance of my defense of my edit. I reverted his revert a second time, leaving a more extensive justification of my position in the Talk page, in which I invited Dilidor to modify what he found objectionable in my edits, without resorting to another wholesale revert.

Dilidor nonetheless reverted wholesale a third time, breaking 3RR, and with no further explanation other than the "all-caps" statement in the edit summary: "THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH". This was both unreasonable and uncivil.

Minutes later an administrator blocked the page to new edits for a week.

I agree to the block, provided that the state of the page be returned to that of my last (legal) edit. I also request that Dilidor be sanctioned appropriately for uncivil behavior and violation of 3RR.

-Wwallacee (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Settle it on the article's talk page, WP:NORN, or WP:DRN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

request for administrator section

This edit is a personal attack not referring to any particular matter on the talk page where it sits. I avoid responding to personal attacks, but at last I seem to need to respond to this one. As I understand Wikipedia policy, personal attacks are deprecated. I think this edit should be deleted or archived or otherwise removed from the talk page where it sits. A week ago, on the talk page of the author of the attack, I requested that he remove his attack, but he seems to be currently inactive on Wikipedia. Perhaps a suitable administrator will kindly remove the attack.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's twelve months old. Get over it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have left a comment asking the user not to fan the flames by adding a response in that manner if their comment was made recently, but it was not and was made just shy of a year ago. I think the best thing for you to do is ignore it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Safwan Ahmedmia

Could an administrator please view the deleted history of this article? It was deleted via this discussion, but has since been recreated. If the deleted article and the current article are the same or similar, it will need to be G4d - otherwise, I would probably tag it with {{Unreliable sources}} (due to much of the content relying on Twitter and YouTube) and possibly {{notability}}.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)