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

Contaldo80

Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] [2] [3] [4]

Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[33] [34]

• From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."

Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

Diffs on: General incivility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[66]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Response:

Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([67]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
  Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
  How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [68] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual hat boxes

-EEng

That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that I didn't explain my reasons. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have to make an apology. And a complaint. You're right you didn't delete my contribution this article. You did, however, evidently follow my edits to that article page and argue for "keep" (presumably to counter my argument for delete). You then came onto this page to insinuate that I am hounding BrianCUA, when in fact you have arguably been hounding me. This is all becoming rather depressing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I eventually deleted my own contribution out of concerns that it could be seen as improper. The only questionable decision I made was to vote Keep, which I rectified. There is nothing left for you to complain about on that article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about my being thoughtful and even-handed. Much appreciated. I try and accept I don't get it right. I think what especially wounds me about the language above around "righting great wrongs" is my sensitivity to homophobia. It feels like making contributions that ensure even-handed representation of LGBT issues is challenging the "mainstream" and that it's me taking on the world. I'm probably wrong in feeling that way (and I'm sure that's not how it was intended) but that's how it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, without really weighing in on the dispute here, I'm going to comment on your approach. To say that you sometimes feel like it's me taking on the world is a nice piece of succinct introspection. If you recognize that you feel that way, I also think maybe that means you need to give yourself a bit of a breather. Not quit, not "retire," but maybe take some time off, even if only just from topics that are clearly so close to your heart. I work in a field where people are pretty passionate, and I sometimes have to remind my staff that they not only do themselves a disservice when they allow stress levels to max out, but they also do a disservice to their projects. The same may be true here. Again, that's not a comment on your contributions, but rather a friendly attempt to point out that if you are feeling the way you described, you need to give yourself some time and space to breathe until you feel centered again, but for your own mental health but also for the betterment of topics/issues that are of such great importance to you. The only other thing I'll say on this topic is that while most other editors might not have such strong personal feelings about this particular topic, I can absolutely guarantee that you are not alone in your desire to see even-handed representation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed a sanction against you. The various types of difs I provided are examples of WP:Tendentious editing. I didn't make up a category to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your complaint about me you have referred to me as someone "Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV". I do not see how that relate to any existing editorial guidance. I am being mocked for "righting great wrongs" e.g. adding LGBT related material to articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that you want to add LGBT material. That's all fine and good. It's that you give it undue importance. For example, take your insistence that a section heading include the phrase "gay" or "same sex" in the section on marriage. You argue that somehow readers will understand the word "marriage" to include "divorce, fatherhood and family," but they won't understand marriage to include gay marriage. Somehow, to say otherwise, is dishonest (a frequent charge of yours) and you accuse me of "trying to hide away?!" something when I point out that WP:MOS calls on section titles to be concise. This is what I mean when I say that your arguments often amount to I don't like it.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair assessment. Contaldo80, we aren't against you because you add information about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. The problems are aggressive reverting, talk page incivility, biased language on articles (in my opinion), and undue importance. You also don't get to delete sourced information simply because it isn't part of your pet topic. See here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of people who want to define "marriage" as "a man and a woman", I can certainly see where including gay marriage could be useful. Still, I think it would help if the user in question was a bit less fighty, and took the time to state their arguments in a calmer manner rather than lashing out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, TonyBallioni, Display name 99, EEng, Blackmane, Grandpallama, and Icarosaurvus: and others: This conversation seems to have petered out, but I would like to come to some kind of resolution. Several (Iban, Tban, warning, six month restriction, etc) have been suggested. Can we agree on one? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time as far as I'm aware that there has been a general complaint about this user at AN/I, and so I think we tend to give a little WP:Rope. There is a consensus amongst all those who've offered their opinions here that while Contaldo80 may have done some good things on Wikipedia, his editing style is clearly too aggressive and hostile. I don't think an IBAN is good because Contaldo80 edits the same types of articles as many of us, and this would prevent editing by one user or another from being challenged by the other side. That doesn't really work. I'd be fine with a general warning that further excessive reverting (even if not technically a violation of 3RR) will be considered disruptive editing and that this, along with talk page incivility, can or will result in sanctions. Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been somewhat on hiatus lately. I don't see that there is a need for sanctions at this point. The issues between the LGBT movement and the Catholic church are complex and not something that is within Wikipedia's remit to solve. More use of dispute resolution, less raised hackles and a warning to stop edit warring is the order of the day. Contaldo80 and Briancua are both long time editors and their contribution to the project is to be commended. However, I shouldn't be needing to point out to long term editors that they should know better than to be edit warring and bickering in this way. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are preventive and not punitive. (I am not sure I agree that is prudent, but it is the rule.) Therefore behavior that required a block that wasn't provided does not get a block after the fact. However, if a user has engaged in conduct that should have gotten a block, that should be taken into account when another violation is committed. I have not researched the long history in full, but I do see that Contaldo80 did taunt the filing party, and that should have resulted in a block. Therefore my recommendation is that they be warned that future contentious edits will result in an initial block of 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Warning that if a block is necessary, it will start at 5 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I like and agree with this approach, and with the reasoning you've offered. I agree with Icarosaurvus for the most part that there just needs to be less tension (and I hope that Contaldo80 will take to heart my pointing out that he has internalized his editing to a degree that is unhealthy), but I also was very bothered by the taunting, which I don't feel should be overlooked, and for which neither any justification nor any apology was offered. No block seems warranted at this time, but I do think a warning about behavior has been demonstrably earned. Grandpallama (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I approve of this as well. The 5-day block thing obviously can't go on forever, so we have to set a length of time for it. 6 months seems adequate. Display name 99 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how I forgot about this, but Contaldo was warned against edit warring just three weeks ago. A search of the archives shows that he has been warned and even blocked many times, including several this year. I'm not sure if or how that will affect people's judgement in this case. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I reported him once as well. He was warned here. If Contaldo80 ever does this again, whoever makes a report has to include these diffs. The next violation ought to result in a block. Display name 99 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a warning as hard as the one RC recommends is needed at this time; Ultimately, they do good work, and want to improve the encyclopedia, and they're far, far from the most vitriolic user I've seen. (Further down on this very board, there's a user calling a moderator ugly for some imagined bias.) I'd suggest a formal community request to "tone it down", and see if they consent to doing that voluntarily before seeking harsher sanction. Generally, I agree with Blackmane's assessment that the issues between the Catholic Church and LGBT people are complex and outside our ability to solve, and the issues here likely tie into that. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Have we come to an agreement here? It seems as if most people are in favor of a warning. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kalamarnica mass-adding undiscussed templates and unsourced info to articles

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

---

Kalamarnica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user mainly inserts the template "Historical affiliations" (styled as a quote box) to the articles. I recently got dozens of such edits on my watchlist such as this or this. Whereas I believe there are issues with the info the user adds in these templates (it is not sourced, usually not derived from the articles, and I see some errors and also some selectivity), these issues could have been discussed. The main problem is that they have never been discussed in the first place, and I have never seen any consensus that the templates should at all be added in the articles. I went to the talk page of the user and found my own message left three years ago which the user simply ignored [69]. I left another one [70] which the user ignored as well and continued adding the templates. Today I got this edit on my wacthlist which, among others, adds unsourced info to the article, and I am not sure this info is actually correct. The user produced dozens of such edits per day and apparently never edited their own talk page. I would think a mass revert would be in order, but I am obviously interested in opinions of other users how this problem can be solved. Thank you for the advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify that if there is no reaction here (which is fine AFAIC) and the thread gets archived I take it as no objection to reverting their contributions as unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You might want to re-word your thread title to standard English; right now it doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you meant "Has anybody had any experience with User:Kalamarnica?" But even that doesn't explain what the problem is. It's best to state the problem in the thread title so people know right away what to they are going to be opining on. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Softlavender:, I changed the thread title, I hope it is clear now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: I've blocked this user indefinitely as they've been given ample time to respond and it appears to be a textbook WP:RADAR situation. I've made it clear that they will be quickly unblocked if only they indicate that they've read and will follow WP:V and WP:COMMUNICATE. As for the edits themselves, I think these are clearly good faith attempts to improve the articles and in fact the history nerd in me loves the idea. But the issues you raise are certainly valid and I agree that a mass revert is the most appropriate course of action. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you, I also think they were making good-faith edits but failed to communicate properly. I hope they will respond somehow. I will still start reverting their edits at least in the articles I have consoderably contributed to.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE, trolling and uncivil behaviour by u:Chetsford

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

---

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

This user has been more than once ([71] [72] even [73]) asked me to take his conduct to ANI; after this extremely POINTY AfD nomination [74], I have finally decided to humour him. The nomination came immediately after I used the publication the article is about as an example (with Wikilink) [75] in another AfD discussion. At this point his behaviour in and initiating of RPG AfDs is actually damaging the project and sucking in the energy of other editors besides myself. Given the context that follows, there is no way for me to WP:AGF that the latest AfD was somehow a coincidence; rather it was clearly an attempt to provoke a reaction. Rather than doing what I have attempted before ([76] [77] [78]) and try to compromise or encourage more norm-governed AfD behaviour from Chetsford, I am finally taking this to the venue where it probably should have gone the moment I recognized the civil trolling that he was doing. If nothing else, this exchange ([79] [80]) should have told me that Denmark was rotting. Also note Chetsford's extremely unconstructive contribution here [81] which shows that his WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and stubborn and UNCIVIL perseverance even after the RSN told him that he was substantively wrong all along, are not limited to his dealings with me, though I haven't seen them appear outside of the RPG domain. So a topic ban for Chet from RPGs (or from AfDs, where he shows CIR issues with BEFORE in general) would be most likely to nip this problem more or less in the bud.

I understand BOOMERANG perfectly well, and fully accept that my interventions in these discussions were not always according to the best traditions of Wikipedia: as I admitted in one of these AfDs [82], I have a weakness for being trolled, and I allowed myself to react intemperately. I named the CIR issues too early [83] and possibly too broadly ([84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]) or too enthusiastically [90], though Chetsford refused to respond constructively to my efforts ([91] [92]) to de-escalate and remedy when I overstepped, preferring to NOTHEARTHAT and proffer only ANI as a solution. So here we are.

Nominations such as these [93], [94] (indicating WP:WIKISTALKING, since he had clearly found [95]), and previously Myth & Magic (role-playing game) appear from the present vantage point to have been simply highly effective efforts at GAMING and trolling. Note especially this gem [96] and this one [97] - whereas later he averred [98] a familiarity with hobby games - indicating that his previous characterization of RPGs as "puzzle games" [99], "tightly paraphrased puzzle books" [100] and "games exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [101] must have been deliberate provocation. This is extremely UNCIVIL behaviour, and he continues to throw about inaccurate allegations of FANZINES, FANCRUFT and WALLEDGARDENS even after he has been given better information - perhaps the trolliest of the nominations, [102], which he closed perhaps after realizing he had gone to far for the moment, was characterized by his continuing labelling of independent, professionally-staffed magazines as "fanzines" even after he had repeatedly been told better. He has consistently mocked sources [103] [104] and belittled awards [105] [106] [107] even when he clearly knows better than to make those misleading or false statements just to irritate people who actually give two shots about the subject area he is, for his own amusement, sending to AfD. He pretends to believe that RPG publications are not actually books or works of creative art but rather "commercial products ... equivalent to ... concrete" [108] - while it is perfectly acceptable for him to believe this FRINGE position in his heart, and even to express it at AfD, it is entirely UNCIVIL for him to create an AfD just to take a swipe at an editor he is disagree with, and particularly to express his opinion in extravagant language designed only to tick off the editors who customarily participate in RPG AfDs and who are knowledgeable about, and care about, the subject matter. Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion: the intent is clearly not to encourage civil discussion of the issues.

There is nothing wrong with putting an article to AfD, even a sourced article like Hillfolk. There is something wrong with doing so immediately after, and because, another editor uses it as a source when explaining a concept in another AfD - Chetsford was simply being POINTY - in the context of 15 other gaming AfDs he launched over a couple of days, including AfDs of sourced articles about award-winning games, game designers and game publishers, in which the nominations themselves were full of trolling [109] and the nominator's arguments about sources [110] were deliberately inflammatory and knowingly misleading or inaccurate.

Tyw7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hobit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HighKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BOZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Webwarlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pavlor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Please try to use 50 words or less to summarize: Why does this belong at ANI? What is the issue? What outcome are you seeking? I seriously doubt anyone is going to pick through all of the above to figure out the essentials. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 23:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford is making inappropriate nominations and UNCIVIL arguments at ANI (mostly about Tabletop role-playing games) as part of a WP:GAME/ trolling project and wasting editors' time and energy; he should be topic-banned from either Games and game publishing or from AfDs, to stop the chaos that ensues. Illustrated by diffs, above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To the specific accusations:

1. Wikistalking: I reject the charge of Wikistalking by reference to the editor interaction analyzer: [111]. As can be seen, Newimpartial and I have co-edited 23 AfDs and mainspace articles. In 22 of those overlaps Newimpartial arrived at the article/AfD only after I did, and usually within minutes. The one point of interaction in which I was the second editor had an initial edit gap of seven months.
2. Civil: I reject by assertion that comparing the game "Cthulu Britannica" to the game "Stratego" is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
3. Trolling I reject by assertion Newimpartial's definition of what constitutes trolling. For example, here he/she informed me it was his/her obligation to "ridicule people" [112]. When I responded by saying "I respectfully disagree. Thanks." he/she seemed to interpret my response as an attempt to troll him/her [113].

The origin of this complaint is twofold:

• Newimpartial believes I am a "clueless editor" vis a vis the AfD process. As proof of this I would cite the fact that he/she pasted the bold phrase "Improper Nomination by Clueless Editor" to the top of six separate AfDs I'd opened [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], prompting three uninvolved editors to warn him/her about personal attacks. I reject the implication that I am clueless/incompetent vis a vis the AfD process by noting I have a 94% [120] match rate at AfD while Newimpartial has a 66% match rate [121].
• Newimpartial seems to have an opinion that no one should participate in AfDs regarding role-play game articles who do not play role-play games and that, in some cases, the rules of fantasy role-play games themselves should guide AFD discussions. Here [122] Newimpartial accused FourViolas of "spreading disinformation", told her she needed to examine the last 10 years of RPG history before voting on AfDS and then declared "you might as well stop contributing now". Here [123] Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

In regard to the proposal that I be topic banned from AfD:

I would note that another editor was recently topic banned from AfD for having a match rate roughly equivalent to the match rate Newimpartial has at AfD (see: [124]). I would also remind, as per above, I have a 94% match rate at AfD. Ergo, while there is precedent for a topic ban due to a chronically high AfD mismatch rate, the proposal in its current form will need a minor tweak.

While I believe a close examination of all the diffs Newimpartial provided, as well as the project page for each diff, will reveal that I have maintained a perfectly calm and polite demeanor in the face of increasingly relentelss declarations of my incompetence, and so forth, I am open to the community's input and will immediately rectify any transgressions I have failed to self-identify and issue apologies where needed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Before the boomerang hits, I wanted to reply succinctly to each of the above refutations:

1. My evidence for wikistalking is the Monica Valemtinelli second AfD. If this did not arise from stalking, how did you happen to chose that article to nominate?

2. On civility, I presented about a dozen examples of your choices to denigrate the sources or the topics of the articles you presented at AfD. You responded to one, with a good assertion. Can you maintain in good conscience that all of those mischaracterizations and insulting constructions were CIVIL?

3. When I give many examples of you deliberately posting provocative statements in order to provoke a reaction (trolling) you reply by providing an example where you made a typical SEALION "civil" response. How does that respond to my initial claim, besides "I know you are, but what am I?"

In response to my underlying assertion, that you have not conducted an adequate BEFORE in any of your RPG AfDs, and that you constantly - from ignorance or intentionally - make non-policy-compliant argument arguments about sources in that domain, you reply that you have a good match rate at AfD and mind is bad. Mine is bad, because I used to defend marginal cases from deletion in principle. But how is this germane to the competence of your BEFORE work for nominations? Isn't this just another WP:SEALION move of the goal posts? Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh example, Chetsford. Let's talk about this one:

Newimpartial began citing rules from a fantasy game he/she apparently plays seemingly (unless I misunderstand) to justify his/her !vote rationale.

This "(unless I misunderstand)" is priceless, and is the key to the whole utterance, since it gives you an out. My previous statements on the subject were that "the relevance of the petitioner/grantor dynamic extends beyond the game in question" and that "In this dynamic, a petitioner approaches a potential grantor with a request, and the grantor decides whether or not to grant the request. At AfD, whenever the nom has applied inappropriate criteria or done a poor BEFORE, their typical move is to insist that those with a better grasp of the sources not only describe what is there (which is required by policy) but then to show links, which the grantor will either recognize as reliable sources or move the goalposts again."

Whatever the validity or not of my comparison, it is very c!early not "citing rules from a fantasy game...to justify my !vote rationale", which is clearly an attempt to insinuate that I can't distinguish between fantasy games and reality while giving himself an out "unless I misunderstand".

This is exactly the kind of civil POV trolling that Chetsford has been engaged in through his recent AfD interventions, and the time of his response here - everything if days and everything it leaves out - encapsulates perfectly. I also can't imagine a scenario in which an appropriate or CIVIL response to the comparison I made would be to nominate the article for the game concerned for deletion, which was, of course, his response. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

People use AfDs to discuss the rationale by which an article should be deleted, ergo, I reasonably assume that arguments advanced there are to that end. If you were just describing the rules and game-play of "Hillfolk game" for general community interest, then I regret I misunderstood your intent. However, I'd also suggest you might move general interest gaming discussions to a different forum than AfD to avoid misunderstandings as to their purpose in the future. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As is clear even from the excerpt I just quoted, I was explaining a dynamic of AfD discussions to illustrate why I prefer to identify sources by name without giving links whenever asked, as you well know from the original exchange. But the significant fact is still that your response to that exchange was to send the article about the award-winning game mentioned to AfD (while mocking the award), and later to mischaracterize my post as citing game rules as an AfD argument "unless I misunderstand". Very sly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The repeated pasting of the 'clueless editor' comment in AfDs is inclining me towards believing that the civility issue may be Newimpartial's. I was concerned when I read "Comparing Hillfolk to concrete in an AfD discussion is pretty much akin to comparing abortion to the holocaust in a feminism discussion:" which indicated to me a total loss of proportionality. I would like to see if Newimpartial restates their complaint in more concise terms but from the diffs of theirs I have looked at I am inclined to consider proposing a topic ban on games of some type – maybe game AfDs? – since they seem unable to maintain perspective and participate in a collegial and civil manner. Jbh ^Talk 00:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note my relatively succinct summary in bold above. I do recognize that the "clueless editor" posting was overdone, and offered to strike it through (diff provided above), but Chetsford did not take me up on the offer; I also attempted to remove the whole initial pisode of bickering with Chetsford from AfD on the basis of NORFORUM, but he declined (diff also provided above). If you look at all my previous AfD contributions you will find some rough edges and stubbornness (especially from my early days defending drafts, a bad habit I abandoned long ago). What you won't find is me posting tit-for-tat AfD nominations, lying or trolling about the nature of sources, moving goalposts and using the whole apparatus of civil trolling as part of a game. I hope you can see that.

I have also found sources and policy arguments that have influenced a large number of RPG AfDs; how would my removal from this area benefit the project, I wonder? By contrast, can see a clear advantage in Chetsford's removal... Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, just to be clear, do you really think it is CIVIL to send an article to AfD because another editor references it in another AfD to explain a concept? This perplexes me. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think the problem here is with Chetsford. I think that Newimpartial is deserving of a swift, sure boomerang, in the form of a topic ban to all AFD topics and a warning about civility.--Jorm (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the diffs, and my exchange with Chetsford here, in making that determination? Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I had a peek at some of the AfDs that are at the core of this heated conflict and I will note that Chetsford does seem to have adopted a rather scatter-shot approach to their deletion propositions. While some minor RPGs from France in the '80s may not meet general notability criteria, Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house at the moment, and several other games related pages hit in this blitz are also significant. I'd suggest that Chetsford might benefit from taking on mentorship from somebody with a bit of knowledge of the landscape of the industry before going on to mass-nominate more tabletop gaming related pages. I am honestly assuming good faith - although my own incusionist sympathies are pretty evident, I certainly can see the deletionist point of view sometimes. I think in this instance though, Chetsford lacks the industry knowledge to successfully differentiate between non-notable, marginally notable and hugely-significant-within-the-industry articles. All this is notwithstanding the interaction between the two editors of course. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-admin response You say that Cubicle 7 is a very significant publishing house but that's exactly the issue being discussed at its AfD. I originally !voted Delete and only recently changed to Keep, but that was after a couple of hours of research and even then, there is only one clear reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination. I would say that it is still a No Consensus close verging towards Keep - certainly not an obvious Keep. And please, throwing tags like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" around just destroys any cooperative editting environment and creates an "Us and Them" approach. Finally, you shouldn't need "industry knowledge" to find two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, which is the minimum required. Yet, at that AfD and despite the participation of editors with so-called "industry expertise", it has been a struggle. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just on the substantive question here: I don't have an opinion on the appropriateness of Chetsford's Cubicle 7 nominations (except that he doesn't know what a WALLEDGARDEN is, and he cited it as grounds for deletion in each case).

What I am saying is that his Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk nominations were personally motivated and inappropriate, and that the former must have taken him considerable research to find. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

First: Please property indent your posts! There should be a one ':' equivalent visual indentation for your responses. Failing to properly indent makes following the thread extremely difficult and nearly impossible for people using screen readers.

Second: A common characteristic of your complaints here is that you seem to be taking normal interactions as personal affronts. For instance, just above, you make an accusation of WP:WIKISTALKING yet it is common practice to check another editor's edits if one notices something possibly problematic or even just from curiosity. Beyond that, by making unsupported claims of "being personally motivated", WIKISTALKING etc you are making personal attacks. This is behavior which will likely get you blocked if you do not stop. If I were you I would consider this a warning not to continue to make such attacks. I can not block you but TonyBallioni has also said "The personal attacks on other editors need to stop." and he can.

We have a policy of assuming good faith because we are all assumed to be here to build an encyclopedia and every action taken by any editor should be assumes to be made with the intention of furthering that goal. Repeated accusations to the contrary without solid evidence to back them up (and bare accusations are not evidence) are corrosive to the editing environment. I strongly suggest that you consider that what you are calling civil trolling is more a failure of AGF. For instance consider that comparing the size of a concrete convention and a gaming convention is nothing more nor less than an analogy. Maybe you don't like the analogy but it is not a troll, not by reasonable reading and certainly not with assumption of good faith. Such failures of AGF are why I think you need a break from the contentious environment of AfD. The personal attacks that follow from your failure to AGF though are much worse and must be reined in everywhere else we will end up back here in short order discussing a block rather than a ban. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban Newimpartial

I propose a six month topic ban on deletion discussion relating to games/gaming broadly construed in the hope that editing in areas where they are less emotionally involved will lend some much needed perspective.What I am seeing illustrated here is a complete inability to maintain perspective re AfD's of games. The repeated postings accusing calling another editor a "clueless editor"; the comparison of a comment on a game to the holocaust; the accusation of trolling just above (looked to me like they were using game dynamics to support their position too); and what appears to me to be negative behavior resulting from, as they say themseves, " meet[ing] all diagnostic criteria for being easily trolled"[125]. They are also correct in that "the ADA doesn't recognize those as grounds for accommodation"[126] and neither does Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support all AfD per above Neutral per [127]. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: per TonyBallioni and my comment below his !vote. 01:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain as an involved party. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Jbhuntley, I will certainly respect the topic ban if that is the close, but I absoutely did not "compare a game to the holocaust", I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison, as forms of trolling...

If I am topic~banned, though, it will just be another example where those being trolled are punished while the trolls are free to troll on, which seems to be a pattern at WP as long as the troll appears "civil". Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply per this. You are begging the question. First one must accept that what you say is trolling is in fact trolling. From what I have seen it is not. I have seen you accuse editors who disagree with you of trolling. I have seen you attack other editors who disagree with you. Also, "I compared the the game:cement comparison to an abortion:holocaust comparison" is so inappropriate and over the top yet you defend it. That shows me you have a serious perspective issue.

I strongly urge you to reconsider how you interact and edit here – the message you should be getting is that your is by far the greater issue and you need to learn to separate trolling etc from disagreement. Jbh ^Talk 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 03:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever I am or am not doing, I am not begging the question. I believe that any unbiased person, who reviews the diffs I presented in their appropriate context, will see the pattern of civil trolling by Chetsford that culminated in Hillfolk AfD, about which I have said nothing unCIVIL outside this forum (or, I hope, in it).

And I admit that I may be wrong in that judgement, but I went to some effort to actually explain my reasoning above, and I do not assume that anyone who disagrees is trolling, or any other unflattering characterization. I just don't agree. I have observed ANI enough to know that it usually punishes the person who "snaps" and rewards the person who needles the other person until they snap, but evidently not enough to lose my blind optimism that ANI can be swayed by a well-reasoned argument in which the presenter is open about the flaws in their own behaviour and position while presenting evidence of their claims. Oh, well.

If you look at my interactions with editors on and off AfD you will not find me experiencing "Trolling" except from Chetsford, at least not for years. I am fully able to disagree with people on the basis of good faith, and have done so over and over again, including on difficult issues that matter a great deal more than games.

I recognize in retrospect that the game:concrete to abortion:holocaust analogy was inappropriate, but more because it is less acceptable to care about creative works than abortion than anything else. I was trying to come up with an example of deliberate button-pushing that everyone here would understand, because that exemplifies what Chetsford has been doing this week and what, really, I think is one of the key challenges right now in WP discourse - not about games, but about deliberate button-pushing while remaining civil in order to GAME the system and produce drama, in some combination. So yeah, I came up with a distracting and ineffective example. And you don't have to believe me about that either, and I won't me upset if you don't, but that's what I've seen over the last year, coming to ANI and elsewhere on WP, and it saddens me.

I'm not trying to "defend myself" from charges of incivility. I know that I crossed the line, and so also know that my efforts to fix it didn't work. But it will be sad for me if the issue WP choses to address is my using the word "incompetent" where I shouldn't, and not the behavioural issues I have documented above. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per proposer.--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from all AfDs per Newimpartials statement above, which I take to mean he's likely to repeat the issues in other AfDs. The personal attacks on other editors need to stop. Pinging @Jorm and Jbhunley:. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  See, I was thinking about suggesting all AFDs as well, and thought maybe I was being too aggressive. So I support this as well.--Jorm (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would support all AfD on the principal that the problems illustrated are likely to be both wider and deeper but the evidence shown is limited in scope to game/gaming AfDs so I limited my proposal to that. Also, if there is any indication that the problems extend beyond AfD I would support broadening the ban to those areas as well. Jbh ^Talk 01:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Since this has been raised at my talk, I'll expand my reasoning further: AfD is a high stress area. Viewing someone who you happen to be in disagreement with as a troll and yourself as being trolled because of actions at AfD isn't really compatible to being able to work in the area well. This suggests to me that the issues with the gaming AfDs would expand beyond it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  There's also a lot of calling other people "sealions" when they are the ones doing the sealioning (c.f., my talk).--Jorm (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a sealion on your Talk, nor have I demanded additional evidence, misrepresented policy or sources, moved goal posts, or cherry picked examples. I'm not clear what part of sealioning I might have done, then. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On another note, the vandalism of this section is certainly not something I would ever do. I hope somebody will look into it. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As you will see if you look, my mainspace edits for the last year or more have been largely confined to anti-edit warring and anti-vandalism. You can find my other recent non-AfD contributions at the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Woman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans_man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Benjamin

Searching my userid at most of these locations should turn up almost all of my recent non-AfD comments, since I don't think many have been archived. I don't think you will find anything UNCIVIL, although there was an exhausting conversation at the recent Trans woman RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from AfD, and encourage the editor to contribute to Wikia or game fansites instead. Their determined attacks on an editor trying to clean up gamer fan content are not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Trying to clean up gamer fan content" is not an accurate assessment of Chetsford's AdDs. He has mocked sources that have been repeatedly upheld at RSN, cast aspersions on awards that are at the summit of their creative field and have been invoked routinely at AfD for over a decade, and made the "unique" argument that books aw no longer subject to NBOOK when they are also game products.

On the other hand, when actual non-notable or unsourced game material comes to AfD, I vote to !merge or !draftify, and actual FANCRUFT receives no sympathy (or !votes) from me at all. I am not part of the "problem" and Chetsford is certainly not the solution. Newimpartial (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I disagree completely. You have shown a lot of bad faith toward Chetsford in this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you would value a current, real time comparative sense of my civility and good faith at AfD in contrast to Chetsford, please look at the Hillfolk AfD [128].

Or the AfD of Monica Valentinelli [129]. Either or both might be enlightening about both myself and Chetsford. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They do illustrate your lack of good faith and tendency for namecalling, so thank you for giving us such clear examples. MPJ-DK 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting perception, but I've just reviewed them again and don't see any namecalling, any lapses in AGF or even any snark on my part. Hmmmmm. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I will just pull two quick quotes - clueless editor and I will also AGF and assume some kind of intellectual dyslexia - making derogatory comments about someone's intelligence is hardly "good faith" despite you saying that it is. Just because you say it's not namecalling doesn't mean that it's not. MPJ-DK 21:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, again, but so did not use the phrase "clueless editor" or any equivalent in either of those recent AfDs. The phrase "intellectual dyslexia" was my attempt to give a name to the kind of "brain fart" that would be the AGF explanation for Chetsford mis-stating "industry insider at Gencon" (the major convention) and "Guest of honor at Ropecon" [130] with "Industry insider at Ropecon", period.[131] Do you have an alternative explanation in mind? Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So at this point I suspect you are trolling me, just because you did a strike through of that comment in the first of those AFDs doesn't mean that you didn't use it - denial is really ridiculous considering it's right there on the page. MPJ-DK 00:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you also were not warned about that comment either??  MPJ-DK  00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I really don't know what you are talking about, User:MPJ-DK. I *did* make the "clueless editor" comment in several of the *earlier* AfDs, was called on it, apologized, and subsequently struck those through, all prior to this ANI filing. In my initial ANI filing above I acknowledged those "clueless editor" edits specifically - with diffs - as inappropriate, intemperate, and grounds for a possible BOOMERANG [132]. I am certainly not denying them.

But I did not make any such comments on the Monica Valentinelli or Hillfolk AfDs, the two most recent, which is what I clearly stated here [133] and here [134] . Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from games-related XfDs. I think Newimpartial's compulsion to be as unfair and condescending as possible towards Chetsford has gotten very disruptive. Most of what Newimpartial is saying about Chetsford is misrepresentations and nonsense, and nobody should be subjected to it just for cleaning up crufty and unsourced back areas of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How is such mockery as labelling established reliable sources "Fanzines" and references to publishers as "Novelty T-shirt companies" and RPGs as "puzzle games" requisite to "clean up crufty areas"? I have provided many more RS in those discussions than Chetsford seems able to find, and when no sources are to be found I vote merge. I'm not arguing against a ban for myself, but anyone actually reading Chetsford's diffs, and especially the Hillfolk nom, has to see the POINT and the GAME. Editors seen inclined to rush to defend the AfD nom in this case rather than looking at the actual work. Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Tarage (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment there may be some backstory beyond the discussion in AFD discussions in the past week that I'm not aware of. Overall, there's clearly an issue here; the overall discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust (roleplaying game) is problematic, and comments like [135] are not at all necessary. That said, this seems a standard inclusionist-deletionist argument and I'm hesitant to impose indefinite bans at AFD based on a short-term issue; I'd rather limit Newimpartial to a single comment on AfDs than ban him from that area entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree I disagree with a topic ban as I think that is the wrong approach here. Newimpartial is trying to improve an area of the Wiki from what they perceive as people who do not know the area they're proposing AfD's in (and describing RPGs as "puzzle books" does certainly seem to indicate they may have a bit of a point there.) However just because someone doesn't know an area doesn't mean they can't edit/maintain/propose for AfD. I see that there may be a bit of a civility issue here and potential personal attacks here, but I believe a topic ban is the wrong approach. If we wish to admonish Newimpartial for their behaviour then fair enough, but a topic ban from this area would suggest they're disrupting the area which I'm not seeing. This is a civility/PA issue, not an area disruption issue. I just think that this is the wrong way of dealing with this. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree For largely the same reasons as the comment immediately above, as the AfD has proceeded, Newimpartial has been rushing around finding reliable sources to support notability for a lot of these articles. And Chetsford doesn't seem to have a strong grasp on the topic, the players or the sources that are reliable within the community; what I see here is a breakdown in civility and assumption of good faith. I don't think Chetsford was trolling. Nor do I think Newimpartial's comportment on the AfDs WRT Chetsford was appropriate. However I also do think Newimpartial's participation in the AfDs was, notwithstanding the incivility, constructive for the goals of the encyclopedia. If this were a physical room I'd sit them down together and tell them to both hash out their differences like grownups. As this is instead an online noticeboard, I'd suggest giving them both a warning and perhaps giving Chetsford a short-term tban on RPGs and Newimpartial an equivalent length iban from interacting with Chetsford. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Newimpartial can continue to provide sources and attempt to beef up articles brought to AFD without participating in AFD. There's nothing about a topic ban that prevents that. Additionally, keeping toxic people in situations "because they do good work" is a terrible idea, and one that ultimately harms the encyclopedia, so I don't think that argument holds water.--Jorm (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I mean I understand where you're coming from but I think this is to a certain extent a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books", has said that RPG developers can't be considered creative professionals and argued that a major RPG event construed no more notability than a convention for concrete manufacturers. As somebody peripherally connected to the community (I'm a fantasy author and know a lot of game designers via our shared links) I can easily imagine a lot of people taking very specific offense to such insensitive and misguided statements. But they read more civilly than Newimpartial's angry and personal responses. Which is why I think the best course of action is to separate them. Let Newimpartial continue contributing to RPG stuff and keep them away from Chetsford. Let Chetsford continue doing what they want on Wikipedia but keep them away from an area where their personal biases are preventing them from contributing constructively. Basically I think it takes two to tango and I think both of the parties to this dispute need to have a good long think about their behaviour here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  a very specific personal dispute since Chetsford has characterized RPG books as "instruction books" As stated above, I respectfully reject by assertion that my describing a manual of instructions on how to play a game as an "instruction book" constitutes a personal attack on another editor. First, there is nothing inherently offensive about being an instruction book. Secondly, instruction books are inanimate objects and cannot - by definition - be subject to a personal attack. Chetsford (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  By definition I'm INVOLVED, but I'll point out anyway that there is more to WP:CIVIL than just WP:NPA. Newimpartial (talk)

  Also, User:Jorm, if you look at the ongoing Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs - or the *vast* majority of my WP contributions, you won't find anything toxic. This is not the only time I have been triggered, but it is a fairly rare occurrence. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  The fact that you believe RPG books to merely be “instructions for playing a game” and nothing else is why I question whether you should be involved in AfDs related to RPGs. And you are mischaracterizing who you assertions would offend. OTOH, the game designers who you said don’t constitute creative professionals would likely take offence at your comments.Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I've been playing RPGs weekly or more often since the year 1980 (38 years) and have written several. And the rulebooks are, literally, "instructions for playing a game." So I'm confused as to why you are saying they aren't, or why you think that's important? Or maybe I don't know what they are? I must be another clueless editor.--Jorm (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  They also contain art, narrative, setting design, sometimes even discussion of performance theory. And Chetsford's reductive argument is to effectively preclude any RPG from notability. Simonm223 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, some RPG books are purely instruction manuals, but to be honest they're in the minority. Most contain setting information, narrative fiction, art, cartography and many other things well beyond what a game instruction manual would have. In fact many RPG books don't contain a single instruction, simply being the fictional equivalent of a guidebook or history text. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Okay. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am literally staring at my collection of RPG books - roughly five hundred volumes, maybe more - and I'm having difficulty finding one that consists only of narrative fiction, art, cartography, etc. and not rules or instructions in some way. In fact, I think the only thing I have that approaches this is Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Krynn. So this argument, too, does not hold water, and continuing to push it insults peoples' intelligence. Either way, this argument sounds like a content dispute, and certainly not worthy of the invective about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think we just slightly misunderstood each other. I said that ones that are purely instruction manuals are in the minority. Excluding D&D (where a huge percentage of everything written can be regarded as rules and stats etc) for most RPGs the majority of what is written and contained in books is not rules or instruction based but just generally informational and setting material. I'm not saying the majority of books have no rules/instructions, but the majority of RPG books are not purely rules/instructions. See the massive number of adventure books, campaigns, setting guides, city books, faction overviews, background tomes etc. Yes most of them contain some aspect of stats (not necessarily rules) but those are minimal in such works. See most supplements for Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings etc. Some books specifically contain no rules, stats or instructions such as the Freeport series, countless supplements for Harn, City of Clocks, multiple third party world books for Traveller, Elminster's Forgotten Realms (to use a rare D&D example), Fly Buffalo's City series among others just going through the books I have to hand.

  Anyway we're really straying, this topic isn't actually about RPG notability but about editor behaviour. I believe there is a civility/PA issue with NewImpartial and believe a topic ban isn't the correct way to address it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• The matter of consequence, User:Jorm, is that Chetsford translates his belief that role-playing books are like instruction manuals and that games themselves are non-artistic commodities, like bulk cement, into the assertion that WP:NBOOK does not apply to RPG books and WP:CREATIVE does not apply to game designers. Therefore this perspective, rather than being harmlessly eccentric, has serious implications at AfD, and he doubled down on it in an interesting way just a few minutes ago.[136]Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Jorm, I won't speak for anyone else, but the example of an instruction-less game book that comes to mind for me would be last year's two-volume Guide to Glorantha. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would certainly argue that NBOOK does not apply to rule books and yes I am familiar with the topic. RPG's etc are generally products which rate an article if and only if they independently pass GNG and have so much coverage that they can not be addressed in the publisher's article. So I see nothing unreasonable in another editor taking that position and do see an editor who describes such a position as 'mocking', 'belittling' or 'trolling' as being unable to participate in the collaborative/adversarial environment which characterizes AfD. Mind, that is not the only reason.

Who is correct with respect to NBOOK is out of scope here and best addressed at AfD. It is your apparent inability to see such a position as legitimate and choose to see it as 'civil trolling', or whatever, it the point at issue here. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jbh, I'm afraid you have misunderstood my position. I do not regard the discussion of whether NBOOK applies to game books, or whether CREATIVE applies to game designers, to be beyond civil discourse. In fact I welcome and have called for [137] such a civil discussion. What I regard as civil trolling is deliberately and repeatedly mis-stating RPGs as "puzzle games" or "board games", and repeatedly comparing RPGs to such non-artistic commodities as concrete as if their non-artistic status were self-evident and beyond discussion. This is not the position you, Jbh, have outlined, but it is a position Chetsford established in his AfDs prior to my participation and on which he has doubled down, e.g., by ignoring or mocking information he has been given about sources and the topics of the articles under discussion. It is that approach that I am terming "belittling" and "trolling", not Chetsford's substantive position. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In future denunciations of me, could I kindly request you provide diffs appended to each specific accusation (e.g. "mocking information", etc.) and use exact quotes instead of paraphrasing? I think that can sometimes be helpful. Vis a vis your concern regarding comparisons I've made between role-play games and other commercial products; to recap, you had ordered another editor (FourViolas) to "stop contributing now" [138] to any RPG AFD because she didn't know about the "Keep" criteria in the "RPG domain" of WP to which I replied "There is no "RPG domain". WP standards are WP standards. There are no special criteria for games; they have to meet the same evidentiary requirements as any commercial product - a car, a refrigerator brand, breakfast cereal, anything.. [139] I apologize if you found that personally offensive, it was not my intent; however, I do stand by my statement as that is my reading of our policies. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I provided a rather full set of diffs relating to specific aspects of your behaviour in my initial filing [140]. However, if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige.

Perhaps we could start out discussion with the treatment of this diff you just posted [} [141], in which you isolate the phrase "stop contributing now". Interestingly, what I actually said was, "Likewise, if you are going to argue that the Origins awards don't count for Notability in the RPG domain, you might as well stop contributing now and save all of is a lot of wasted energy" - that was undoubtedly intemperate and counterproductive on my part, and I regret the formulation, but it is also quite a different utterance from your selective quotation. I should probably have invited a rational argument why the Origins awards could possibly *not* contribute to the notability of games, but certainly no such argument has been made this year at AfD. I also regard your outsourced assertions that games are *not* cultural products to be uncivil when they involve hyperbole or mis-statements of fact, as here [142], here [143] and here [144].

I also observe that you have not responded to the clarification I made here [145], about the inconsistencies and limitations of your prior "defense" [146]. It might contribute forward momentum to this discussion were you to do so. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

if you or other editors and admins feel it would be helpful for me to organize the diffs more parsimoniously, or to provide exact quotations for each, I would be happy to oblige The way you did it above just now is perfect. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - behavior in this thread, denia of comments he clearly made, makes me question how construtive his contributions can be when someone disagrees with him. Ridicule and namecalling is not how we deal with editors that frustrate us.  MPJ-DK  00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could look at my reply above and consider striking through the "denial" comment, MPJ, since it appears to be based on a misunderstanding. I'd also point out that the two most recent AfDs, as well as the many Talk Page and RfC discussions I linked above, can be used to judge "how constructive my contributions can be when someone disagreed with me" - as can this ANI for that matter. It's not that evidence is lacking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose At this time. Having participated in a number of AfDs with Newimpartial recently and even having warned Newimpartial at one point that his behaviour was disruptive, it is clear to me that Newimpartial has a passion for this subject area and *merely* needs to learn to present their arguments in a factual manner with regards to policies and guidelines and to refrain from commenting on individuals no matter how witty it sounds in their own head. I believe Newimpartial realises now that they've screwed up and their behaviour was unacceptable, but a Topic Ban of AfDs??? That's a little over the top and a knee-jerk reaction. Topic Bans aren't intended as a punishment. If he doesn't learn from this and continues with disruptive behaviour, then sure, but lets see if he has learned anything first before taking a more drastic step. (I also hope Newimpartial takes some time to grasp indentation and formatting!) HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this proposal. If I could offer some analysis though; last night, after informing us in this ANI that he/she was aware he/she needed to take better care with his/her comportment, he/she did a drive-by on my Talk page to call me a troll [147]. I thought that was ill-advised to do in the middle of a TBAN discussion regarding the very issue of name-calling, however, in fairness Newimpartial has warned us that he/she can be "triggered" [148] by different words or phrases. Prior to a few days ago, I'd had no interaction with Newimpartial so am not clear what his/her trigger phrases are - perhaps it's just a matter of asking them to provide some kind-of notice so that other editors are aware to avoid things that might cause them to lose control? I haven't really thought through the logistics of that, and maybe it's not feasible, but just wanted to throw out a blue sky idea. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

<facepalm>.--Jorm (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, IMHO, the solution to incivility, in general, is a block and if that doesn't work, it is repeated for escalating periods of time for each incident. If the real problem here is incivility, a topic ban on AfDs won't fix that making a topic ban on AfDs entirely inappropriate for Newimpartial's behaviour. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree on all counts. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A basic premise of civil interaction is never give unintended offence. There is a corollary, oft ignored, never take unintended offence. If an individual is incapable of distinguishing between intended and unintended offence, and is persistent in attacking those they believe have 'wronged' them they they are not capable of participating in a collaborative environment without causing disruption. There is nothing objectively wrong to being sensitive to slights but it is the responsibility of the one with such sensitivity, not anyone else, to manage it ie WP:AGF. If they can not do so and rather continue to attack other editors then Wikipedia can manage without their services until such a time as they learn. Jbh ^Talk 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the offence given in Chetsford's case is entirely unintended. They have already explicitly stated that they don't believe RPG designers to be creative professionals - directing offense at literally a whole class of authors and they persist in insisting that their complete lack of knowledge of this creative industry shouldn't at all preclude them from mass-nominating award winning games, major publishing houses and some of the best-known authors within the genre. After having engaged with Chetsford on several AfDs there's a lot of WP:IDHT going on and, while I still think NewImpartial lost their cool and acted inappropriately with regard to WP:CIVIL the more I look into this the muddier it seems. What I see here is a history of a user who seems to have taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of RPG content for reasons that aren't entirely clear who has responded with condescension when confronted with the often arbitrary and inappropriate character of their AfD nominations; one whose tendentious conduct on the AfDs caused one user who is passionate about the topic, and deeply informed on it, to unfortunately lose their cool. But WP:CIR seems to apply here, and I'm doubtful that Chetsford was competent to assess the relative merit of RPG publishers based on their repeated expression of derision for the genre.Simonm223 (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

They have already explicitly stated that they don't believe RPG designers to be creative professionals - directing offense at literally a whole class of authors - I also do not believe Kip Thorne or Yoshinori Ohsumi are creative professionals. Stating as such is simply a vocational classification and is not intended as a denigration unless one chooses to consider it inherently "good" to be a "creative professional" and inherently "bad" not to be one. Drs Thorne and Ohsumi are both brilliant scientists; the fact they are not "creative professionals" is simply a question of vocational classification. I'm doubtful that Chetsford was competent to assess the relative merit of RPG publishers Articles on WP are not created based on "merit" or how "deserving" one is to have an article; they are created based on our objective notability guidelines. (That said, as it happens, I'm also qualified to assess merit, though that's not a question for WP.) Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think User:Newimpartial has "warned us that he/she can be "triggered" by different words or phrases." I think the usage of "triggered" in that instance merely means "proximal cause", as in "To spark a response, especially a negative emotional response, in (someone)." It is a figure of speech rather than something to be understood literally. Saying that you are "not clear what his/her trigger phrases are" is allowing for none other than a literal understanding of the word as used in that instance. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the sequence of events is not clear from Chetsford's comments of 16:28, 18 August. The diff he presented, [149] is a comment that I offered to remove if he were offended [150]; instead he closed the discussion so I could not do so [151] with the ominous edit summary, "this isn't going to end well". This fits the pattern of our earlier interactions: when I offered to strikethrough my "incompetent" comments [152] he did not take me up on it, and when, near the beginning of our interaction on the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD, I unilaterally tried to delete our NOTFORUM digression with an apology [153], Chetsford refused [154]; I eventually struck through just the offensive terms in my comments with additional apologies [155]. If it is not clear from context, I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question.

Also, on the matter of triggers, I don't have PTSD and don't have "trigger words"; my relevant triggers are deliberately misleading statements ("puzzle and game book" [[156]] edited in to replace "RPG handbook" - a little Easter egg I did not see until just now), moving goal posts ([157] [158] [159]and q.v. my reply [160]), false equivalencies ([161], for example) and ICANTHEARYOU (e.g on the term "fanzine": [162] followed by my reply [163] and Chetsford doubling down [164]) - these are the main components of civil trolling - as well as GAMING and POINTY behaviour ([165] in the context of [166] and [167] in the immediate context of [168])

Now I am familiar with the argument, much more frequently heard since Gamergate, "if you can't deal with trolling, don't be active on the internet". And I do try to prepaRe myself and avoid venues where this kind of calculated hostility are more common - I steeled myself for ANI, for example, and try to be careful about Talk pages. When I steel myself, as in the Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk AfDs, I can respond with civility to the incivility of others, as those discussions show. But I had never encountered at AfD the strategies I mentioned in the last paragraph applied with such intensity and consistency. My initial attempt to AGF translated into outrage about competence and the embarrassing mess of my contribution to the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD [169], which I will never do again and the bulk of which I would have deleted last week had I been permitted to do so [170].

To conclude, I recognize that I am easily Trolled and don't ask for special treatment; I know what kinds of discussions I need to avoid and have been reminded that so need to behave as in Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk, and not as in Dominic McDowall-Thomas. I recognize that I have violated NPA in using terms like "incompetent" and "clueless" - I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future.

But there is more to WP:CIVIL than WP:NPA, and the same behaviours that trigger me are, I believe, also destructive for WP as a whole. Therefore I would encourage Admins to consider the evidence set out in my original ANI filing and not let the BOOMERANG discussion - which I did expect - distract from the sustained and still continuing pattern of incivility that was the trigger. I included diffs of my own UNCIVIL posts in my original filing because I felt that it was more important to try to direct attention at a sustained piece of civil trolling than to try to escape personal scrutiny and responsibility for interventions that I acknowledge as mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know how to make this any more plain but: none of the things you claim are "uncivil" are uncivil. Not a one. You're reaching, and in so reaching, are wasting a LOT of peoples' time. You're in a hole. Stop digging. Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read. Just stop.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Jorm—"Just stop"? Why wouldn't an editor defend themselves? Oh—they are 100% wrong and those that advocate that disciplinary measures be taken against them are automatically 100% right? In my reading of Newimpartial's post immediately above they are conceding that "I did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question." Should they "Just stop" conceding that they "did not mean any personal attack and regret and have apologized for the comments in question"? They said "I am sorry, have tried to make amends, and will not do so in future." But this isn't a black and white issue. Or maybe it is—I haven't looked into this case very carefully. You say "Stop posting giant walls of text that no one wants to read." This whole thing is a giant wall of text. I've had lengthy encounters with Newimpartial. I consider them a well-meaning and entirely competent editor. I've disagreed with them. But I respect them. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - More evidence than necessary is better than not enough. A clear and detailed case for such a sanction, if one exists, has not been compiled. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  The diff you refer to was because they had initially posted a wall of text and I do not see how it is relevant to the discussion as it stands now. The material in that wall has now been discussed and the reason for the proposed ban is that the majority of the 'evidence' posted by the OP shows that they have a large and disruptive problem of failing to AGF in the topic area. This leads to them making repeated personal attacks against others editors, even during this ANI [171]. I proposed the initial term limited topic ban as the least intrusive method of addressing this; others thought it should be expanded to all AfD; and, with the diff I cited it seems that the personal attacks go beyond AfD. Canterbury Tail has even gone so far as to oppose this sanction because they see it is a PA problem not an AfD problem (CT please correct me if I misunderstand your reasoning)

  I quite understand your reticence to impose sanctions but I am curious to have your perspective on the behavior which the OP has illustrated in their own diffs. Do you see it as problematic? If so, can you suggest a way short of sanction to address it? The diff I cited here seems to indicate that a 'stern talking to' will not be sufficient to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 13:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  "Stern talking to" or not, there will be no further disruption from me, e.g. the terms "competence" or "trolling" and other AGF issues. I can only imagine how this ANI would have gone had I not distracted it with my intemperate remarks. That's not a mistake I'll be making again. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Jbhunley: Thanks for the clarification. Blocks of increasing duration are a better solution for incivility issues when they can be demonstrated. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. With that and the general consensus which seems to be forming I would not object to someone closing this thread with a warning that further failures of good faith or personal attacks will result in blocks – hopefully by admin discretion and bypassing the need to re-litigate things but meh, that is not really the wiki-way. Anyway, I am willing to take Newimpartial at his word where he indicates he has internalized the complaints, criticism, and advice he has received here and will endeavor to avoid a repeat incident. Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban from AFD. I have not seen a clear history from Newimpartial of disruptive behavior from before this past week's AFD discussions, and I believe he allowed himself to become overemotional towards a user that he viewed as being condescending regarding a topic that he felt a passion for. I have sympathy for Newimpartial in this regard, and I can see what drove him to feel that way. That said, he should have backed away from expressing his feelings toward this other user long ago despite multiple warnings, although I believe his assurances above that he will not be making this mistake again. If he fails to do so, he will undoubtedly suffer serious consequences anyway. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to Newimpartial in this overall ANI this is precisely where I stand at this time too. Simonm223 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Realizing I'm largely siding with Newimpartial in the relevant discussions, I think that A) there was a significant behavioral problem with NI but B) I think that's largely improved. If it should reappear, that's an issue. And yes, I do feel that Chetsford is doing his/her own share of trolling. Claiming to have gone to a couple of GenCons and yet being quite so clueless about the subject matter is well past "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. That said, he's mostly been civil and often been quite productive so I really can't figure out what's going on. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Claiming to have gone to a couple of GenCons and yet being quite so clueless about the subject matter is well past "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. That said, he's mostly been civil and often been quite productive so I really can't figure out what's going on. - Hobit: I can tell you what's going on. I'm far from clueless about the subject matter I simply am extremely skeptical about its suitability (in the specific instances into which I've interjected) for WP. As to why I've been civil, it's because I'm a nice person. Chetsford (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Among other things you keep calling Evil Hat a "t-shirt company" even though it's clear from their site that they are a game company (I can't even find a t-shirt for sale there, [172]). You called RPG supplements a "puzzle book" [173] and [174] which they clearly are not. That feels like either you didn't look at the material or you are trolling. 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There was also this bon-mot:[175] - needless to say, there are plenty of notable creative works that have neither the Pulitzer nor an author with an OBE, and this speaks toward the odd bias that Chetsford (talk · contribs) displays toward RPGs as creative works. They seem to have decided that RPGs cannot be considered art in any significant capacity, are incapable of greatness and should be stricken from the record. This is an oddly extreme reaction and it makes me question what this editor's underlying motivation is here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"They seem to have decided that RPGs cannot be considered art in any significant capacity" Yes, I think that's a correct summary of my opinion. This is an oddly extreme reaction No, not from a generalist/non-hobbyist perspective. There have been a number of comments in this thread from editors who support my opinion that RPG manuals are classifiable as instruction books. In any case, these are content discussions not appropriate for ANI. Chetsford (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"you keep calling Evil Hat a "t-shirt company"" Correct - I've referred to it as a game and t-shirt company (see, for example: [176]). "I can't even find a t-shirt for sale there," It's the big label on their home page that says "Decals, T-Shirts, and More" and which, in turn, links to their RedBubble storefront where they sell 37 different tshirts. [177] "You called RPG supplements a "puzzle book"" In niche, non-technical topics - which games are - I believe avoiding hobbyist jargon whenever possible and using terminology that is most likely to be comprehensible to the general public. Terms like "adventure supplement" are almost totally meaningless to the majority of people. An adventure supplement is, at its heart, a book of puzzles (see: [178].) Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, that article is about puzzles in computer RPGs, which have pretty much no relation to actual Tabletop RPGs despite the fact that somehow they've gotten saddled with the same label. So not even remotely relevant to this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I *still* can't find anything about tshirts on their homepage and I've looked for 2 minutes. I assume it's there. But that would be a lot like calling the Smithsonian a "t-shirt shop" because they sell t-shirts. And no, they aren't puzzles. No one in the field would even understand what you are referring to if you called them that. Even going as far down the "assume good faith" path as I can, I just can't see this as anything other than trolling. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The link Chetsford provided immediately above even explicitly states that story and visuals have become more central to RPGs than puzzles, reducing RPGs to puzzles on the basis of sources like this suggests a failure to actually read beyond the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"No one in the field would even understand what you are referring to if you called them that." I believe our AfD discussions should be open to all WP editors, not just those in the specific vocational field which the AfD touches. However, if identifying Evil Hat Productions company as a manufacturer of t-shirts is something you take personal offense towards, I will certainly refrain from doing so in the same way I would refrain from using any terminology that was likely to offend someone. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It offends me no more than calling the Smithsonian a t-shirt company. It's simply what looks like an intentional mischaracterization in an attempt to get people to agree with you. And yeah, we don't call "NP-hard" problems "puzzles" to make things simpler for non-specalists either. Puzzle book also appears to be a mischaracterization. They simply aren't that and even the link didn't support you calling them that. I'm having a really really hard time believing you are being sincere. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose In general, our sanctions are not punitive, and I do not see Newimpartial as being so disruptive, yet, that a ban from all AFDs is needed. The user has apologized, and stated they will not do it again in a manner I have found convincing. I feel that this is a case where we should extend a bit of rope, so to speak. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A storm in a teacup. Andrew D. (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this case should be thrown out. It is unclear there is wrongdoing here. That applies to both Newimpartial and Chetsford. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - (edit conflict) given the latest exchanges in this thread I'm leaning toward suggesting a topic ban from role playing games for Chetsford, who does seem to have made it their mission to provoke emotional reactions from gaming enthusiasts via their actions and comments, not for the sake of improving Wikipedia but just to piss people off. While it's true that we rely on general notability to determine inclusion criteria, there's a way to go about suggesting improvements to an article without disparaging the topic and everyone with an interest in it. These two comments (close to directly above, in a discussion about their behaviour) suggest that, at least with respect to this topic, Chetsford is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Since a majority of my edits are in article space, I have half-a-dozen GA and FA articles, a clean block log, 95%+ AFD and CSD match rates, and have never previously been brought to ANI, I'm unclear which of the NOTHERE criteria I meet exactly. However, I believe in a continuous process of self-improvement so take all input with appreciation. Chetsford (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford I'll take you at your word on that, then. I don't see that anyone here is impugning your content record, but consider the observations here (not just mine) that your approach to content within this topic is being viewed by people with an interest in it as going out of your way to insult them. If you're interested in self-improvement, please start there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector I agree absolutely with you. The perception of offense is as relevant to maintaining CIVIL as the intention. As I said to Hobit above, "if identifying Evil Hat Productions company as a manufacturer of t-shirts is something you take personal offense towards, I will certainly refrain from doing so". Similarly, immediately after it became clear to me there was offense taken by me using the term "game and puzzle book" instead of "game book" I terminated its use without any further request (having only used it one time anyway). That said, I can't respond to the request one editor has made that I publicly declare RPG manuals as art or literature. That's because my position on that point is germane to the interpretation of an inherent notability guideline; to require me to affirm role-playing games as forms of art would to shut-down any discussion on an application of policy, which would be unprecedented on WP. Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear User:Chetsford, I am not personally offended that you lack appreciation for RPGs as an art form. I lack appreciation for "selfish gene" theory as science, and for WWE as interpretive dance, but there we go. We all have our blind spots.

I do become offended when you express your POV in the form of hyperbole that assume what they pretend to prove, as in this example, [179] here [180] and here [181]. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see how that follows; works of art are not inherently notable any more than historical events or any other thing for that matter, and conversely a thing not meeting one person's subjective opinion on art or literature is no criterion for its removal. On Wikipedia, a work is considered art, and an artwork considered notable, if reliable sources say it is so. Whether you or I or any other editor declare it to be or not be art is neither here nor there, not with respect to content, notability, or policy. Your position on the matter is no more germane to interpretation of the guideline than my personal opinion on the deliciousness of cheese curds is central to a discussion on deletion of our article on poutine. I see that it wasn't you that brought it up, but it was in a response to a comment of yours in which you identified a work in a genre which is widely regarded to have artistic merit and compared it to a deck repair manual. I hope you can see that, whether or not you would agree with the artistic merit argument, the comparison was offensive to an enthusiast, whether or not you meant it so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

works of art are not inherently notable I agree. The situation here arose because I (and apparently User:Jbhunley and User:Jorm, I think) are of the opinion that RPG manuals can not meet the inherent notability criteria of WP:NBOOK as they are "instruction manuals". To require, as a condition of editing WP, editors have the opinion that RPG manuals are forms of art or literature means ipso facto that this is a closed area for discussion and we are prohibited from evaluating whether RPG manuals meet NBOOK. a genre which is widely regarded to have artistic merit I have not been shown any evidence that RPG manuals are widely regarded as forms of art outside of RPG fandom itself (though I, personally, think many of the visual illustrations within them are artistic). I have an open mind and am willing to change it on presentation of reasonable evidence to the contrary. No such evidence has yet been offered in response to my requests. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Without taking or intending to give offense, Chetsford's post features pretty much a textbook example of a false dichotomy. The class of "books" is not made up of "art and literature" and "instruction manuals", such that NBOOK depends on belonging to the former class. NBOOK covers all books except for certain excluded classes, and game books are not one of the excluded classes. "Instruction manuals" and "exam preparation books" are two of the excluded classes, along with "reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs;" - all other forms of text-based non-fiction and fiction are included in NBOOK, regardless of their literary merit or otherwise. In this context, it seems clear that a work does not cease to be a book merely because it includes some instructions, whether in the title (Steal This Book) or in the text itself (Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors). Arguments that NBOOK does not apply to game books like Hillfolk because they happen to contain instructions to play a game may not be UNCIVIL, but they are certainly unsupported by NBOOK itself. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I agree that NBOOK is not the proper notability criteria to apply to RPG games and supplements. They are a product line. They are not purchased, marketed or reviewed in the same way as a conventional book rather they exist to enhance and expand a gaming experience by providing an environment which allows the players to create their own narrative structure ie they are components of a product (ie the game). They exist to explain, instruct and organize game play.

This discussion, while interesting is out of scope of ANI and should take place elsewhere. To be clear I think they are exempted from NBOOK as "reference material" and, to some extent, "instruction manuals" ie rules. Jbh ^Talk 20:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support no less than broad TBAN from AFDs This is a long time coming. I see that over a year later Newimpartial is still calling other editors trolls. AFD is a volatile enough area of the project without blatantly disruptive editors like this poisoning the well with their toxic rhetoric. And a quick edit summary check indicates that I'm not the only prior victim to have confirmed TonyBallioni's suspicion.[182] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, until today I had no idea you were still upset by an edit summary from more than a year ago. I unreservedly apologize. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The above evasiveness is what is beginning to convince me that an indef CIR block may be the only solution here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal was hasty. Newimpartial seems finely capable enough to acknowledge where he might be wrong and he is not being problematic in terms of content editing since he is working to improve things. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue

Now that we have some clarity on the WP:BOOMERANG response - a warning to NewImpartial and an open admission of their mistakes and assurances they will do better in the future, how about we return to the original issue of whether Chetsford (talk · contribs) is proposing these AfDs in good faith. Having seen them defend their mis-characterization of Evil hat as a t-shirt company on the basis that they also sell merch, and defend their mis-characterization of adventure supplements as puzzle books based on an... being polite... incredibly novel description of how to best provide clarity to a general audience, I'm uncertain that this user is operating entirely in good faith. I still think it's more likely that this is an example of WP:CIR in action and some odd personal biases toward RPGs leading to this rather tendentious interpretation of policy. However, regardless of motive, I'm not convinced that this user's contribution to the topic of role playing games is constructive to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I noted before, I'm having a hard time viewing some of his comments as anything other than trolling. A number of his AfD noms have been reasonable. A number of his comments have been on-point and solid. But there is also a strong undercurrent of trolling. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree; see my comment above. For one thing, if a term like "adventure supplement" requires further explanation, then you clarify by wikilinking to an appropriate term, or even create a stub explaining what it is. I don't know why any reasonably proficient English speaker would be confused by the term "supplement", we even already use it in disambiguation schemes in this topic set (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures (role-playing game supplement)). Insisting that it be called a "puzzle book", an inaccurate-at-best term, is not making the content accessible to a wider audience, it's deliberately misleading, and in Chetsford's case it seems to be with the intent of disparaging the artform with the purpose of offending its enthusiasts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact I just went ahead and did it; see Adventure supplement. Maybe that's not exactly the right article to target, but I haven't played tabletop games in 20 years and that still took me all of 4 minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Insisting that it be called a "puzzle book" No, I don't believe something like that occurred. I personally used the term "puzzle and game book" once, AFAIK (here [183] after I thought that "RPG handbook" might have been too esoteric and edited my original description). I never "insisted" others use it, nor, do I believe I even used it more than once myself. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• But there is also a strong undercurrent of trolling. - Could you provide some diffs? Unless I misinterpret them (in which case I hope they'll correct me), Jbh, TonyBallioni, and Jorm all specifically dismissed that notion in the original complaint by Newimpartial. But I'm always open to feedback! Chetsford (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• "how about we return to the original issue of whether Chetsford (talk · contribs) is proposing these AfDs in good faith"

Sure thing. By my count, of the 388 AfDs on which I've cast !votes over the last two years, 20 have involved RPGs (5%) in which I was either the nominator or !voted delete. Of those:

• two (10%) have been re-listed for lack of consensus to keep/delete/merge
• one (5%) has been closed keep
• seven (55%) are currently open and have attracted other "delete" !votes besides mine
• six (30%) are currently open but have not attracted other "delete" !votes besides mine; however, half of those have only received !keep votes from editors with an overall AfD match rate below 25%

My overall AfD match rate is 95%.

Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

By your own count, zero RPG AfDs you have participated in have been deleted, and only half of them have attracted any other "delete" !votes - this is batting well below your own self-reported AfD match rate. Perhaps this should indicate to you that your evident biases on the subject are clouding your objectivity and making you make WP:NPOV mistakes. But what concerns me more at this point is that while Newimpartial (talk · contribs) was quite willing to admit to their mistakes and commit to improvement, you seem to think yourself beyond reproach in this situation which would seem to be untrue. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For instance, here's an example where you were disregarding scholarship related to the topic, which had been discussed in your previous AfD, by stating as if it were fact that scholarship could not possibly exist. Look, we get it, you don't like role playing games. But your personal opinion on them is clouding your judgment in an unproductive manner. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

where you were disregarding scholarship related to the topic I wasn't disregarding scholarship, I was saying it wasn't scholarship in the first place. And, as of the timestamp, that seems to be an opinion shared by a slim majority of editors there so to suggest I'm somehow going against the grain seems at odds with what's occurring. I appreciate that you disagree with my opinion that role-playing games are not an academic discipline, however, a free and open discussion is how we decide things on WP. No source has "immunity" from critical evaluation. I appreciate your passion on this topic, however. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, you don't get to decide that, because you don't think that, say, intersectional feminism, is an academic discipline, that therefore a Routledge text on the topic "isn't scholarship in the first place". The same is true with [role play game studies]. If you can't see that leaving out a highly relevant result from your background search at RSN because YOUDONTLIKEIT is a petty decision and a stain on your participation, then I'd suggest you should spend more time on the kind of introspection User:Jorm recommended for me, and which has seemed surprisingly fruitful up to now. Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, you don't get to decide that, because you don't think that, say, intersectional feminism Huh? recommended for me, and which has seemed surprisingly fruitful up to now I don't believe the intent was for you to issue an apology just until the heat was off and then come back with this [184]. Chetsford (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Intersectional feminism" is an example of an area, like role-playing game studies, where Routledge publishes and that some editors don't accept as a valid area of scholarship, just as I might not accept "selfish gene" theory or the WWE; [185]we all have our blind spots.

And in that vein, I understand your confusion about the intent of other editors in this discussion; trying to interpret the consensus of a discussion where one is INVOLVED is generally very difficult, which is why it is frowned upon as a rule. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

zero RPG AfDs you have participated in have been deleted That's because AFDs remain open for seven days. Almost none of my nominations are more than seven days old. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In the right mood, actually being able to see the goalposts move fills me with a sort of childish delight. Chetsford, more than once you have pointed to your 94-95% agreement rate at AfD as evidence of your competence. But among your 20 RPG-related AfDs, you have already withdrawn one (which was the right thing to do, doubtless) meaning that you would have to agree with each and every remaining close to retain your overall accuracy % in this new domain. You have observed that up to now, you have the only delete !vote in about 35% of your nominations. So even if all of the disputed nominations went your way, you would only have a 60% success rate in your nominations in this domain. Given that you are otherwise so good at AfD, maybe a self-imposed ban would be in order until you have a better "sense of the room"? Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

With trollish comments like being able to see the goalposts move fills me with a sort of childish delight while hypocritically calling apparently anyone who disagrees with him a troll, how has Newimpartial not been blocked yet? And this is coming from a former avid gamer who finds the "puzzle games" debacle laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"childish delight" I'm not sure this specific phrasing helps advance a discursive environment, however, I appreciate your feedback. Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, perhaps the reason for that is because I don't actually "call apparently everyone who disagrees with me a troll"? (That sounds to me a lot like a personal attack, by the way.) It's been a few years since I wrangled with you, I know, but I don't recall ever accusing you of trolling. Did I? My memory is perhaps not what it once was.

Chetsford, I believe we are supposed to be focusing on the substance of the discussion, and not on the idiosyncrasies of the contributors. In this case, the topic was your impressive agreement percentage, and its relevance to the RPG AfDs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You did; I linked the diff above. And you did it to another editor around the same time. And you've been pretty inactive since, so it's not like the statute of limitations can expire when you're still doing it. I dunno: would it not be a personal attack if I said "a random, seemingly relatively large, number of long-term contributors with no established history of trolling, with whom he disagrees"? Because I presented plenty of evidence in support of that assertion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As a polite request, Hijiri88 could you please keep discussion of Newimpartial in the section on Newimpartial's comportment? This is more to discuss the appropriateness of Chetsford's behaviour. Just trying to keep the two conversations separated a little. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, I had no idea you were still offended by an edit summary from more than a year ago. I am sorry. My comportment in that respect is much improved, I think you can see. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223: Sorry, but that's not how ANI works. Newimpartial chose to open this thread with his characteristic troll charge, and you chose to pile on for your own reasons, but you can't stop me from calling out disruptive comments in the subthread in which they were made, or prevent the cominj BOOMERANG just because you don't like the same editor as Newimpartial. Heck, I might not even like him (I created our now-gone Evermeet article back in the bad old dayp when Wikipedia welcomed such pages), but that's quite beside the point.

Newimpartial: It's not a question of my being "offended". You are not allowed throw troll accusations around willy-nilly as you have been. Trying to deflect and make this about me supposedly holding a grudge for your having targeted me ~600 edits (or around two months of active editing for you) ago just makes me even more convinced something needs to be done to curb your disruptive editing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my intent. Within this ANI discussion there was an initial sub-section centered around the original complaint, then a second section about Newimpartial WP:BOOMERANG and then I created a third section to contain discussion of outstanding issues unrelated to the boomerang discussion. I'm not asking you to not bring up your issues with Newimpartial - just to put them in the topic sub-heading that is to do with their WP:BOOMERANG risk. This is mostly because this ANI thread has gotten crazy long and there really are two issues at play here; for the sanity of all participants I'm trying to keep them separated. Also, ultimately, I was asking for compliance, not demanding it. I can't stop you from putting comments related to your history of interaction with Newimpartial in this section, but it's probably going to be easier to find if you put it in the appropriate heading. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a whole bunch of Chetsford comments in "the Newimpartial subthread"? Anyway, that subthread is a TBAN proposal that seems unlikely to pass at this point partly due to battleground comments from people who always oppose AFDs, partly due to comments like yours that assumed Newimpartial's behaviour was justified in one or another instance, and partly due to people who agree with me and think a TBAN doesn't go far enough; a comment like mine above would have been out of place in the TBAN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your argument is likely to get lost nested here. But that's on you if that's how you want to do it. I asked, you said no. Whatever. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment sure, we can return to the issue but it would need better diffs than what I have seen so far for there to be any point to the exercise. Maybe Chetsford has been snarky in some responses, but if so it has not been outside what is normal here. The main examples presented in this thread; concrete convention and puzzle book are not even that. Jbh ^Talk 15:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The two diffs provided by Ivanvector (talk · contribs) just above the sub-heading are the ones I consider most inappropriate. Explicitly stating that they don't consider an entire genre to be art is not constructive, especially when the issue is a scatter-shot mass-nomination blitz. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly stating that they don't consider an entire genre to be art That's my opinion and others are free to agree or disagree with it. Debates about what constitute art are as old as art itself, but I think this is the first time there's been an attempt to settle it at ANI. In the Opera WikiProject I know there's occasionally argument about whether Burletta is serious opera and it's always handled as nothing more than good-natured disagreement rather than a direct attack on the very essence and being of other editors.

mass-nomination blitz By my count, we have more than 2,000 RPG-related articles. In my editing history I have been involved in AfDs on 20 of them (as detailed above), of which 16 were my nominations, constituting less than 1% of the total. Further, this constitutes a minority of all AFD noms I've made in the last week. So I don't believe there is demonstrable evidence of "mass-nomination."

a scatter-shot As detailed above, 70% of recent AfDs in which I've been involved have received other delete !votes beyond my own (and half of the remaining 30% have - at the time of writing - only attracted keep !votes from editors with a AFD match rate less than 25%). So I don't think there's demonstrable evidence of anything "scatter-shot". Chetsford (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Several times you have brought up your historical AfD match rate. I question its relevance here. You being in tune with consensus on other unrelated AfD issues is not an indicator you're in tune here. I haven't seen any evidence that you did anything beyond arbitrarily select some RPG articles to nominate for deletion, and your oft-cited match rate is much lower than normal for this subset of articles by your own reporting. The issue here isn't your conduct on other unrelated AfDs. The issue is your refusal to hear what people are telling you on these AfDs, including denying cited scholarship exists, denying RPGs are creative and generally being unkind. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

generally being unkind Could you provide some diffs of where I have been "unkind". Numerous other editors have specifically rejected this numerous times but I am open to your opinion. I'll just need to know, specifically, to what you're referring. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided several diffs to that effect, as have others. If you don't see how it's unkind to say to a creative profession as a whole, "your creative product does not constitute art" I don't know what to say to you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't see how it's unkind to say to a creative profession as a whole, "your creative product does not constitute art" I don't know what to say to you. I am very skeptical that the RPG profession as a whole has congregated at AfD. I think you'll find anyone whose WP article is subject to an AfD will likely be offended by the open and critical nature of the discussion. If we apply the same level of sensitivity to all vocational categories you have suggested we do to roleplaying games, we certainly wouldn't have essays like Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Obviously no one, believing themselves to be notable, likes being described as "not notable." However, I do appreciate your perspective and it serves as a valuable reminder to all of a need for restraint in our interactions with others. Chetsford (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Man. It really feels like some people are really only chuffed because someone called their G.I. Joe toys "dolls" and not "action figures" and got their feelings hurt. Is that what this is really about?--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In my case, to the extent I am emotionally invested in this discussion, it's more because there's a lot of overlap between fantasy authors (my friends and colleagues) and RPG designers. Quite a few fantasy authors either sideline as RPG developers or got their start in RPG development, so while I am not myself a developer of these games, I know a lot of people who have been. So it's not so much about what Chetsford called toys as the fact they're being mean tounduly harsh with regard to the creative output of people I like and respect at a professional level. But mostly I'm frustrated that Chetsford is being tendentious in their edits and seems to want to establish their opinion and !vote on this topic are more important than other people, despite a clear issue with WP:NPOV they demonstrate, which rubs me the wrong way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single person be "mean".--Jorm (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, my main issue is that they are editing in a pov pushing and tendentious manner. But I adjusted my previous statement to be more technically correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

seems to want to establish their opinion and !vote on this topic are more important than other people By my count, in only three of the 16 RPG related AfDs I've nominated during my time on WP am I the leading commenter by character count. I'm usually not even the second most verbose. However, I can understand that - when we feel a subject with which we're emotionally invested is being "attacked" - the "attack" sometimes may seem louder than it is.

to the extent I am emotionally invested in this discussion, it's more because there's a lot of overlap between fantasy authors (my friends and colleagues) Understood. I have no emotional investment in this discussion at all. I routinely nominate scores of articles for deletion spanning music, schools, books, neologisms, BLPs, films, etc. The ~5% of my noms related to RPGs are just any other AFDs for me; no more or less. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain why you think character count is in any way, shape or form relevant to my concerns with your tendentious editing style on these AfDs and associated discussion spaces. In fact I would suggest your tendency to throw around your AfD success rate is one of the strongest indicators (I am successful on AfDs 95% of the time while all of you average 25%) that you believe your opinion should carry more weight.Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain why you think character count is in any way, shape or form relevant Because no other form was offered or suggested. If you have another measure to quantify your gut feeling I'm, of course, open and receptive. your tendency to throw around your AfD success rate Actually, I have proactively mentioned my AfD match rate zero (0) times and reactively mentioned it only three (3) times; each time was in response to a specific accusation, presented without diffs, that I am incompetent at AfD. Three reactive mentions is not indicative of someone "throwing around" something but, as I said above, I think that - when we feel a subject with which we're emotionally invested is being "attacked" - the "attack" sometimes may seem louder than it is. Chetsford (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, nobody I know of has suggested you are "incompetent at AfD" - certainly I have not. What I have suggested is that you have nominated articles imporoperly for deletion, such as Man, Myth and Magic, Monica Valentinelli and Hillfolk, and that, for whatever reason, you seem unable to carry out BEFORE in this domain with the expected level of acuity (such as the recent discussion of Designers & Dragons at the RSN, or any of the three aforementioned AfDs, to give the top portion of the iceberg). Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you, or did you not, call Chetsford a "clueless editor"? I'll save you the suspense: You did. So saying that you never called Chetsford "incompetent" and hoping that we believe it is ridiculous.--Jorm (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

All I've ever said is that I don't think Chetsford is competent to assess AfDs in this very specific and limited domain. And this I suspect to be as a result of their very explicitly stated POV regarding RPGs as an art-form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simon, I believe Jorm was addressing me. ;)

While I was UNCIVIL and I regret having been so, I believe the context for my intemperate remarks was always clear: I was saying that Chelmsford should not be performing AfDs of RPGs because he has not demonstrated competence in that specific area. Those were the "clues" I was looking for and not finding. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm getting fatigued by this thread. Carry on. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, nobody I know of has suggested you are "incompetent at AfD" - certainly I have not. - Here [186], here [187], here [188], [189], here [190], and here [191] you called me a "clueless editor"; here [192] you deleted my comments in an AfD; here [193] you struck out my comments in an AfD; here [194] you called me a troll; here you seemed to suggest I was incompetent [195], and here [196] you indicated your belief you had an obligation to "ridicule" me. If I misunderstood the meaning of the preceding, I sincerely apologize. Chetsford (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, I have apologized for my incivility. The fact remains that apart from the "maximum Troll" comment - which I have apologized for repeatedly, and which did not reflect negatively on your competence - in every last one of the diffs you provided, I am clear that the context of my concerns is RPG AfDs. Every last one. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am clear that the context of my concerns is RPG AfDs To clarify then, you believe these - [197], [198], [199], [200], [201] - are reasonable expressions of concern? I only ask as it seems to be at odds with your previously profuse apologies for them. Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, Chetsford; those were poorly formulated and uncivil comments which I regret and for which I apologize. All I am saying is that these comments all concern your behaviour at RPG AfDs and not any other aspect of your WP behaviour, and I believe that for all my faults as a writer I was always clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your candor. Just to ensure I'm clear, you're basically saying you agree with Reyk's comment ("Newimpartial's compulsion to be as unfair and condescending as possible towards Chetsford has gotten very disruptive. Most of what Newimpartial is saying about Chetsford is misrepresentations and nonsense, and nobody should be subjected to it just for cleaning up crufty and unsourced back areas of Wikipedia.")? Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would I agree with that? From the experience of your RPG AfDs, I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes; I am also confident that, had I wished to go out in a blaze of glory à la S. John Ross at Pyramid (magazine) - now there's a story - I could undoubtedly have worked up something more unfair and condescending that the current diffs can show.

Also, I hold a truly religious devotion to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and believe that nominating non-BLP articles based on their actual rather than potential sourcing is not only against policy but is a bloody waste of time. But speaking of wasting time, this ANI is likely to close non-consensus, mostly IMO because of my "triggered" incivility earlier, so I do recognize that I am going to be wearing that one for a long while and had better act accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"From the experience of your RPG AfDs, I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes" I'm sorry you feel that way. Chetsford (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this? No sanctions are going to come of this. The principals know to apply AFG to their interactions and that further personal attacks will result in escalating blocks. Everyone is advised that as a consequence of being sentient beings with at least nominal free will other people will have different opinions from what we hold, even on things we hold dear. As a consequence of working in a collaborative environment we all must deal with that or find ourselves unable to continue to participate in the collaboration. Jbh ^Talk 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Request to Closer When closing, for posterity, I would request the closing note state that the charges for which this was opened against me (CIVIL, WikiStalking, personal attacks, trolling, and bad faith editing) were not found to have merit by the community, a conclusion I believe should be supported by an evaluation of the consensus or lack thereof. By my count, sixteen (16) editors have opined here (excluding myself and opener), of which I believe 8 7 (User:Cullen328, User:Jorm, User:Jbhunley, User:MPJ-DK, User:TonyBallioni, User:Busstop, User:Reyk and User:Hijiri88) made specific statements that they did not believe I had acted in any improper way. A further five (5) - again by my count - made no comment vis a vis my behavior at all but limited their comments to the matter of other editors. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Having participated in many of the AfDs in question, I can honestly say that I did not ever think that you were trolling, bad fair editing, personal attacks, WikiStalking or CIVIL). I thought you mischaracterised RPG games here and there but nothing malicious and certainly nothing that merited a report here. I had begun to think that Newimpartial was "not hearing" some things due to the amount of denial and repetition and starting to run close to being disruptive but hadn't crossed over. So take as a lesson learned (for both of you), having your behaviour raised and examined on this noticeboard will result in every little incident becoming magnified, taken out of context, interpreted incorrectly, events from years ago being dragged into the spotlight, editors examining every facet of your character demonstrated in your interactions here and - the real point - the manymany hours of wasted time spent by the community on matters that, one way or another, will not result in making anybody's experience here any better. Oh ... and if ever there's a next time your name appears here and you're involved in an incident, you can expect all of this to be dragged up again. My advice ... this is already over. Drop the mic. Walk away. Learn and adjust and carry on. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I made no such statement. I said that you may or may not be engaged in trolling, but that Newimpartial was probably in the wrong to repeatedly accuse you of such, given his history of making bogus trolling accusations. I did not say whether or not I thought you were actually trolling, let alone "make a specific statement that I did not believe you had acted in any improper way". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also like it noted that while I did not comment on Chetsford's behavior, I do not believe that they acted properly, nor do I believe they were right in this regard; I simply feel they did nothing sanctionable, which is a rather key point at ANI. I find that this particular request for the closer to note the supposed good qualities of the author leaves, at best, a bad taste in my mouth. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify I'm not asking for my "good qualities" to be described. I'm asking for inclusion in the closing statement that there was a consensus against (or no consensus for) the "bad qualities" of which I was accused (trolling and Wikistalking), which - by my reading of the discussion - is simply what is supported by the discussion. The reason I'm asking is because my name, and only my name, is in the title of this thread and yet 75% of it - until 5 hours before the closing request - was a discussion about edits of another editor entirely with virtually no commentary about me. This is a very long thread and no one is likely to ever read more than the title and closing note. This was my first time at ANI, and I hope I'm never invited back, but if I am I'd rather it not be said "he was previously warned about Wikistalking / personal attacks / etc." based on a closing note that such a warning was the opinion of the community if it wasn't. I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; apologies if I came off harsh. I expect a summary will likely say something along the lines of "No consensus for sanction, users are reminded to assume good faith", or something along the lines, based on my past experiences here. This is hardly the most vitriolic thread I've seen, and threads where the original complaint is not considered actionable (for whatever reason) are reasonably common. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 - my apologies. I misread your statement "Newimpartial chose to open this thread with his characteristic troll charge" as "mischaracteristic". I've struck your name accordingly. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment to closer I have deep concerns about Chetsford's comportment on this topic with regard to WP:TEND, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT - while I concede any sort of sanction is unlikely, I'd find it particularly inappropriate to have a comment that the orignal complaint was found not to have merit by the community - non-consensus is what we have here. Neither of the two participants here acted beyond reproach, and furthermore, while Newimpartial was willing to admit to their errors, Chetsford engaged in a bizarre defense of citing an array of irrelevant personal edit statistics that seemed intended to muddy the waters of the discussion with irrelevancies. If this thread is, "closed for posterity," it should not be as a vindication of either party. Simonm223 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have deep concerns about Chetsford's comportment on this topic I note your feelings and, even though they were not endorsed by a consensus of the community, I value them just as much as if they were and take note of them for the future. Neither of the two participants here acted beyond reproach There was no consensus I acted in a way that was reproachful. I believe there was a consensus, expressed in the TBAN discussion, that another editor would avoid a boomerang TBAN conditioned on their issuance of an apology for certain statements and a pledge not to repeat them, both of which were conditions duly met by that editor to their credit. For a closing statement to indicate the community has "reminded" me of civility/GF when the plurality of editors here went on record to indicate I required no such reminder would be an inaccurate characterization of the discussion (IMO). However, I accept we may have to agree to disagree and I appreciate your passion on the topic of roleplaying games. Chetsford (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus that your behaviour, Chetsford, *was* above reproach, and your attempt to allege such a consensus above using a !vote count does you little credit and shows even kess understanding of what is meant by a policy-based CONSENSUS at WP. Undoubtedly you can learn over time.

On a more personal note, I hope your expectations when you invited me to file at ANI in the first place [202] [203] [204] have been fully satisfied. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus that your behaviour, Chetsford, *was* above reproach Correct and I think we agree. Since my behavior, or lack thereof, was never really the locus of discussion, the closing statement should simply indicate there was nothing actionable found in your filing against me and that you agreed to police your comments in the future.

On a more personal note, I hope your expectations when you invited me to file at ANI in the first place have been fully satisfied. ;) My expectations were that you would stop using AFDs to call editors names. Based on your pledge not to do so, my expectations were met. Based on the qualifying statement you just posted that you could have gone out "in a blaze of glory" and been more "condescending" to me if you wanted [205] I'm still worried that TonyBallioni's concerns regarding if the issues with the gaming [of] AfDs would expand beyond it may have been unresolved and your commitment to adjustment was conditional only until the heat was off. But that's probably a different matter. Best - Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough

I suggest that the main protagonists of this drama read and reflect on this ANI advice. I am rapidly becoming convinced that Newimpartial needs a week block to get the point that when they were told to knock off the attacks it was not a suggestion. (I am not too keen on Chetsford's inability to drop-the-stick evidenced from the Request to closer bit above either) Based on today's posts of "I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes" and "is a petty decision and a stain on your participation" it is obvious that they can not do so even in this thread. Jbh ^Talk 13:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "I don't have any reason to think you'd recognize actual 'cruft if it bit you in the glutes". That is simply saying that the speaker (Newimpartial) has not seen evidence of the recognition of "cruft" on the part of the person being spoken to (Chetsford). We are becoming the language police. Communication should not be stifled unless uncalled-for derogatory comments are made. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I apologize. I became too self-interested in ensuring this was closed without a mark on my personal record, and invested into what I perceived to be lobbying by another editor. In doing so, I engaged in a period of self-promotion. This was my first time being brought to ANI and, while that's not an excuse, I hope it is an explanation. With this note I'll shut-up. Chetsford (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this thread is simply closed, quickly, with no action. It devolved some time ago into two editors trading parting shots, and it's clear that it's going to take someone forcing them to stop to actually get them to stop. A rapid close ought to do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• No action is needed here. Not against Newimpartial. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Then for the sake of all, someone close it as I suggested yesterday before someone does something which will result in sanctions which could have been avoided. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

NOTFORUM at George Bell (bishop)

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

---

In my view this talk posting is inappropriate, as I explained here. I removed it, and it has been restored. The justification for restoring it is here.

This just opens up an ugly cans of worms, on a whole bunch of levels - has nothing to do with improving the page based on RS and is really just arguing with a banned user in a place where they cannot respond. It is not what talk pages are for.

Please remove and trout. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, the post is dealing with published points on the article content. The article discusses the Carlile report and the legal standard. Per WP:TALK this is valid use of an article talk page. The claim 'can of worms' and of arguing with a banned user is inarticulate parade of horribles and assumption of bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, as I agree with Jytdog. --Tarage (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And what part of WP:TALKNO are you relying on for your bad faith? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The part about arguing with a banned user that can't respond. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you are just relying on your bad faith. Not on WP:TALKNO or WP:TPO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit war it then if you feel so strongly about it. Two editors have told you otherwise. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Told me? You have no basis in WP:Talk for what you have done, we don't rely on your ipsa dixit. And your 'I'm an editor, I say so' is just ridiculous diversion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alan, I don't get it. Are you proposing any changes to the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are edits to the legal standard(s) discussed/recommended in the Carlile report, which is an issue of civil vs. criminal - it requires background understanding of the opinions on which standard should be and were applied, and of course how much to go into it. The article [206] currently highlights the Carlile criminal standard without discussing the Carlile recommendation for the civil standard. Also, the fact of police investigation and opinion, which was co-commitment with settlement is now not discussed (it has been removed), at all (except that there was a referral), and perhaps that is right but the talk page is for exploring that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the article being proposed as a ref? The thread isn't about improving the article, should be redacted so it is focussed on the article and specific proposal to include it as a ref. As editors, we can get our background understanding from outside wikipedia, as with any article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The ref is being used as outside background understanding for Wikipedia editors, that's how the thread uses it, so as you say it uses it the way Wikipedia editors use it in improving articles - as for it being a ref in the article, not without discussion, See WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:BIASED and Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not news, it's opinion. And as long as you're throwing links around, how about WP:DAILYMAIL, actually -- or had you forgotten that? --Calton | Talk 11:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not say it was news, so what are you talking about, the links I linked to are about opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, surely the only valid way to talk about this article is if we want to include it as a ref. Calton, the article was published in the Spectator! Was also published in the Mail on Sunday which is surely excluded from WP:DAILYMAIL (e.g., all Daily mail links are gone from the article author's page, the Mail on Sunday links remain) but if we were to use this article as a ref (perhaps on Criticism of Wikipedia but not the Bell article, IMO) we would surely use the Spectator url, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely there is not one way to talk about a published article. The ref deals with the subject of the George Bell investigation. If you want to talk about Wikipedia criticism, which I have not referred to anywhere, let alone on the George Bell talk page, then that is another matter but it's not, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your post was very clearly all about arguing with Hitchens. You quote his piece, and argue with the quoted bits. As I noted at your talk page, his blog has a comment section where you can argue with him to your heart's content. I understand the impulse -- I drafted a comment on his post in his Mail column about his banning, and then closed the tab instead of saving it, with the Philip Cross mess very much in mind.

Hitchens is banned and there is no good in arguing with him here; folks can argue with him there if they like, but then they should stay away from anything related to him here per the Cross case; what he writes are opinion pieces so they are of minimal value in any given article as sources. So there is really not much good for WP or for any individual editor in engaging with him or his pieces. In my view. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No. My post was directly addressing facts and opinions in the George Bell matter, I only discussed parts on the George Bell matter. Whether you like the source or not is irrelevant, we discuss matters even in sources we don't like. My interest in my post is only discussing facts, propositions, and opinions in the George Bell matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing? I can't see any. You are giving your opinions about the article but Bell's talk page isn't the place for that. You could use your personal space or talk directly to him via Mail on Sunday. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered this above - discussions on talk pages are for raising issues on coverage of facts, propositions and opinions, and that's what I was doing. If you have a question or a comment or a critique about the facts, propositions and opinions discussed then discuss it on the talk page. That is article development process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As a general comment even with BLPTALK concerns, discussing how a topic is being covered in sources that are not appropriate for WP (like Daily Mail now), but are popular enough that will possibly create a stir that will end up affecting the coverage of the topic seems perfectly in line with talk page guidelines. In a case like Bell, where there is seemingly a lot of misinformation or questions being tosses around across all sources (RS and non-RS), having awareness of what those are and how that could impact the article. In the case of the Hitchings opinion piece, if it is/has been published in the Daily Mail, there will be people coming to WP to try to "correct" the affected articles, so I see no issue with Alanscotttwalker focusing on points that will likely be targets of these new editors to pre-emptively shut them down. Preventing vandalism of this type is improving the article, so is 100% fair talk page use. --Masem (t) 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitchens hasn't asked people to vandalise the article and there are plenty of eyes on it already. People can get their awareness of Bell from Google. Alanscottwalker, I am sure we could have an interesting discussion as I disagree with your opinions but Bell's talk page is not a forum. I don't know how I would respond to you in an appropriate way on the talk page, appropriate meaning focussing on the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential draw of new editors to a WP article does not necessarily require an external source to tell their viewers/readers to edit WP; it's the fact that WP is mentioned tied to this is enough that I would (and I did, over at WP:AN a few days ago) that this exists out there. Not necessary to take any editing action, but just to prepare for potential incoming new/IP edits. --Masem (t) 15:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Richard, Come now, it's difficult to believe you know how to say 'well, I disagree with [whatever you you disagree with], (and note to disagree with anything I wrote requires not one wit of discussion of the author, because nothing I wrote discusses or even mentions the author - the comments I made would apply to any journalist who wrote what I was writing about), and it's also difficult to believe you don't know how to ask 'what impact might this have on the article?' if that is the question you have. Do you not know the article discusses the Carlile report and what lead up to it? That subtopic of the article by its very nature is filled with facts and opinions from multiple angles (just read the Carlile report, if you don't think that). And yes, passim Masem, it is exceedingly important to the integrity of Wikipedia, we keep very clear the demarcation of facts and opinions straight in such a matter (see, WP:NPOV, and see the first section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch especially 'attribution' and 'said'). As for any insistence of having to have a worked-out concrete edit proposals at the beginning of the discussion, that's not only contrary the consensus use of talk pages and therefore wrong, but it makes absolutely no sense to bar discussion before a proposal may arise (that odd claim of 'don't discuss before proposal' is basically backwards). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to take much more of my time with this. You quoted Hitchens' piece, and argued with Hitchens' points. Not somebody else. Hitchens' piece is not used as a source. There are a kajillion opinion pieces about the Bell affair, and we are not currently citing any, and we are unlikely to cite any. What you think of what Hitchens thinks is not something that belongs on the article talk page. Both are irrelevant with regard to improving the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

But your assumptions and conclusions are still wrong, my actual talk page comment is wholely focused on ideas related to the article, not person. At the time I wrote on the talk page, the George Bell (bishop) article discussed a referral to the police, without relaying what came of the investigation, and the George Bell article prominently uses "found" when discussing opinion, which MOS warns confuses fact and opinion. The article also only relates part of that opinion and not the opinion on using the civil-law standard. The few quotes in my comment (aimed at dividing fact and opinion) relate solely to these issues, and they are very few in relation to the entire long published source. Now, if you read the Carlile report, you will see that the author of the published source is described as a person representative of other people ("people such as") interested in the George Bell matter, and as a journalist who hosted a laudatory television program on George Bell. [207] pp 25 and 52. So, while it's not just anyone-off-Fleet-street in relation to Bell opinion makers, it is still the case as far as the talk-page comments I made: no mention or discussion of the author is needed or done. Again, my comment is only focused on ideas, not person. The article is likely prone to the fact/opinion blur, which I addressed in my comment and all in the context of the sub-topic of the George Bell (bishop) article. All this is what WP:Talk says we do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I recommend that some admin close this tread and trout Alanscottwalker already. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to be here, fine, but repeating of your demand from your OP is needless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Masem. I find it next to impossible to view this deletion as justifiable under WP:TPO, not to mention simple norms. Force-deleting talk page comments is extremely rare and is virtually never done to an established editor in good standing, even if their comments are somewhat off-topic. The comments were clearly related to the article, and the alleged motivation that ASW simply wanted to "argue in a place Hitchens can't respond" is nothing more than an aspersion based on a bad faith assumption that I don't see as being justified. I'm inclined to restore the comment, and please don't delete other editors' comments unless there's a rock solid justification under WP:TPO, if for no other reason than it creates more drama and disruption than simply letting it be would cause. Swarm ♠ 18:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no difference (except the formatting) between ASW's comment and the stuff at the Malaysia airline below. I get it that you might be wanting to slap me back a bit and I could hear that, but I call bullshit to what you wrote there. If you want to restore it and hat it or close it, fine, but please don't leave it open.
  • And User:Masem I am disappointed that you argue it is useful to "correct" prospective newbies through hypocritical action. People watch we do, not just what we say. ASW only gives his opinion in his response to http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/08/goodbye-wikipedia-and-thanks-for-all-the-laughs.html. Inviting more of the same in response, and more of the same from ASW in response. Etc etc ad nauseum. It is exactly what goes in the comments section of Hitchens' column. It is precisely not what we do here, per WP:NOTFORUM. There is no policy-based justification for that post to remain, especially not on a page where we have a banned editor railing in the British press. These are the situations to heed NOTFORUM more, not less, and certainly not selectively.
  • I wonder at what point either of you would find it valid to halt and hat the discussion if the post remained, and people came and argued with ASW's response to Hitchens, on the same grounds as he argued with Hitchens. None of which has anything to do with actual article content, but rather the general topic.
  • The correct answer to people recruited to the page by Hitchens' column is "Neither your opinion nor mine is valid here; we generate content summarizing reliable sources based on the policies and guidelines." Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC))
    • I don't buy it. When we know a topic has drawn attention from some external event (like an article published in a well-read paper even if that paper is not an RS for us), we should be proactive in at least preparing the talk page (we can't proactively protect pages unless its something like a Colbert effect). And I don't see anything in ASW's commenting on the points specifically relative to the article on Bell (and not to how Hitchings was treated by WP admins) that is trying to extend the discussion, but simply precautioning, point-by-point rebuttals so that if Hitchings or any reader wanted to try to argue, our talk page is prepared. Trying to say that ASW was purposely extending the discussion with Hitchings on the talk page is throwing aspirations at what ASW did. (The only caution I would have to this approach is that if the external article introduced a crazy accusation against a BLP with no support, evidence, or the like, we should not be repeating that if no other RS is repeating that either. Could AWS worded the section header/lede better to make sure it was not meant to be a start of a discussion? Sure, but I see zero harm against WP, talk page use, or BLPTALK here. Importantly, WP needs to be very much aware of what is happening beyond the bounds of RSes to be able to properly fight vandalism and other potential problems, which is all part of article improvement - its to avoid disruption, which is always an improvement. --Masem (t) 23:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • User:Masem -- If you glance at the talk page as it stood when ASW posted, you will see that there was already a note posted about Hitchens' blog/Spectator columns. There was no "alert" function in ASW's post.
      • ASW's "point 1" is taking issue with Hitchens saying The police, in England, have precisely no statutory role in the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by the dead.". There is no dispute in the article about whether to say anything about whether the police had any "statutory role". There are no sources even brought to determine if we should. This is just ASW arguing with Hitchens about something irrelevant to the article.
      • ASW's "fact 2" it is a legal absurdity for any English tribunal to say it has found no reason to doubt an allegation". ASW's response is That's not even masquerading as fact, it's all opinion. That could not be more clearly just arguing with Hitchens. In addition, there is no dispute in the article about whether to say there is a legal absurdity here. This is just ASW arguing with Hitchens about something irrelevant to the article.
      • ASW's point 3, has to do with Hitchens' focus on Carlile's finding that no prosecution would have been brought. This point actually is somewhat relevant - in the section above KingsIndian and I were discussing exactly what to say about that specofic Carlile finding. However, neither KingsIndian nor I based anything we were saying on Hitchens' perspective or blog/Spectator piece (the content went in and stayed in the article because there are 2 high quality independent RS that are simply reporting on the overall case, which mentioned that part of Carlile's finding). And in any case what ASW wrote about that, was irrelevant to any analysis of whether we should include discussion of that or not. So, again, not about improving the article in any way that is relevant to how we write articles.
      • ASW's summary statement So, all in all, let's keep 'fact' and 'opinion' delineated appropriately, especially in matters of controversy. has nothing to do with any actual ongoing discussion or confusion - it is directly solely and squarely at Hitchens.
      • What ASW was doing there, was just arguing with Hitchens. I understand the impulse, as I noted above. That doesn't make it any more appropriate to do on this or any article talk page, on any level.
      • The harm is a) it invites more of the same (I note that you didn't answer how to handle the inevitable opinion-based counter argument, and opinion-based counter-counter argument, etc); b) it is not what article talk pages are for in spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines; c) there is just something icky and unfair about arguing with Hitchens in a forum where Hitchens cannot respond. I won't go so far as to say "BLP violation" but it is just... ick. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I read the same three points as ASW address any person that might read Hitching's column in the DM and come to argue those points on WP. Maybe points 1 and 2 aren't even in the article now, but I can easily see readers of the DM coming to address "Why doesn't WP cover this important fact?" ("Fact" as defined by them) Unless there is additional evidence that AWS purposely added that forum post to debate with a banned editor (and I'm working under the good faith assumption ASW knew Hitchings was banned), a good-faith reading of ASW's action with that post seems to only be preppring for the inevitable debate from new IP/editors. Were I in AWS's place, I might not necessary have addressed each point by point but I definitely would have brought attention that article existed in the DM and prepare editors to deal with any readers of it that would come to complain. This is particularly of note in how hostile Hitchings' post is towards WP. No, it doesn't call for action, but its in between the lines there. If anything, this is a trout situation at this point. ASW should probably know just to caution about such articles and not worry about the point-by-point until it happens, and others need to assume more good faith in talk page discussions from established editors. --Masem (t) 02:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It's perfectly reasonable to expect fans of Hitchens to read the column and come to the article to try to argue, and I don't see how a preemptive response could possibly considered disruptive enough to warrant unilateral deletion. Masem is exactly correct that the AGF reading accepts that ASW's stated motivation here is the truth, and AGF is non-negotiable unless there is evidence to the contrary, which I'm still not seeing. You can have the opinion that it "doesn't improve the article", but that doesn't actually give you any right to delete good faith comments from established editors. I find it very unconvincing that ASW simply wants to argue in a venue where Hitchens can't respond and thus chose that talk page to do so. Is there anything to indicate ASW carries a grudge against Hitchens? Is there anything to indicate that ASW has a problem with using talk pages appropriately? If so, then present evidence to justify the bad faith assumption. If not, simply let him say his piece and move on. Swarm ♠ 03:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog's assumptions and conclusions are still wrong. No, I have no grudge, the aspersion regarding me is false. Jytdog's 2:43 comment also misrepresents: by twice leaving out the crucial and prominently placed word, "Fact", which I most intentionally included in my post. Read my single post comment as a whole. Although there seems to be grudging admission now, days later, that at least part of my comment was pertinent to the article, it misses the context that each part builds the sum of the whole, and actually all my comment was pertinent to the article. "Fact" is crucial because my comment was directed and motivated by keeping fact and opinion straight in the George Bell matter, and I was thinking of the George Bell article, not the published-source author - the George Bell article already discusses both fact and opinion, so it is still and of continuing importance to keep them straight. The things I was thinking about in the George Bell article, are the alluded to police investigation, which also ties to the criminal (reasonable doubt) and civil (probabilities) standards, which are mentioned and alluded to in the article, which also ties to the Carlile report's treatment - the Carlile report is both subject and cite in the article (see also, the issues like using "found" when discussing opinion). These things are what motivated my single comment - I deny that I was trying to carry-on against any User (banned or otherwise) that claim is just false aspersion, and was never in my thinking -- the talk page is open for multiple past and future posters to discuss sources used and not used on the subject. Jytdog's 'icky' claim is 'icky' because his attempted smear is what would bring the project into disrepute, not my post. The post I made is both in the spirit and letter of policy, the removal of the post and the bad-faith, are not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, This Jytdog claim against Swarm, being personal, "I get it that you might be wanting to slap me back a bit". Appear to be unaccountable personalization, smear, or aspersion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm and Masem - at no point did I say or imply that "ASW simply wants to argue in a venue where Hitchens can't respond and thus chose that talk page to do so". I have said that ASW wanted to argue with Hitchens (this is obvious); I have said that the effect of doing that on the talk page is unfair due to Hitchens' inability to respond (i did not say this is intentional and I will say that I do not think ASW intended to do that); i have said that it was bad judgement on several levels. Bad judgement happens (as both of you are saying here, with regard to my removing it). It is not about "good/bad faith" it is about "judgement".

Neither of you have responded, as to how you would respond to Hitchens' fans coming and responding on the same basis. Please do look at the comment, and imagine how things play out if fans of Hitchens would come to the talk page, see that, and want to respond exactly in line with what is there.

I've proposed a resolution; namely that the comment be re-instated and closed or hatted per WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

On the last point as to resolution, that's 100% fair. I've said trouts all around on the matter.

But on the hypothetical, Hitchens' readers would likely come to the Bell talk page and post Hitchen's points, possible word for word, and arguing why they aren't included. It would be wholly inappropriate to delete those comments (the talk page is not under any DS or 500/30 as was the case in GamerGate), so they need to be addressed, and what ASW replied to seems like the current consensus on the matter for the state of the article; Hitchens' points cannot be included for various reasons. Doing it in the way ASW did now gets a jump on that and may eliminate much of the back-and-forth from these readers that do not understand WP policy on these types of controversial subjects. Even if Hitchens' readers came to the page and asked those points, that would not be consider NOTFORUM, because part of our duties as established editors is to explain how we handle these types of topics to new editors/readers, otherwise we are just being BITEY and not being an open wiki. --Masem (t) 14:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, we have a resolution. We won't agree (apparently) on whether the post was useful or appropriate, but we don't have to. :) I am hearing the pushback on this type of behavior from me, from you and Swarm. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day, regardless of whether one thinks of it as a NOTFORUM violating post, WP:TPO does not give reason to remove ASW's post (the two cases where removal is warranted do not apply) You could have hatted it, you could have said, "Hey, NOTFORUM, I would not continue this", a number of other steps that did not include removal, and we'd not be here. Unless there are specific DS applications on the talk page itself, redacting others' comments that are otherwise not violating any talk page / BLP talk page policy/guidelines is inappropriate. --Masem (t) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not true that I wanted to do anything to Hitchens, I wanted to discuss, even critique if you like, published sources on the Bell matter -- I only spoke of ideas on the Bell matter -- two sources actually, one in the article (Carlile) and one linked in my talk page comment, both in relation to dividing fact from opinion for the George Bell article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker that is not what I said; what I said -- and what you did -- was post specifically to argue with Hitchens. I don't think you thought through what you were doing but I really don't care why you did it. You did it. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Specifically" and generally, the source-author is irrelevant to what I wrote. What I wanted and did was to comment upon the linked, and Carlile sources' Bell related facts/propositions/ideas/opinions, and what they may mean for the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Masem - there are three reasons why the post was bad: 1) not about developing content; 2) unsourced opinion about an opinion-source that we are very unlikely to use as a source; 3) arguing with a banned editor within WP. This is a very weird situation where the banned editor has a newspaper column. I get it that you don't care that ASW was actually arguing with a banned editor who was carrying out the dispute here in his column, and who actually cannot respond here in WP. I don't understand why you don't care about that. But we are not going to agree. So shall I restore ASW's comment and hat it, or will you do that? Let's move on. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

1) The post was and is about developing content, which is why it discussed Bell matters related to the article. 2) The discussion of the sources in relation to the Bell matter is discussion of the sources in relation to the Bell matter, and is what we do on talk pages. 3) The purpose and manner is to discuss sources, regardless of author (at no time did the author enter into my comment). If you want to argue with someone, go ahead, but my purpose was not to argue with any one person, it was to discuss/critique/elucidate what sources may mean in relation to the article development. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (←) @Jytdog: I'm fine with the compromise solution because this isn't getting anywhere. Just so we're clear, I have no desire to "slap you back a bit" nor am I attempting to convey "pushback on this type of behavior". I appreciate your efforts to enforce talk page guidelines and I appreciate you as an editor. I find it unusual that I disagree with you on something, and as the OP I'm sure you are surprised as well. However I quite simply disagree with your deleting of a comment from an established editor that can be reasonably construed as having constructive intent. There's a fairly high threshold for force-deleting a talk page comment per WP:TPO, and I get that you and others feel it's not a constructive post, but I'm just not seeing it qualifying as "prohibited material" when assessed in good faith. A closure can be appealed if an editor objects, but a deletion is completely dismissing the content as disruptive and the is left with no recourse but instead the implication that they are being disruptive and will be blocked if they persist. I don't see that as being the situation here. Swarm ♠ 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As compromise, I would agree to boxing the comment (this discussion is closed) although that is sad when discussing sources. No, to collapsing and we collectively do not have consensus on Forum issues (so, 'closed per compromise'). Would you like me to do it? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks for your very clear and kind response. I hear you. It is weird that we see this so differently.

I can only acknowledge that you and Masem don't read ASW's post the way I do. I will yield to whatever the consensus here is of course, and will (finally) stop repeating myself. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker thanks for accepting that compromise. I don't care who does it. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've done it. Thanks to both parties for agreeing on a compromise in spite of a stalemate. If there are no other final thoughts, this can be closed. Swarm ♠ 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk page discussion closings

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

---

There are discussion closings at Talk:Sarah Jeong by non-administrators who are also active on the talk page and are, I think, showing excessive zeal in shutting off discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with the points raised by people seeking to initiate the stifled discussions, but hatting such discussions is disruptive when the grounds for doing so are shaky.

In closing this one, for instance, the closer shut off a discussion that was directly about the article on thin grounds. Yes, I agree that "other stuff exists" and I would not agree with the discussion initiator, but the grounds for hatting were, in my view, incorrect. This was a discussion of the article and not a general discussion of the subject matter. And closing a discussion because we don't allow "statements based on editors' thoughts or feelings" would result in closing most talk page discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is exactly relevant: if editors want to complain about the subject of the article, they can go write a blog. If you want to help construct a neutral biographical encyclopedia article, you participate in the discussions and leave your personal opinions on the subject out of it. Jytdog rapidly shut down the discussion you linked to because it's not relevant to the topic but keeps being brought up by anonymous trolls. We're not here to entertain that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There's context needed here though. There's been a concerted effort to include specific information about Sarah Jeong on her page that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as part of a protracted off-wiki campaign to get her fired. There are multiple talk threads further up and active where specific edits have been discussed and consensus reached, including several mentioning the handling of Roseanne Barr compared to Sarah Jeong. However the campaign has led to a steady influx of SPAs and IP editors who refuse to listen to the responses that have been provided regarding the interaction of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:TWITTER policy and who insist on creating new threads to rehash arguments reframed to their terms. - I know I've got some concern that the insertion of these frequent, forumy, posts on her talk page are an attempt to game the system - and so I've gotten a bit pointed about hatting repeated and forumy posts. I've also gone to user pages to suggest they search for active threads to participate to and make sure they are framing their discussion as explicit content requests [208] - and I know others on the page have as well. However we have a situation where editors who are not interested in building an encyclopedia are attempting to use talk to forward an agenda of creating a controversy to get a journalist fired which is morally galling even aside from the above cited policy issues (for those keeping score these include WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:TWITTER, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE) so there's a preponderance of reasons to be a bit pointed here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There may very well be a concerted off-wiki effort. However, by closing discussions early you've shut off the ability of established editors to address the points that are being made. They are not all bogus. It is frustrating to want to participate in a discussion and see it chopped off the way these have been. Frustrating not just to the discussion initiator. If they are allowed to run a bit longer, I think that there might be a reduction in the amount of heat rather than an increase. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Except, as I just said, the only closed discussion threads with any substantive edit suggestion are duplicates of currently active conversations further up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There's always some duplication in talk page discussions. Also I wanted to add that my perspective here is that of an editor who would like to participate in some of these discussions, such as the one I linked to, but can't because they are hatted. I have not personally experienced having a discussion I initiated being hatted here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Forking discussions from discussions already in progress is undesireable - it leads to situations where discussions on the same issues conflict with each other depending on who participates, or who has the energy to participate in both. Just participate in the ongoing discussion. If that closes but leaves you with an unresolved concern, then open a new discussion. I don't think the Roseanne discussion is the one you were referring to, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne is discussed in this current active thread and a few that were subsequently closed [209] Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Then the appropriate remedy in such situations is to point that out as a response, which was not done. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I discussed it here. The editor subsequently deleted my comment from their user talk page. [210] And this was done on the talk page right here [211] Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This speaks to the problem of the sheer volume of SPAs and IP editors we've been seeing here. So many new accounts are opening up so many new threads, and they aren't listening when they're directed to existing threads. There were at least three conversations where Roseanne Barr's tweets, and Wikipedia's handling of them, were discussed in detail. One was open. Another had been closed with a strong rationale for what had been decided. But new editors kept creating new threads to open the topic up again, and it's frustrating. Certainly agree with Ivanvector (talk · contribs) that increased admin patrols here would be a very good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I had in mind saying in the discussion, instead of hatting and lecturing the discussion initiator on how they're breaking the rules, something like "Duplicative, see XYZ section above." Yes more admin patrolling but please ease up on the hatting. It comes across as an effort to stifle discussion and there is no surer way of promoting oppositional behavior in the troll community, in my experience. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I must admit looking at the talk page history it looks a lot like an edit war. Some of the topics closed appear to be suggestions to add content with examples of text and sources. While some of the removes, closes, and hats are appropriate, perhaps the clerking of the article is starting to go to far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the clerking is a tad aggressive, but so is the trolling. Maybe some more active and interested admins can add the page to their patrols? I'm not really interested in this myself, I just removed one thread which was an overt BLP violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• We lost a lot of editors over Gamergate, and in my view some of what happened in Wikipedia around that could perhaps have been mitigated if the editing community had a) moderated discussion much more carefully and b) required a higher level of sourcing from the beginning, and stuck with that (as a community we have a hard time sustaining things, sometimes). We are doing pretty well on both fronts in the Jeong article so far; DS were invoked early and one specific one was applied. Yes it can be jarring but it is better for everybody for the page to not turn into Reddit and remain rigorously focused on the work -- namely building content based on high quality RS and the policies and guidelines, and discussions on Talk about that also based on RS and P&G. Not anybody's unsourced opinions on things like whether Barr's tweets and Jeong's tweets are equivalent or not, as tempting as that may be. Please also see this now-archived thread about managing the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't gamergate and that is not your talk page to decide what gets closed or deleted on sight. Some of them are a problem and possibly a violation of WP:TPO. Just take it easy. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say this was Gamergate nor did I say that the page is my talk page, and I do not pretend that i have some all-powerful authoritay. Happy to take it easy. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct, perhaps I was being hyperbolic there. I also do not want to imply you are the only person. It has been a run on all fronts to that article since news broke. I am honestly a little surprised there is still news coverage on it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point re WP:TPO.Here discussions are not (usually) being collapsed, but terminated, which has the same effect. TPO says that the collapse templates "should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." I think this is a similar situation and the same restraint should apply. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• That talk page is definitely a mess with the discussions focusing on the same thing in multiple places. I've closed one but it would be helpful if other admins took a hand in cleaning it up a bit. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I think everybody would welcome greater admin oversight there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Involved parties need to avoid "moderating" article talk page discussions except under exceptional circumstances, such as BLP violations. Perhaps TPO should be clarified on that point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• We are already aware of the situation on the talk page and have been monitoring it the whole time. Did you think we weren't? Did you think it was happening without our full support? The efforts we're seeing to defame her in her BLP are extremely aggressive and thus frivolous talk page conduct is treated with extreme prejudice. I'm not seeing any improper closures. The diff you provide as an example of the problem is actually a perfect example of something that should be closed—it's just another thinly veiled attempt to portray the article subject as a racist. We're seeing such attempts in droves, and whether they're organized or simply driven by outrage, they're not coming from a good faith NPOV and are absolutely not going to be tolerated on a BLP where discretionary page restrictions are actively in use. Non-admins who are clerking the talk page are currently that article's saving grace and are doing our work for us, so that we don't need to take more extreme measures such as talk page protection, discretionary page bans, and blocks. There are a multitude of admins monitoring the page just waiting to step in if needed, but for now the situation is under control because of the users you're here to complain about. Should you have specific evidence that good faith, non-duplicate consensus-building measures are being improperly closed, you may re-report, but short of that this complaint is not going anywhere and we are certainly not going to withdraw our support for this clerking on principle alone. Closing this. Swarm ♠ 17:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Extend Article ECP, Semi-Protect Talk Page

I think that it is in order to extend the extended-confirmed protection of the article, about to expire, for another two weeks, and to semi-protect the talk page. I am aware that semi-protection of a talk page is unusual, but is not known when there has been systematic or coordinated disruptive editing by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm actually just going to implement ECP as a discretionary sanction for six months. Not sure if talk page semi is necessary. Swarm ♠ 17:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  I just extended ECP for 2 weeks, but 6 months seems entirely reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is a case where I would have endorsed indefinite ECP until it can be demonstrated that protection is no longer required, and I'm also not opposed to semiprotecting the talk page for some time. There's clearly very likely brigading going on here, and as such an exceptional response is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been going through the talk page history and I definitely agree. I don't think there's any chance the article will benefit from non-autoconfirmed participation in the near future. I also think it should be logged as an arbitration enforcement measure. What period of time do you think would be appropriate? Swarm ♠ 17:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

TBH the longest I've ever seen a talk page protected was 12 hours. I'm just seeing how far back this goes in another tab, I've clicked "older 500" quite a few times now and I'm still only back a week. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Abecedare, Ian.thomson, and GorillaWarfare: you've all revdeleted multiple serious BLP violations from the talk page since just the start of this month. Do you have any input here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's generally not appropriate to protect an article's talk page at all. However, I think it would be justifiable to protect for an extended period as an AE measure due to the fact that this is a BLP that is under attack. This is why the BLP discretionary sanctions exist, after all. I would personally be inclined to semi-protect the talk page for a month, and then reassess the situation after that. Swarm ♠ 17:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would prefer the talkpage be kept open to IP editors and that we patrol it "aggressively" to keep out BLP vios, and keep tone and redundancy within control. But if semi-protection is thought to be a better utilization of editor and admin resources, I have no objection to that either. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking back over the past few days/weeks of edits, there hasn't really been a lot of disruption from obvious IP trolls. There's some, but it has mostly been dealt with through "aggressive" clerking by admins and non-admins, as well as an occasional block. That does seem to be the way to go for the time being. The issue of threads being rehashed seems to be coming from [auto]confirmed editors as much as anyone, and semi won't address that. If disruption picks up then a request to WP:RFPP referring to this discussion (closer: please provide a permalink) ought to take care of it quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen talk pages that had long semi-protection, but those were invariably longtime sock targets. That's not what we have here; the way this talk page has gotten out of hand is new to me, at least the extent is. I don't support protection for now; I do support strict hatting, preferably accompanied by "already discussed, see [[Talk:Sarah Yeong#...]]" and preferably by admins (cabal members or not). Drmies (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and Abecedare. Talk pages should only be protected as a last resort, and I think that given the fairly manageable volume of serious BLP issues and the number of eyes on that page, we can probably get away with aggressive hatting, redaction, and revision-deletion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We could always put big-red-honking alerts on the Talk page announcing that we're done tolerating the campaigns much the same way that Talk:Douchebag was addressed. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

MER-C and blocking

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

---

MER-C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I became aware fo this issue at User talk:CangshanCutlery, where they are tryng to retroactively turn my soft block into a hard block by forcing the user to answer additional questions before accepting what they openly acknowledge is a valid unblock request. I pointed this out and they refused to reconsider. I decided to take a closer look and what I’ve found is not good.

For those of you not familiar, practice at WP:UAA for quite some time is to issue soft blocks for persons violating WP:ORGNAME who have made at least one edit that makes the account’s conenction to the name clear. The users’ talk page is tagged with {{softerblock}}, which lets them know that they must pick a new username (either via an unblock request or by simply starting a new account) as well as informing them that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of what name they are using. This method is intended to strike a balance, making our standards clear but also educating the user as to what Wikipedia is and asking them to try again if they think they can edit within those standards.

MER-C seems to have adopted a much, much harsher approach. A quick peruse of their block log shows that in these same types of cases, where most admins would do a soft block (but it is within their discretion to issue a hard block if the spamming was particularly egregious or repeated across multiple pages) they are issuing the hardest possible block, with both talk page and email access revoked, without warning and often without bothering to add a block template, which why would they when they are denying them even the right to appeal? Take for example User:Terese5599. This person made a few edits to their own userpage. They did not spam. They wrote about themselves on their userpage. Not really helping but not harming either. MER-C deleted the userpage and blocked them in the manner described above, no talk page, no email, no chance of appeal, all for making some edits about their own hobbies and interests on their userpage. This is only one example, others are quite easy to find in their logs. This is appalling conduct from an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Beeblebrox: I make no comment on the appropriateness of the blocks, but the example you used (Terese5599) did attempt to spam, in a format commonly known as NTSAMR ("Nothing to say about me really"). Terese5599 is almost definitely a WP:SPAMBOT - TNT ^💖 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Soft spam username blocks are a waste of time at best and an invitation to spam Wikipedia, and MER-C should be commended for not using them. People who are here to promote themselves aren’t going to not promote themselves because we ask them to change a username. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, but actually you are very wrong about that. People who get reported at UAA are generally not sophisticated spammers. They wouldn’t be so easy to spot if they were. What they are is people who simply don’t understand that Wikipedia is not social media. Once that is made clear to them they generally don’t continue spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's an outdated view of Wikipedia that doesn't take into account what we have become. These are people who come here to sell a product, nothing more. They aren't as malicious as the firms, but they are equally as destructive. There is no reason we shouldn't treat them like we treat high school kids who make a bunch of penis jokes. There have been a few discussions about this on user talks of blocked users over the past year: all a soft block does is waste renamer and admin time. They shouldn't be made in 99% of the cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know why penis jokes are being called out as particularly worthy of scorn. What about vagina jokes? EEng 00:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In my experience in most cases they don’t come back at all, so it seems pretty effective to me. Neither of us would appear to have hard data though, would be interesting to see some. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely need more hard data about the penis jokes. EEng 00:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox I just wanted to point out that this is a spambot and very typical bot behavior. It sounds legit "My name is xxx, I am xxx years old, from xxx. I like xxx and arrested development" with <br>. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I thought I agreed with you about User:Terese5599, but then I realized that in each one of their edits, they identified themselves as someone else, and the very first one included an exlink to buy products. Good block there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• (ec) Terese5599 is a spambot, as are all the other "my hobby is ___, my website is ___" accounts (have a look at the first deleted revision). Go to the global account log and you will find literally thousands of accounts being locked, in batches of more than 50 at a time, by stewards for creating very similar pages. A CU of that account may be very instructive. As for the rest, I would only consider a soft block if the user did not edit about the subject implied in their username. It's not the username that's the problem, it's the intention of the user and it needs to be made clear in unequivocal terms that marketing and promotion isn't tolerated here. MER-C 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So, in the case we were discussing, you overrode my decision to soft block, but without actually changing the settings. This sends a very confusing, Orwellian message to the blocke duser. Also, I realized some time ago that most people who do such obvious things are not really “spammers” in the normally understood sense of the term. They simply do not understand that we don’t aloow promotion. I’m not soft on these folks, I’ve blocked thousands of them, but if all they did was created a stupid userpage about their company the soft block does the trick almost all of the time. I may not know much about spambots apparently but I know username violations. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that MER-C is far from the only RFU regular who holds these views. See the discussion at User talk:Joshkapiti. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with TonyBallioni. Soft blocks are almost always a waste of time, and I get very annoyed when I see them, which I do all too frequently at SPI. I'm not as sure about the immediate revocation of TPA. I usually reserve that for very obvious vulgar trolls and socks of known sockmasters.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• A CU confirms that Terese5599 fits the general pattern of a spambot, no sleepers in this particular case, but MER-C is usually good at spotting these spambots (per CU). I can add a couple more recent CU-confirmed examples[212][213]. The original subject of this discussion is a different type of situation, but these NTSAMR spambots are prolific and unredeemable and I haven't seen any block by MER-C to complain about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• I also agree with Tony. While "anecdotal" is the opposite of "data", I do not recall, not even once, seeing a user I softblocked and who was later unblocked for a username change go on to make edits about anything other than the company or website or whatever else it was they were initially promoting. Once in a very great while, they manage to get a (universally terrible) article to survive in mainspace, but that's as much as can be hoped for. I still softblock unless their initial edits were so egregious that they'd have merited an immediate block even without the username issue; I do so solely because that's as much as policy and practice authorize me to do. —Cryptic 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the thing, if foks want to chage the policy, change the policy. As it now stands this isn’t it and I’m pretty darn sure most regular UAA admins do it more or less the way I do. So, to have our decisions overridden is annoying at best. Last actual discussion of these issues I can recall was at this RFC in 2014, where the now -deleted Template:Coiq template, which did this same thing, was discussed and found to be out of play for soft blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple solution: don’t block unless they make a promotional edit. That’s what I do. Blocking without a promotional edit serves no purpose. I hate UAA because I find it the exact opposite of NOTBUREAUCRACY and common sense: if someone isn’t being disruptive, don’t block them. If they are, hard block them.

Also, in the case in question, a hard block would have been 100% within policy, it was a promo username with a G11 draft that you deleted here: Draft:Cangshan Cutlery Company (admin-only, sorry). What reason would you soft block them after creating a draft that included this vomit inducing paragraph of spam:

Henry decided he would leave the day to day operations in China and journey to the United States because he likes a challenge. He wanted to pursue the American Dream like all other American Dreamers from The Mayflower to this day.

For anyone else, the rest of the draft isn't any better.

TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Question: The soft/hard blocking debate aside, has MER-C made any blocks to non-spambots without providing notifications, or disabled talk or email access by default without good reason? This complaint implies that they have, and if that is indeed the case, those would be violations of blocking policy. Swarm ♠ 22:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• All you folks that are insisting that soft blocks are a waste of time and should never be used: If that is in fact the new Wikipedia policy, then please delete or rewrite WP:Soft block. Because that is POLICY, and right now it describes exactly the situation that Beeblebrox has been using it for. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, the policy here is WP:UPOL which states If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Beeblebrox apparently hasn’t been following that since he soft blocked a user who would have qualified for a hard block regardless of the username issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I was actually talking about comments like yours: “Soft spam username blocks are a waste of time at best” and “that's an outdated view of Wikipedia” and “all a soft block does is waste renamer and admin time. They shouldn't be made in 99% of the cases.” You didn't seem to modify your stance with any ifs, ands, or buts, just hard-block-'em-all. If that’s how you feel, why not start a discussion at Village Pump:Policy to rewrite or eliminate WP:Soft block? --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Because policy already allows admins to block spammers without even considering the username, and if they have a username violation and are spamming that’s a double issue. The issue here is that UAA regulars apparently use a spam username as a mitigating factor for things that would get an SPA blocked elsewhere. I don’t see the need for an RfC because the username, promotion and blocking policy are already abundantly clear that admins can hard block if there is ongoing danger of disruption, and in fact that is the only reason we should ever block. While I think soft block are a waste of time and have maybe used one twice, I’m not trying to get rid of the option for the 1% of cases where they may be useful. I just think admins should follow policy and use their discretion to actually prevent future disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m starting to feel like this is a wider problem in which we have two camps, both basically acting in good faith but at opposite ends of the problem:

1. Spam hunters: “We are under attack by persistent spammers and should deal with them as harshly as possible”
2. Regulars at UAA: “We get a lot of unfounded or unproven reports and shouldn’t be hardlblocking newbies who don’t know the ropes, but we should make it clear that promotional editing is wrong.”

Neither of these positions is wrong, but it appears that sometimes they come into direct conflict with one another when a user subject to a soft block actually appeals instead of jst doing the easy thing and creating a new account as they are explicitly permitted to do. I would suggest that in such cases it is in not appropriate for one admin to override the judgement of another and unilaterally impose extra unblock conditions, as was done here. And i would note that unless they change the block settings, as did not happen here, the user is in fact free (both by the block settings and by established policy) to go ahead and just create a new account. I use the soft block a lot. On an average day of activity at UAA, probably 10-30 times. I know I’m not alone in doing so, and this approach was developed over time through consensus-based processes. Like it or not, it is standard procedure. Back-dooring a hardblock is not the way to change a policy you don’t like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you prosecuting this? Do you accept the above statements about the user being a spam bot? You are free to use your judgment and soft-block while processing UAA, but there is no need to get knotted when one of the very few anti-spam admins exercises their judgment. Fighting spam is a lot more important than general editors realize because spam bots are becoming better at inserting promotional links and there is no army of page-watchers who will clean up. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• We get several spambots like Terese5599 a day. It's a bot, it's not a person, and it's dead easy to spot. All should be hard-blocked and the spam userpage deleted without compunction. As for the cutlery account, we get dozens like that a day, and 90% of them are here solely to spam. My personal approach is that promotional usernames that make promotional edits usually get hard-blocked, with some exceptions for charities. They are free to appeal, and some do, usually stating that they want to tell the world about their product line. Promotional usernames with no edits get soft-blocked, since they've done nothing but create an apparently promotional username, and non-promotional names that make promotional edits get warned. I normally don't alter another admin's action in cases like this, but I don't think MER-C was out of line. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Edit filter 499 (please do not discuss the filter details, it is set to private) was specifically written to detect these bots and other promotional accounts. Looking at the log you will see the spambots, the promotional accounts with obviously someone behind it, and other edits (the filter isn't perfect). I block the spambots on sight even if they don't complete an edit. I also block them with talk page access revoked because for awhile the bots were set to keep spamming on their talk page. Not as much today, but it is a habit I keep doing. I will soft block promotional user names even if they have edits. However, if I see them continue to edit their talk page after blocked, I change the block to a hard block and will revoke the talk page since they just want to keep spamming. I generally don't alter another block, but I will block a spambot where another admin has deleted the spam page but not blocked the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Labelling editors/administrators actively participating in ongoing efforts to limit the number of spam on Wikipedia as "spam hunters" sounds slightly inappropriate to me, but I am biased here as my approach when it comes to obvious spammers is similar to MER-C and TonyBallioni. The way I see this is that MER-C did not change the block settings explicitly for the purpose of not overriding another administrator's decision. Beeblebrox has a point that the declining rationale (additional unblock condition) was contradicting and could be seen as confusing (if it was a legitimate user) or overriding (for the original administrator), but I fail to see why does it really matter; regardless of the original block setting, I am under the impression that reviewing administrators can exercise discretion on additional policy considerations based on the rationale submitted by the user in their unblock request. In this case, the unblock rationale was far from sufficient and allowing them to simply change their username and spam again (in which they are quite open about it) sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. The fact that Cangshan Cutlery Company was capable of creating a new account seems rather inconsequential to me. They are unlikely to edit productively under any account, so the end result will probably eventually be the same. Just my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are so, so many people who see WP as a platform for promotion, and when somebody shows up with a CORPNAME and just adds matching promotional dreck to WP, I see no reason to do the softblock routine. (It is really not hard to see it, when a CORPNAME account adds promotional dreck about the company). I understand the kind spirit of the softblock, but that really is AGF as a suicide pact, in 2018. I support swift indefs of these accounts. I want to also say that in my view, MER-C has done amazing work to help the community find and eliminate promotional dreck and the accounts that create it. There is too much work to do trying to build on authentic good faith initial efforts that people make, and trying to clean up after the polluters in existing pages and new articles, and I urge Beeblebrox to reconsider their approach; please do. Please. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with Beeblebrox and MelanieN. Established consensus should be followed, especially for actions that occur on a regular basis. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would just query why Beeblebrox didn't try actually discussing this with MER-C first, on their talk page, rather than coming straight to the drama board slinging out stuff like "appalling conduct for an admin". Fish+Karate 09:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I admire MER-C's work in fighting spam (and have seen that constantly at the relevant venues I sometimes participate at). It seems that there was nothing wrong with hard blocking obvious bots. This thread has not been fruitful and there's another ongoing thread related to policy improvement/clarification. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

BrandonXLF

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

BrandonXLF is making a lot of untested edits to templates, and has not responded to several concerns on his talk page about these edits. The edits also don't have edit summaries, so I'm unclear what their intent is. This seems disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what to reply to on my talk page as they are all notices and statements and not really questions, I've tested the edits in my sandboxes and they worked there. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of sandbox testing, fairly major changes were made to templates including {{Current hour offset in time zone}} and {{Offset}}, after which the templates stopped working. It is generally expected that editors working on templates revert such changes when they discover the changes do not function as planned. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take the advice (and warnings) given to you on your talk page, namely Please slow down and obtain consensus before making edits to highly-used templates. - TNT ^💖 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: Could you explain why you blanked Template:Offset in this edit? If you wanted to change the name of the template, then the procedure at Wikipedia:Moving a page should have been followed instead of doing a "cut-and-paste" move. If you wanted to delete the template or merge it with another template, then the template should be nominated to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Page blanking is almost never the right solution. Furthermore, as a template that is transcluded on at least 200 pages, wouldn't blanking the template break the pages that depend on it? And according to the page history, it doesn't really look like you sandboxed your changes. Here is a diff of a change that got pushed to the main template page and produced a visible "error" message. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: When I Relocated it to timestamp I was careful not to break any pages using it. At that time it was used by only a few pages. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 21:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

How about cleaning up the issue I mentioned on your talk and at VPT? I don't want to take the time to dive into another set of templates and work out what changes have been made and why errors are occurring. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of the issue mentioned by Johnuniq above, BrandonXLF has also performed several non-discussed changes on User:Thayts/Userboxes/DST in user time zone, which is also transcluded on at least 200 pages. His edits has created numerous red error messages (Error: Invalid time) across various user pages that have included such userbox. He was first warned on 19 August by Johnuniq, the userbox was then reverted to last good revision by me after a period of time without any cleanups from the editor, with a recommendation to check his edits left on his talk page. On 20 August, he ignored all questions and notices left on his talk page, and proceeded to make undiscussed changes to the userbox again. After another revert and leaving a warning message on his talk page again, he made changes to other templates such as {{Offset}}. I recommend that you obtain consensus, sandbox all test before performing all changes, and answer the messages left by other users. But please, can you explain why you have removed large amount of codes from here and have not cleaned up the issue after being notified about the issues? –Wefk423 (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BrandonXLF also needs to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and in particular, the section about not editing other peoples' comments. [214] 31.49.219.1 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Just some comments after my notes on BrandonXLF's talk page. My biggest concern was and still is that I have no idea what the editor is trying to achieve with their edits. There are only a few reasons to edit established templates; to fix bugs, to add needed/useful functionality, or as part of usually a wider effort to rationalise templates by e.g. standardising the way they work. Which is being done is often obvious from the edits; if not it should be made explicit in edit summaries and in comments on talk pages. But these edits seem to serve none of these purposes, the editor has not made it clear what they are trying to achieve. All they seem to be doing is changing things for change sake, repeatedly breaking things along the way as they clearly do not understand how these templates all link together. Some of the problems have been fixed but there are still a handful of user pages recently added to Category:Pages with script errors with errors in time templates.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC) – an update: I think I’ve fixed the remaining problems caused by a broken module.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

BrandonXLF has been playing around and trying to make changes to time based templates, get them to auto update etc, for over 10 months now. A lot of disruption has been caused over this time as shown above, and all the way back. He was asked to stop back last year and it was pointed out that MediaWiki doesn't work the way they want it to work. I think it's time to drop the stick and move on and they're fixated in trying to get an accurate local time now in articles. Considering the continued disruption in this space I'd move to prohibit them from editing in the space of times and templates and it seems that there is a potential CIR issue with this user. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that since opening the ANI thread resulted in an immediate stop to the disruptive template editing, we would be fine with just cautioning BrandonXLF to obtain consensus before making potentially breaking changes, to revert their edits when problems appear, to take talk page notices seriously, and to always use edit summaries when making nontrivial edits - and probably also to be very cautious when working with widely-used time-related templates. We can always open another discussion here if the disruption persists. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Shanzatiwa edits

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

---

• Shanzatiwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Washington State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shanzatiwa is a new editor (~300 edits).[215]

Krist Novoselic is a former member of Nirvana. He subsequently attended Washington State University. Editor has repeatedly inserted an unsourced (and false) claim about Novoselic being one of 39 WSU alumni to receive the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award since 1962, by added Novoselic name to existing prose on that article within the "Notable alumni and faculty" section.

Sequentially:

• 13 June 2018 - Editor adds Novoselic [216]; I revert with "new claim not in existing citation, failure to update the total count if valid"[217]

• 24 June 2018 - Editor readds same content via revert, without edit summary[218]; Then adds citation[219] with "Added cite' for alumni - krist novoselic" which does not reference the "Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award" and only mentions "In 2010, he enrolled in an online program through Washington State University"; I revert with "rvt; 'Distinguished Alumnus Award' not in cite" [220]

• 25 June 2018 - Editor reverts "I added a source that is reliable, plus the other people don't have sources? Stop deleting my information" [221]; adds four additional (non Distinguished Alumni) citations "citing to backup my claim, including The Rolling Stone official website as a source - the former secretary of state in washington, Krist Novoselic." [222]; Another editor revert to stable with a pithy comment [223]

• 26 June 2018 - Editor is blocked, with admin comment appended to existing "June 2018" section already mentioning RS, WP:BURDEN, and the "distinguished alumni" issue with a comment of "This is pretty much a 'one chance' block. When the block expires if you continue to add unsourced content, blank relevant info, or falsify references you will very likely be blocked indefinitely."[224]

• 9 July 2018 - After the original block warning was removed, the same admin reminds with "You blanked my final warning from your talk page, but you continue to use poor sources and overlink whenever you edit. You really need to review WP:OVERLINK and WP:RS if you want to avoid another block of your account."[225]

Note, there is a lessor and still ongoing issue with WP:OVERLINK, also called out by the admin on 26 June 2018 diff.

• 20 August 2018 - Editor reinserts the non-supporting citations via revert, without edit summary.[226]

Related, editor has very recently created both Folk soul (one "cite" of last.fm/tag/folk-soul) and Hands up (music) (four cites, similar quality/accuracy issues, and non-WP:RS) articles. Both of those appear headed to AfD.

Editor is demonstrably unable or unwilling to pair content creation/edits with WP:RS citations which support those edits. Has not changed behavior based on prior Talk page messages or prior block. WP:CIR (and lang?) seems to be the issue. While Novoselic-WSU was repeatedly flagged for the editor, in hindsight the editor does not seem to recognize the "Distinguished Alumnus Award" aspect was the narrow issue despite callouts in edit summaries and their Talk, rather that intentional insertion of false information/bad cites. However, the two new articles seem to confirm ongoing, problematic understanding of pairing RS citations and text. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Krist Novoselic is still listed in Washington State University as a recipient of the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award. Is this not properly sourced? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, still inaccurately listed. The "DAA" claim is not sourced and today's revert of the reintroduction of the non-supporting cites[227] should have been paired with removal of Novoselic's name. Expunge of Novoselic should follow, whether now/later. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate re-insertion of the false claim that Novoselic won the Regents' Distinguished Alumnus Award (after the June 26 final warning) would surely call for an indefinite block at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, done. I don't think this editor understands the concept of sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Blocked user misusing talk page

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

---

User talk:Lilpgag was blocked for vandalism and is now misusing their talk page. See this edit. Should their talk page access be revoked? EclipseDude (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Multiple new editors making similar unconstructive edits

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

---

Four users, Arsalanfasate, Rohit999ckt, Kshitijbagal, and Danielfernandes2701 have made unusual unconstructive edits. They each added a similar unnecessary definition to an article. These edits were made at similar times to each other. I am suspicious about what is going on. I'm writing this here because I'm not sure what to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arsalanfasate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rohit999ckt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kshitijbagal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danielfernandes2701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamond Blizzard (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Diamond Blizzard: Happened to see the ANI notice on a few talk pages while I was blocking. I just blocked a big group of sockpuppets including these four. In the future, the best place to report this kind of thing is at WP:SPI. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I must have forgotten about SPI. Thanks for the reminder. Diamond Blizzard talk 03:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the full list, by the way: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samadhan Gawand. Not sure if it's some sort of botched school project, but they were being disruptive and there's no professor or anything identified anywhere I can see who could have been contacted before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Justlettersandnumbers

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

---

Very unporofessional and bias editing. Agressive and intolerant behaviour. Arrogant and self-fulfilling remarks. No attention is payed to the content of the article and its importance. Very disappointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, this conversation is the background: User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Weissenburg, Zscheiplitz--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of it, more at User talk:Avhahn. No need to notify me of this now, by the way, as I've already seen it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

[228] here you go. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Ranting editor

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

---

Looks like this editor needs a cooling-down period diff:

this filthy eurocentric propaganda BS is peddled every where, the rest is not tolerated. Wikipedia should be renamed Eurocentric neo nazi piece of crap. The anthropomorh is enough evidence to demolish this eurocentric brahmi derivative of aramaic BS, we indians not interested to shoving indian history to barbarian european shit, keep your garbage to your own articles.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Add diff,diff, diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Their user page is also being used as a platform to accuse other editors of Nazism, membership in the KKK and various other aspersions. Having reviewed the articles in question their main objection is that Wikipedia neutrally covers the Hellenistic cultural impact of Alexander the Great. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, or putting it another way, WP was ignoring the "native" Indian contribution to early Buddhist art. I added a few lines to Buddhist art in response a couple of days, where he had something of a point, but he has now gone completely nuts. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and he's edit warring across several pages and violated 3RR at Sculpture. I've filed a report at WP:AN3 [229]. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Khirurg (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how is this editor still here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, in what I suspect will be the penultimate entry in the block log. Fish+Karate 12:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

One month seems appropriate length. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised? They looked to be mostly rational and productive several years ago and no edits for several years, then popped back up with this nonsense. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a little bit of odd edit history on their userpage [230] but it's pretty weak ground to establish a compromised account situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that they didn't find a receptive audience for comments like this one [231] and started getting increasingly heated over the week. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have redacted a couple of unacceptable attacks from their user page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Modernist: No real need to restore the messages to the user's talk page. In removing them, they have indicated they have read them, and that's sufficient. Fish+Karate 13:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE IP/account

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

---

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

• 188.32.53.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP refers to me as "Pan-Turkist gay".[232] He also says he will "find and destroy me".[233] This IP is most likely operated by the same person as "Lexghi Raa". Same target articles, same editorial pattern (i.e. removing long-standing/sourced content), same proficiency in English, same edit-summaries.[234]-[235] When I reverted "Lexghi Raa"'s disruptive edits on 19 August 2018,[236] and left him a note on his talk page,[237] the IP suddenly hopped in and reinstated the very same edits on the same low-profile article.[238]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon this participant adds incorrect information without sources, let him give sources188.32.53.182 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. Thanks for reporting, Louis. I've indeffed the account and blocked the IP for three months. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC).

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

Legal threat?

Can I get another opinion on whether or not this constitutes a legal threat? I'm on the fence on this one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say not. He could be talking about members of the bands or whatever are suing each other while everyone on this site plans to avoid any irregular activity involving lawyers. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I read it beginning as a legal challenge regarding the subject whose outcome could establish or alter some of the details and thus our article would be out-of-date once that has concluded. That's all fine. But then the editor gives us explicit options of "change it or scrap it altogether" (I read "suspend" to mean "delete or hide" rather than "protect from change") as part of a discussion of legal challenges to the material our article discusses? That couches it as a legal challenge to our article itself. Over the line. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Hence my problem. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DOLT. He is welcome to clarify his intent. But it's uncited and PR-tone, so it should be removed for editorial reasons. I vaguely recall a previous WP situation where one or more members of some band were suing each other or label over ownership of name (and hence continuation as the "real" incarnation of it), but I can't find it now or remember what band. Linking Climax Blues Band for reference. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DMacks, you should apologize immediately for calling Jauerback a dolt. EEng 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Better than WP:Simply Undo Changes, Keeping Mostly Yesterday's Wording, Attorneys Needlessly Grousing I guess. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I could come up with a comeback for that, but I'm laughing too hard. EEng 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the legal battle over the name Sham 69, of which there are still two bands with the same name, despite the fact that one of them has no original members in it ... that one spilled onto WP more than once! Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm kind of tempted to revert it back to March, before they started fighting over which was the real band... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is terrible. It's 90% puffery.--Jorm (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The other band mentioned above was Steppenwolf. Sorry, can't recall when, guessing about a year ago. John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Copy/Paste Userpage

There is a blatant copy/paste copyvio of this page on User:SariMitfa. I am unable to tag it under speedy deletion due to an edit filter, so I am reporting it here for administrator action. EclipseDude (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted and warned again. I'm blocking on the next occurrence. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

User Jytdog Misconduct.

I wish to report misconduct by user Jytdog in the Articles for deletion:Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_Clinic_Lerner_College_of_Medicine).

Jytdog nominated this page for deletion upon his request for speedy deletion being removed by another editor who disagreed with this action (expressed on user's Talk Page). The ensuing deletion discussion page generated counter-arguments and a lengthy back-and-forth. Jytdog subsequently hid all counter-arguments using the allegation of WP:OFFTOPIC. This change results in only pro-deletion arguments being visible. Attempts to revert these edits resulted in allegations of edit warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveland_Clinic_Lerner_College_of_Medicine&diff=855939612&oldid=855939475). Jytdog has not shown intention to compromise on this matter on his Talk Page after I reached out directly.

I am requesting administrator intervention to address this misconduct to ensure the community can see all arguments related to this case.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)