Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 11 August 2021 (→User:Shoot for the Stars: close, block endorsed & community banned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:VNHRISHIKESH

    There is a clear consensus that an indefinite block is in order in this case. They may at some point in the future (I would suggest at least a year from now) petition to return to Wikipedia if they are able to demonstrate a more mature perspective at that time. BD2412 T 02:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

    On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[1] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[2].

    Today, an IP appears[3], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[4][5]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[6] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

    Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[7] with some clarification afterwards[8]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[9] and again after being reverted[10], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[11]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[12].

    And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[13] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

    An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fodbold-fan

    Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [14] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [15] and [16] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. Part of that policy is WP:CHALLENGE: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
    In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
    Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    @Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.
    To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).
    In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time. The benefit of the doubt suggests that a warning should be sufficient and this was acknowledged. I believe there is a long-standing consensus that BLP content needs to be sourced. Some may choose to argue, but unless since somehow nullified, a 2010 Arbitration Committee motion passed that included: That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources. WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My assumption of good faith has been tainted. The editor in question may have set fire to the "rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content.
    There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards tendentious editing by disruption: "Examples of disruptive editing" #1, #2 (fails to cite sources), #4, and #5, along with "Point-illustrating" and Failure or refusal to "get the point".
    I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case? wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.
    As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this? Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Firstly, you might want to consider how the use of the word "us" in your sentence sounds in the context of Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content, which Fram referenced immediately before your comment. Secondly, higher doses of assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being WP:POINTy by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.
      Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.
      Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [31] [32] [33]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.
      What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".
    For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.
    You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.
    Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
    • From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
    • Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
    • If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other situations where an unsourced addition is a plus for Wikipedia. Quite often I see where a topic-expert who doesn't often edit Wikipedia put something really good and key in. I see it on my watch list, check it out and then source it. So with their unsourced addition they did an important service to Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded. Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no policy against adding unsourced material, and rightly so. If challenged it must be sourced or removed. If the particulars of this are making the situation unusually problematic, then some action may be warranted. IMO if not, not. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    GiantSnowman prefering style over content?

    Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. How this improves the article or enwiki is not clear. Similarly and also today, at a soccer article, they reverted[34] correct, more recent information because the older version had their preferred style. And when they are not reverting to impose style over content, they are reverting because their searching skills fail: this from today ("nothing listed at https://www.ascolicalcio1898.it/index.php/news or on Google?") is baffling, the news is all over GNews[35] and was posted at the club website a few days ago: [36] (search for Botteghin, or directly at [37]). I don't know what the reason is for all these errors, but as all these are from today only, it is becoming a real problem. Protecting the integrity and correctness of enwiki is one thing, actively making it worse again and again is quite another. Fram (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sigh. right, here we go.
    • This was using MOS - in cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove.
    • this I acknowledge that the stats update was valid (I have now restored) and I did intend to correct that, but simply forgot, and hold my hands up; the rest is all stylistic.
    • Regarding Bottenghin - as per my edit summary, I searched the club's official news page (no entry listed) and on Google (no entry listed), and so reverted the information about a BLP on the basis that I could not verify the information. In situations where I can verify the unsourced information added by other users, I do - see this also from today, which Fram conveniently overlooks.
    • Overall, I am unsure what sanction Fram wants or what they hope to achieve by posting this/following me around? If an editor I respect thinks I've done anything wrong, or could do anything better, I am all ears, otherwise I'm going away again. GiantSnowman 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "In cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove." No, you don't. There was a reference directly after the birth-date brackets (not even at the end of the sentence), to an RS[38], which clearly states "Born Tilburg 1755-05-19" and "Deceased Amsterdam 1820-11-30". I have no idea what more you could possibly want. So you somehow "missed" that reference, even though it was clearly there? Just like you "forgot" in the second case, and found "no entry" in the third case, even though they are trivially easy to find? As for "following you around", I noticed this because you out of the blue edited Adriaan de Lelie, an article I created and where the latest edit before yours was also by me. I don't really care that you don't respect me, though it is hardly civil to state so (if we all would start posting our opinions of others, things would deteriorate quite rapidly): but what I hope to achieve is that you rethink your approach to editing and to reverting, and that you get your priorities right and realise that MOS and style are less important than content, and the your own rules or the football project rules are a far second to general policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't see the info in the ref on Adriaan de Lelie, but I see it's there so re-added. Perhaps if the article was properly written and referenced in the first place it wouldn't be an issue? I fully accept I'm not perfect (I'm probably one of the few editors who is well aware of that) and I'm always looking to improve my editing, so thank you for raising it. It's a shame you could not do so on my talk page and instead came straight to ANI. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, the problem is the article, that's why you couldn't find the info when it was raised here, and that's probably why you claim that the Botteghin info was not available on the club website and on Google even when I gave the direct link to it here. I brought it here instead of on your talk page because it is a continuation of what started this very thread, your insistence on imposing some rules without caring for the more important issue of whether the facts were actually right and up-to-date. Heck, one of the three articles I gave above was one where you previously "improved" the article by reverting Fotbold-fan[39], thereby removing the country of birth from the infobox, and changing the correct "2019" for the U-19 team to the incorrect "2019-", even though as a 21-year old he obviously no longer qualifies for the U19 team. The more I look at your edits, the more cases I see where you make the article worse. You probably have excuses for all of them, but we already had an ArbCom case for your heavy-handed and incorrect "rule" over football articles (and others), and the same issues were raised in this discussion already, so the "you should have first come to my talk page" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, 21 year olds are eligible for the under-19 team. I am not sure of the exact regulations, but I know for under-21 level players born after 1 January 1998 are eligible for the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (so players up to age 23). See all the 21+ at 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads. GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS either take me back to ArbCom or leave me alone, thanks. GiantSnowman 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are trying to prove that 21 year olds can play for the U19 teamby pointing at the U23 rules? Perhaps you could just have checked the 2021 UEFA European Under-19 Championship instead? "players born on or after 1 January 2002 eligible to participate." For the new competitions, see [40], where the year has been changed to 2003. So no, he wasn't eligible recently, and won't be eligible in the future. As for your PS: ArbCom is started when the community can't resolve an issue, and isn't intended as some "I don't respond to anything beneath that level" get-out-of-jail card. You know full well that an Arb case would be speedy declined as other attempts at dispute resolution haven't been exhausted. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the excuse for [41]? The club website[42] just happened to change between your edit and my revert[43] 32 minutes later? Do we really need to check every edit you make now? Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my God, the website was updated in between me checking it and you then stalking my edits (which you claim you are not doing, though you clearly are). The last Wayback entry from February 2021 confirms #13. Do you want me to email the club to ask them to confirm?! Can somebody please tell Fram to leave me alone and start AGF? GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This from '1 hour ago' confirms the new squad numbers. It is therefore clear that somebody at the club has been updating the web profiles this afternoon, and Benda's happened to be updated in between my review of his profile and yours. Or are you going to still claim that I, for some unknown reason, am lying? GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What Fram is proving is that you make just as many mistakes as anyone else, yet you hold others to a different standard. Levivich 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't stalking your edits, you made an article I created worse. I am now, during an ANI discussion about your edits, actually checking your edits. It is the onl way to find patterns of problematic aditing and to see whether things improve or not (hint: they don't). Your latest defense seems to be "the website was changed when the IP edited, was changed back when I reverted, and was changed again when Fram reverted". Which looks comparable to your defenses for the other three problems from today I listed, i.e. "not clearly sourced" (er, it was), "I forgot", and "not on Google or the team website" (again, er, it was, very clearly). Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my explanation is that the IP has read (somewhere) the squad number had changed (likely on Twitter); I checked the profile and it had not been updated; you then checked the profile slightly later and it had. No more or no less than that. AGF
    And no, there is no problematic editing. The issue at the heart of the matter here is, actually, "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content added by other editors, and not always getting it quite right". Fine. Like I've said, I'm always looking to improve editing, and tbh would have received concerns much better if they had been raised at my talk page rather than you running straight to ANI. You saying "oh well this was at ArbCom a few years ago so that's why I didn't bother talking to you directly" is pathetic; the real reason you are posting at ANI is in the hope that I get in bother again.
    PS I'm not going to reply here again, if anybody else has concerns then feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Funny that (to date at least) nobody else has. GiantSnowman 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the 5 issues mentioned in this section was about "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content": apart from perhaps the last case, the other four were perfectly sourced bits of content that you removed (directly or as a revert) because you fucked up. Trying to still frame this as "trying to reference" stuff and at the same time asking that people AGF with you doesn't work. That you would have reacted better when contacted at your talk page seems dubious as well, as you made these poor edits after the problems with your editing were again highlighted in the above discussion, and you have declared that you don't respect me anyway. Neither the location nor the identity of who reports issues should make any difference in how truthful you respond (it may change how patiently and civil you reply, but those are wholly separate from the facts). Again and again here, you have tried and failed to put the responsability for your errors elsewhere ("not on Google", "not sourced", "but the U23 regulations say"...). I hope that, when you can sleep and reflect on this, you will actually change your approach (both towards editing/reverting, and towards replying to concerns). Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the lines of civility and errors, I raised these polite concerns with this user only a few days ago, to be met with these terse replies. Basically creating a biography of recently deceased people, and citing their year of birth directly from another language WP. Probably been going on for quite some time before I raised it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hello Lugnuts, I wondered when you would pop by. To clarify - I didn't say they were referenced to other Wikipedias, I said they were referenced at other WPs - big difference. Sources present (usually, but not always - some was my own Google searches) on the other WPs that I simply forgot to include on the one-line stubs here. Was the information correct? Absolutely - the only issue was that there was no source present to verify the correct information, which according to Fram et al is actually acceptable anyway??? (I disagree, and now make sure that all relevant sources are present in the stubs). Regarding civility, you're the one who used edit summaries like this, entirely inappropriate. Regarding errors, here you say that the issue has "probably been going on for quite some time" (my emphasis); but here you say it is a certainty? Which is it? Either way has the issue arisen again since you raised it with me nearly 2 weeks ago? Anyway, kudos, you dangled and I bit and responded, so I'm going away again. PS still waiting for editors I haven't had run-ins with to raise valid concerns... GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a valid concern. "I simply forgot to include" the sources? Really? I guess it's all OK, if you know the info to be correct, without anything to WP:V it. Very poor all round from you with sourcing and civility. And by "run-ins" you mean someone raising a valid concern on your talkpage which you took offense too? Oh dear. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when I (IIRC) supported sanctions against you when you were recently at ANI? Remember, when you were creating hundreds/thousands of poorly sourced, non-notable stubs? Therefore brave of you to have a pop at me in relation to sourcing... GiantSnowman 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, rather than bickering - you raised an issue, I reflected and changed my editing. Any such issues since you raised it? No. Grand. Move on. GiantSnowman 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the back of one conversation into another about some disagreement. Really, this is a storm in a tiny little tea-cup. Seems pointless to say anything else. Feels like a complete over-reaction to me. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Fram's concerns about GS favoring the MOS over content. With this edit he used the summary "birth/death place not in opening brackets - MOS:BIRTHPLACE" but instead of moving the information to the correct place he deleted it altogether. Presumably he would say it was unsourced, but the birthplace of Veliko Tărnovo Province, Bulgaria was sourced in the article [44]. The village of Dzhulyunitsa wasn't, but that specific detail could have been removed instead of throwing it all out. I only noticed this because it was on my watchlist; given GS's edit count I'm sure there will be more examples. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, where is the direct reference saying he was born in Dzhulyunitsa/Veliko Tarnovo? The source you have provided is not cited next to (or even near) the birth place, it's cited only to the 'career record'. Are you saying that I, or any other editor, needs to check every single source on an article before challenging/removing any otherwise seemingly unsourced content about a BLP? And if you had concerns about that edit 2 weeks ago, why not raise it with me at the time? GiantSnowman 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If by direct reference you mean inline citation, there was not one, but I feel to see how this material was contentious. If you feel it necessary to completely remove the fact that a Bulgarian sumo wrestler was born in Bulgaria, then cite BLP, not MOS:BIRTHPLACE - that was a misleading edit summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thank you - and I will make more of an effort to re-locate the content (if sourced) rather than just removing. GiantSnowman 09:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to own up here - I did not check the 35 references or 2 external links before making this edit, I trust I will be informed why I have done wrong. GiantSnowman 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    GS, can I make a frank suggestion? Why not just stop patrolling for a while? Let's face facts: you don't enjoy it and you're not good at it. You're not good at interacting with a bunch of different users you don't know, especially new users. You get frustrated, everyone else gets frustrated, and it's been like this for years. You're not suddenly going to become this super patient and diplomatic person who is great at teaching new users how to edit better. You've repeatedly gotten into trouble for how you patrol, even since the arbcom case. And how many times have you taken a user to ANI and hit a brick wall? Your judgments in this area just don't match up with the community's judgments. You think things are disruptive that others don't think are disruptive. Why not just do something else in the topic area besides patrolling other people's edits? There's a lot of other things to do. There's no need to watchlist and monitor ten thousand pages and deal with that much frustration. Let others with more patience do the patrolling. It'll be better for everyone that way. Levivich 13:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time don't pull any punches, Levivich. EEng 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't patrol per se; the majority of the articles in question are either on the front page (which I do review on a daily basis) or on my watchlist. I'm not going to change that, thanks. I will, as I have already said, make a more concerted effort to take on board many of the concerns raised. Perhaps (and I genuinely mean this in the nicest possible way) if you/Fram/Lugnuts stopped trying to give me "advice" I wouldn't get so frustrated here? It's not coming across as helpful in the slightest, it's feeling like harassment, a pile-on, etc. GiantSnowman 13:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you followed some of the advice, you probably wouldn't end up here to be frustrated so much? At some point, you have to realize if everyone is telling you the problem is you, the problem JUST MIGHT BE YOU. Get with the flow man.50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice, IP making their first edit in 3 days! GiantSnowman 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The sub heading caught my attention here and I wanted to say a few things. Firstly, there's no denying that Mr Snowman is a workhorse and his relentless editing on a daily basis (and on volume alone) should be acknowledged. I have no "history" with Mr Snowman, nor have I had any big "run-ins" with him, although I feel like that is largely down to how I have conducted myself as opposed to him. And by this, I mean having to ignore quite disparaging comments on countless occasions in recent years. Recently, I've seen a few things that I don't like at all about his behaviour towards other editors and this has prompted me to get involved on this noticeboard for the first time. Some of these behaviours should absolutely not be displayed by anyone on Wikpedia, let alone an administrator. Whether this be from an attitude standpoint, an interaction standpoint or from an ownership standpoint (such as editing an MOS without consensus and then forcing editors to consult said MOS to back up his point).

    My interactions with Mr Snowman have been few and far between over the years and I have no bad feeling towards him, but I have had to ignore being called a "WP:Dick" (twice), have been told to "stay away" from pages and have been told that my edits are "generally poor". The only negative messages I've received from anyone in 12 years of editing have come from him. Does it sit well with me that editors are being discouraged to edit certain pages, being told to "go away", to "get over it", being called a dick, being forced to apologise to him or face sanctions, having their edits constantly reverted using a blanket approach? This is all coming from an administrator on Wikipedia. His behaviour is actively contradicting certain core values of Wikipedia. An administrator should not be unfriendly towards editors, they should not expect editors to know everything, they should not be impatient towards editors, they should not call editors names, they should not have a "them vs. us" mentality (I really don't like the "please, just listen to us" messages he sends new editors), they should not show endless frustration towards new editors. Looking at Wikipedia's expectations of adminship I would say it is quite conclusive that Mr Snowman breaches basic policies on a regular basis. Not through his application in his editing, but through his conduct towards other editors.

    A lot of the concerns raised in this thread by others absolutely ring true in terms of what I've seen and experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia (the lack of edit summaries = CIR is my favourite one as it simply does not compute to him that the two do not correlate). The reason I have chosen to say something now is that Mr Snowman's responses in this thread do not suggest he has taken anything on board regarding his conduct towards others or how he is coming across to editors. To clarify, I am not calling for any sort of de-adminship here — Mr Snowman knows Wikipedia like the back of his hand, performs a lot of unnoticed work and is full of very good suggestions, some are absolutely spot on. It's how he delivers them that needs working on. He told me I included way too much information in my edits. I did not interact with the message as he delivered it in an aggressive manner, but he was absolutely correct and have spent the last few months thinning down articles off the back of this. I have no doubt that he's a good egg in real life and will eventually realise that how he interacts with editors is an area of improvement for him, just as he likes to point out areas of improvement for others. SBFCEdit (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That MOS discussion is painful (telling someone to follow the MOS, and then changing the MOS because, well, your point wasn't included there). And the other problems continue as well. "Vandalism" shouldn't be used for an edit where an editor combines two consecutive loan spells into one entry[45]: it may not follow the MOS, or it may not follow your preferred way of presenting stuff, but it isn't vandalism by a long stretch. And isn't some misclick either, as another edit combining two consecutive loan spells into one infobox line was reverted as vandalism as well[46]. Still reverting improvements as well, e.g. here an IP changed the player number from 10 to 16 (easily confirmed) and added the fact that he played 2 matches and scored one goal with the German U18 team (again easily confirmed). A previous editor also tried to correct these things, but to no avail; all sources may say one thing[47], but GiantSnowman has a source which says another thing so their version rules. Again, actively making an article worse. It just continues, no matter how many people here mention these issues, or how many times GiantSnowman says they'll improve. Fram (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the MOS - yes, in hindsight I should not have changed the MOS to reflect actual usage whilst in the midst of a minor dispute, but I did not edit war etc. and nobody has challenged or changed the MOS since, so I guess my edit had some merit eh?
    Regarding everything else - sigh, I am sick of having to justify every single edit I make and you only presenting half the picture.
    The Glatzel page is a great example so thanks for bringing that up. If you had looked into it properly. You will note here I actually originally added the squad number 16, based on a BBC match report. Here an IP changed the squad number to 10. I went on the Tranmere website, it showed Glatzel with squad number 10, so I left the change, presuming BBC had made a typo in their match report (as they sometimes do). Tranmere now says 16. They must have been a typo on their the website when I checked, hence the confusion (for me and the IP and others no doubt). When will you AGF??? Fram I note here you have added that "Glatzel played for England at under-15 and under-16 youth levels, but switched to Germany at the U18 level" - that is in direct contradiction to the Liverpool F.C. official profile which says "He has represented Germany as an U15 and U16 player and also represented England at youth level". If an editor is editing against what a RS says, without providing an alternative source, that is disruptive. I will not be criticised for restoring a version supported by the RS!
    out of interest, where is your source for the England youth stats? They are notoriously hard to adequately source since the FA stopped their player profiles, and stats sites like Soccerway often incomplete (they don't mention any for Glatzel).
    Regarding the 'two loans' - noted, I will use a more informative edit summary when dealing with edits like that.
    However, I, again, note that no neutral editor has yet to weigh in to say I am making articles "worse", that is just your opinion. I am being held to a standard by you that no other editor on Wikipedia has to abide by. WP:BLP is clear - 'We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". You can think I'm a dick (well, I know you do), but why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you?
    So - either propose formal sanctions, or get off my back and leave me alone. You are obsessed. GiantSnowman 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I AGF when you always claim to be right, even when you are demonstrably wrong (like with the Botteghin issue above, where you insisted that it wasn't on the club site or on Google when it was in numerous reports for some days already). Perhaps some of your excuses are correct and you were unlucky, but assome of yourexcuses were simply false, I see little reason to believe you (see also the many promises to change your behaviour, but the need of actual sanctions before you truly changed).
    For Paul Glatzel, as the other editors were clearly better informed, I believed their info. It is verifiable that he played for England U16[48]. As to "why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you", well, a number of reasons: you pretend this is mandatory and blockworthy, which isn't true; you treat editors like vandals, which is wrong; and you do the same stuff you accuse others off. Simply take the above example: you claim that you kept "10" instead of "16" because you saw it on the Tranmere Rovers website; but the number is unsourced. Here, today, you revert another editor who changed the nationality from "Spanish" to "Moroccan, born in Spain" because the "wording was fine". Well, no, the wording wasn't fine, as the player is Moroccan, not Spanish, as indicated by the very first source in the article at the time of your revert (actually, not just in the source, but even in the title of the source in the article itself!). And there are penty of sources calling him either Moroccan or Spanish-born Moroccan, but not Spanish. So, once again, you reverted a correct edit (sourced and everything) to an incorrect one, with a wrong edit summary. Or was he listed as Moroccan this night, as Spanish this morning, and again as Moroccan now?
    As for sanctions, well, you are one of these editors for whom sanctions are difficult. You make too many errors every day, and WP:BITE too many editors, to let you edit unchanged; but you make too many good edits every day to just block you or topic ban you (from football or from BLP). But the longer it takes for you to change, the closer you do get towards such blocks or topic bans, as many good edits aren't an excuse for everything else. I hope some other editors chime in and suggest some ways this can be resolved. (Oh,a good start would also be to stop attacking everyone who sees problems with your edits. WP:NPA applies to you just as much as to others). Fram (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser

    I changed the short description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that it does not repeat the title of the article. User Debresser (talk · contribs · block user) started reverting me over and over again, demanding that I first establish a consensus, which is ridiculous because the change I made is minor and non-controversial. Also, with his latest edits there, he reverted not only me but another editor as well, without explanation: link. I asked for help at WT:SHORTDESC and the feedback there basically confirmed my point. It is unacceptable to allow this user to waste so much of other peoples' time and effort to make edits as obvious as mine was. He is banned in the Palestine–Israel topic-area, and is constantly being blocked for his edit-warring. Debresser is polluting other users' editing with his lack of judgement and WP:OWN, and should be blocked for good. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If your edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed WP:ONUS and WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Triggerhippie4, this page falls under WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While it would've been better for Triggerhippie4 to open a talk discussion, I agree that such minor non controversial changes don't always require for editors to talk. Moreover, they already asked about the change in the shortdesc, and the responders pretty much agreed with them. With that being said Triggerhippie4, if you get reverted multiple times, at that point it's probably better to open a discussion as clearly the user disagrees with you and they'll be right to point out WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:
    1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
    2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
    3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
    4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
    5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;
    Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.
    Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?
    Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: First rationale you reverted me with was "Why would we do this?", despite that I explained why in my initial edit. Then, you reverted saying your version is "Not redundant" (just false) and "Keep in line with other country articles" although your version is not the rule (see COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom). It's not "higher moral ground", but disruptive editing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you truying to keep this discussion from being automatically deleted by replying after almost precisely a week of no comments?
    Your first edit summary was "changed description to be different from the title", and that is really a non-explanation. Which is precisely why I asked "Why would we do this?", meaning: why would we want the short description to be different from the title if the title is descriptive in precisely the right measure?
    Also, in view of your claim of "disruptive editing" and the underlying bad faith assumption and obvious misjudgment of my motives, I will now change my opinion below that you indeed should be blocked, as an editor who has demonstrated not to be able to positively participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: When facing an edit you don't understand, the proper way is to get yourself familiar with the rules on the subject, or to ask about it on the talk page, not to revert. Even after I provided you with the link to the policies (WP:SDNOTDEF, which answered your question), you continued reverting me. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You confuse "not understand" with "disagree". A usual problem of tendentious editors. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser take it from someone who has acted sub-optimally in the past, I strongly advise not acting sub-optimally. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying it is good. Or that I do so every time. But punishing an editor for it is wrong. There is always the question, who was the most wrong here. And IMHO it is very clear that the editor making a change is the one who must show consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

    Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that today Triggerhippie4, even after all that has been said above about the inappropriateness of this post, still continues calling my reverts "disruptive", thereby proving an underlying bad faith assumption and, worse, an incapability to understand his fellow editors. Since this is not the first case where Triggerhippie4 has entered a bitter edit war, which he simply doesn't know how to stop (short of breaking 3RR), I think it is time we cut our losses, and indef block this editor. I am referring to Template:Jews and Judaism, where the same thing happened in November 2020, that after edit warring about his changes, he took me to WP:ANI over what after all is really a content issue (because of his inferior and unexplained edits). This editor does not seem to understand that things need no necessarily go his way, and that the community (as in WP:ANI) is not here to help him get his way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: How can you hold a dispute from the last year against me (which ended with no sanctions), when you were blocked three times this year? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The above behavior is just more evidence of the behavioral issues that Triggerhippie4 is displaying. Triggerhippie has not displayed any remorse or reflection over his behavior which numerous Wikipedians have explained is problematic. Remember Law of holes. It may do some good.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#User:Triggerhippie4,_user:Gidonb,_user:SoaringLL. This is not a one time issue for Triggerhippie4. This user seems to have a history of trying to browbeat others in an attempt to win editing disputes.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at Triggerhippie4 past ANI encounters and found another incident where he made spurious accusations against Debresser and was rebuked by the community:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Debresser. This is a chronic behavioral problem stretching over a year.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, IP editor, for doing what I should have done, weren't I so disappointed with Wikipedia "justice" (read sarcasm and dripping blood). Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cold Season - topic ban proposal

    Since last year's ANI thread concerning User:Cold Season's behaviour, Cold Season has continued to display strong ownership behaviour, casting aspersions, and POV pushing through deliberate misrepresentation of sources. When confronted, Cold Season dismissed other editors' concerns with an WP:IDHT attitude and continued reverting. The problematic behaviour has been discussed at Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok and Talk:Death of Luo Changqing and I don't think I need to repeat the discussion here. I believe this behaviour has become intractable and I propose an indefinite topic ban on Cold Season from editing articles about Hong Kong politics since 1997. @Ohconfucius, Citobun, OceanHok, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe, and Underbar dk: Pinging editors involved with related disputes. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsure what how far Cold Season's ownership and POV pushing issue extend beyond articles regarding events in Hong Kong from the last few years (it's not good to WP:WIKISTALK) and have proposed "Hong Kong politics since 1997" as a way of drawing a boundary around the issues I have seen. If you know other topic areas where this editor, feel free to invite other editors who have engaged with him into this discussion. Deryck C. 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To user Horse Eye's Back, I have zero disputes at the wiki article Ming treasure voyages, so that is simply an untrue statement to see what sticks, falsely based from only that I am the main contributor there. You probably only found it by looking at my recent contribution history as I'm engaged in a GA review there, nothing else. Nor is it against wiki policy to make a lot of edits in an article. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from Hong Kong topics. Wikipedia has millions of articles on topics having nothing to do with Hong Kong, and an editor with problems stemming from this one topic area might find themselves more useful in any of these other areas. BD2412 T 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You will find that all my edits have references, mostly western or HK sources, using similar wording as those sources. If there is any doubt of me misrepresenting something (I have not), then I wish for uninvolved editors/admin (rather than the clique that they often unsubtly ping e.g. [49][50] and here, whenever they see issue to gang up on) to check the wording with the references provided.
    - For the Chow Tsz-lok article, use this stable article [51] (see also the talk page Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), since it has been changed a lot from what I wrote.
    - For the Luo Changqing article, use this stable article [52].
    (because user Deryck Chan — who casts aspirations himself like at [53] ironically using a statement by me defending myself from someone else casting aspersions, like a tag team — has opposed to words as used in sources as simple as "ruling out" [54] about a legal verdict)
    The POV pushing claim is circular, as it is clear that my content does not contradict the sources when checked, but is disliked because it is not slanted to anti-government views. Providing content in full (rather than just anti-government, which is in vogue, which I also keep in the articles) is not pro-government. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Adding to that. I've provided a comprehensive list of reasons for the so-called reverts at the Chow Tsz-lok article now (see Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), disproving that this is an WP:OWN issue, rather than just me correcting misleading edits.
    Secondly, both Deryck Chan ("I need sometime to look at the bulk revert in detail " [55]) and Citobun ("I'm not so familiar with this article" [56]) have acknowledged that they have not bothered checking the article, indicating blanket opposition by a group.
    Notwithstanding that I actually combed through it and didn't just revert, unlike the accusers (see my effort and time [57] followed by a single hostile indiscriminate revert [58] opposing my work, held in place by people unfamiliar). Conversely, no reasons for the changes have been provided (in this opposite day for the burden of proof) which I like to hear. --Cold Season (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not directly involved in your recent dispute at Death of Chow Tsz-lok. I merely commented on the talk page that your behaviour has become a long-term intractable issue best dealt with at ANI. As I have said, I am COMPLETELY UNINTERESTED in getting involved with your content disputes because your Wikipedia:OWNERSHIP of these articles and WP:BLUDGEONing of associated discussions is toxic to deal with and goes nowhere – it is your way or the highway. I am amused that you would actually characterise independent, reliable news media as "anti-government" here, while closely paraphrasing Chinese state mouthpieces and Hong Kong government sources is merely providing "content in full". Citobun (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 212.85.174.201

    Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor: you do appear to be edit warring to force unsourced information onto the page. Where are you getting your information from? Slovenian Wikipedia is not a reliable source (neither is English Wikipedia - they're both user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:
    • Josip Šolar:

    Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

    • Franc Gartner:

    article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

    • Ivan Valant:

    article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me info@valy-ing.si) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit (blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were blocked from editing those pages because you were edit warring, and because you were repeatedly making changes without providing sources. You are not blocked from editing the articles' talk pages: you could go there now, and make an edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit (blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Weren't you a little quick to block them? They had the sources, just they were not particularly experienced. Did anyone discuss this issue? I wonder if it could have been resolved more amicably. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there was no basis for that block. What ever happened to the need for consensus? I've seen things like this before on AN/I ... someone unilaterally swoops in with a block on a new editor, who probably goes away confused and hating Wikipedia. Meanwhile, there are other incidents on this same page of very bad behavior being called out but no action. -- Jibal (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SinglePorpoiseAccount

    Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

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

    Evidence of sock puppetry

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

    Other problematic behavior

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

    Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

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

    If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [59]
    Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [60].
    At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [61].
    Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.
    They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.
    I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

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

    This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[62]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Evidence of sock puppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Other problematic behavior

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

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

    • Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
      Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

    This is not what I said. What I said what this:

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

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

    • Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

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

    Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[63] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[64]

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

    FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[65] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about WP:BITE. If this is the sort of response we are to expect from FormalDude when he suspects (wrongly I might add) a newly registered account is a sockpuppet, he is bound to scare off actual new Wikipedians rather quickly and permanently. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all know that SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk · contribs) is a returned user and their amusing user name is a promise that they will continue pushing their barrow. However, apart from long-and-windy commentary, I don't see any wikicrimes that would justify sanctioning SPA at this stage. I will say that an indefinite WP:ARBAP2 topic ban does not require a high standard of proof of malfeasance—bombarding discussions might be sufficient. Some suggestions for all participants: (1) You don't need to have the last word. A good way to bring a discussion to a close is to stop commenting. (2) A clear consensus overrules a clear minority so if there is such a consensus, just revert conflicting edits with a polite pointer to the discussion showing the lack of consensus. (3) If the consensus is not crystal clear, an RfC should be held to settle the issue. If invited, I would help guide the drafting and running of such an RfC. (4) There is no deadline and don't fret about replying to every edit or comment right now. (5) I will sanction SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [67], [68]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[69] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this[70] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having doubts is well justified ... FD has repeatedly called people liars and then hides behind WP:DNTL as if that essay were in any way a defense of violations of WP:NPA -- Jibal (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They may be "just observations"[71], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. None of the comments I have made at RSN are defending any editor. None of the comments so much as discuss any editor. And either diffs should be provided or that observation struck. My comments at RSN align with the community consensus on the general reliability of the discussed source publication. They are, however, among the few comments in that section to discuss the reliability of the specific source article in the context of proposed WP content - which is the ostensible purpose of RSN. It is my standard practice, when posting a new section at a community noticeboard (as I had done in the days immediately preceding), to then make comment in one or two other sections - to "pay it forward". I have no particular interest in the topic discussed, and no history of editing the discussed article. The "editor interaction" evidences nothing other than that two people happened to comment at a community noticeboard. Raising a block from 2013, which was overturned by a then (and current) Arb as an out of process arb enforcement block, blocking admin has since resigned, and which was a significant factor in that admin not being resysopped, is poor - and, in the context of an ANI discussion of another editor, is a clear association fallacy. As an observation, while facilely true, it lacks any relevance. - Ryk72 talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening.. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

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

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

    Move to warn SinglePorpoiseAccount

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

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

    Gonzafer001 bizarre behavior

    Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) may be a case of WP:CIR. Today he tagged an article I created for speedy deletion [73], without a valid rationale from the criteria. That doesn't seem like a huge problem by itself, but then I looked at his talk page, which is littered with PROD and XfD notices for articles he created on non-notable subjects, as well as notices about managing a COI and a sockpuppetry notice. They've also been repeatedly warned about vandalism and copyright violations. He also has repeatedly recreated an article about the Bellingham Metro News, of which he openly says on his userpage he is the founder and editor in chief. This all goes back to 2016. Their other edits today include stuff like this [74] and [75] as well as spamming a bunch of articles with the "sources" tag when it's not appropriate. In 2019 Doug Weller warned him for incorrectly tagging things for speedy deletion. [76] This editor clearly doesn't understand how sourcing works here, nor has any clue about what should be tagged for speedy deletion or how to correctly do it and it's wasting time and effort of people who know how to do this stuff. ♟♙ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?(User_talk:Gonzafer001) I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    *sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gonzafer001 was asked to comply with WP:PAID in July 2019 by User:SounderBruce and still hasn't complied. He and his sock have repeatedly been promoting him. They've been referred to WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk
    • Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about WP:COI) because at this point it's spam. You can't write articles here about your own company. From your responses above, I can't tell if you have competence issues or are simply refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [77] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ban proposal

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

    • Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      力, I use Twinkle on my smartphone (using Chrome in desktop mode). Aside from naturally being a bit fiddly due to the size of the screen, it works fine. Girth Summit (blether) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      力, I'm a little confused by your response... this is someone who has shown over the course of several years that he doesn't understand the very basics of how processes here work, seemingly refuses to read and attempt to understand them, and you want to give him additional tools to apply speedy deletion tags??? Editors are expected to understand how things work before using automated or semi-automated tools and those who misuse them routinely have them removed (including Twinkle). I think your proposal would inflame this situation rather than resolve it. As for NPP, he's doing it somehow, regardless of his permissions, because he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day. Bans are on behavior and don't necessarily need to involve removal of tools. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I see a new editor with a history of COI issues, but otherwise trying to improve the encyclopedia. If Gonzafer insists that the clear feedback here is not an opportunity to improve but instead complains (more) that people are "trying to censor" him, this may end with a full site block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      He's been here since April 2016, to me that is no longer a new editor. Just saying... ♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment agree that this isn't the perfect solution, but now he's broken his sig so that you can't reach his talk and claiming he didn't, doesn't inspire good faith. He's a time sink, who hasn't proven to be a net positive to the encyclopedia Star Mississippi 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, once I saw that I no longer knew if he truly doesn't understand the basics, or is just trolling. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This Editor is wasting everyone's time. He is playing Admin in comment, trolling editors and acting daft. Agreed, he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day causing a lot of work which will have to be undone, eventually. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support' indefinite ban from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected. This is a fairly even-handed remedy. Further WP:CIR issues should result in editor being blocked from editing. There is an incredible lack of competence manifest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And now he admits he's lying and playing games [78]. Obvious WP:NOTHERE ♟♙ (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This edit summary certainly looks like trolling, and I'm not happy with the explanation. The continuing issues with signatures suggest competence issues as well. This is close to an indef. I'm willing to give them one more chance to explain themselves or at least to demonstrate they understand what they should not do going forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, or support an indef block. It seems even the opposer believes something must be done. I don't see why nothing is being done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Immed block on 190.122.185.170 please

    Can we get an immediate block on 190.122.185.170 (talk · contribs) based on this transphobic edit summary, not to mention their two other edits. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Already revdel'd; good; they should probably be blocked as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to block, says already blocked. Don't see a block. I think this happens when there is a global block> HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was a global lock, or range lock, it should show up in a little red bar on the top of contribs, it does not.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain, it's an auto-block. Ran into a similar case recently, where I was able to unblock and the re-block the IP. Not being able to explicitly block an auto-blocked IP may be a recently introduced "feature". Favonian (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was indeed able to unblock and subsequently to reblock for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at their contribs again ... that revdel is incomplete. -- Jibal (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just fyi and for the archival record, this is almost certainly the same user as Correct grammar is important (talk · contribs · logs · block log), responsible for this transphobic attack with violent threats; already indef'ed by Drmies. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding these aliases for the record:
    Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    God, they're still around? Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and honestly it's hilarious to see that even after a decade and a few topic-area hops his MO has evolved less than a Torkoal holding an Everstone. This is just sad that he's utterly incapable of learning anything meaningful. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Outlander07 Nair vandal + ip gaming at 2409:4073:188:816:BC56:BC50:3785:213B series

    Outlander07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Outlander07 has been blocked in Wikimedia commons for ip vandalism and harassment[79].

    Every sock reported here is closed without investigation (and even alleged the reporters as vandals !) as he is able to misunderstand admins and check users as he is a neutral editor. if you check his edits he behaves to be neutral but is a Nair vandal who attacks thiyya,ezhava and Christians, maybe at sometimes he do a Nair vandal revert to maintain as a neutral in front of admins. He is vandalizing many articles, from these ip series, from maybe from another device.[80][81]

    see his loggedout vandalisms : [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

    See also his initial all edits, all on Nair caste [[87]]

    clearly Shows here he is a Nair ethnic vandal who is here to promote and protect Nair pages [88]. He said there : Who the hell are you?You are trying to defame the same Nair community by providing false statements even though you are from some other community than kshatriya,Nair,Ambalavasi.I know this is your cheap ajenda.Keep it in mind that the history cannot be disrupted by some idiot like you.

    I request a thorough investigation on this without any prejudice or privilege given to the user Outlander07, and block this Nair caste vandal who is disrupting Wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.194.252 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has been making repeated and unsupported claims that Outlander07 is a sockpuppet for days, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked. I probably could make this an ARBIPA block if I felt like it, but the message here alone is blockworthy on its own. The lack of self-awareness in the rant above is depressingly typical for India POV warriors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Passerby note as the clerk who processed these cases: This is an exact copy-paste of the edit request the IP made at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 (not sure why they made it an edit request since the page isn't even semi'd yet, though it probably should be). The IPs comments are also near-identical to those made by a registered user on commons. Not sure where this vendetta is coming from, but it's one that has been ongoing for a while, and the recent reports are all unconvincing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a notice on Outlander07's Commons talkpage, as is predictable the admins over there are completely missing the forest for the trees. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Transphobic/homophobic_personal_attacks. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE

    I am asking for some kind of resolution here. What that resolution is, will have to be decided here at WP:ANI.

    Kevin McE's approach to errors has been years in the making, the "my way, or the highway" approach. My first experience with this person was December 2018 Talk:Kalākaua coinage, section Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. What had preceded this, is that Kevin McE had decided to uncap job titles, which were official US Treasury titles. He was reverted by Wehwalt, and the scenario was repeated. After this, I forgot all about this editor.

    Since 2018, I have not crossed paths with Kevin McE, and his latest behavior has nothing to do with any of my editing. I feel like DYK, its admins and other editors, are currently under attack by Kevin McE. There is now a spat initiated by this user over multiple pages, because of a main page DYK hook. Please see:

    • 90 minutes after I notified Kevin McE about this discussion, he has inferred an editor on this Alica Schmidt talk page shows "the height of irresponsibility, inconsistency and cowardice" Diff 1 This is not right to malign the character of other editors. It is evident from that latest addition to that thread, that he was already aware he had been reported here. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand everything that is contained therein, the main page error occurred because of a change made by the Olympics, and no one at DYK was aware of it. Nevertheless, DYK takes responsibility for its errors. We do our best to correct errors as soon as we can confirm an error has indeed been made. But the attitude by Kevin McE is not tolerable. This seems to be his pattern of editing. It is abusive, and Wikipedia editors as a whole should not be subjected to this. — Maile (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • With regards to the items on my talk page, I did not engage with Kevin McE on the issue that he raised; I never do as a matter of principle when I'm at the receiving end of an attack. Over the course of three replies, I have tried to communicate to the user that their way of communication is unacceptable and that we will only have a discussion on the subject matter once their problematic communication style has been acknowledged. In the third post I stated that without an apology, there won't be further communication from me. Despite that, Kevin McE keeps posting on my talk page. What I learn from that is that Kevin McE lacks an insight into the abusive tone of their communication. That is indeed a problem. I'm not aware that I've come across this user before and I haven't had a look at their history, so cannot say whether there's a pattern. If this isn't a one off but happens with some regularity, a block would be in order. Running around and abusing fellow editors is not on. Schwede66 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a similar attitude on display at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Misattribution_of_Altblurbs, where Kevin McE is insisting that no-one except the nominator should be allowed to edit the ITN nomination template, despite multiple editors telling him it is common practice for others to propose alternative blurbs there, on the grounds that it is akin to altering someone's talk page comment and linking to Wikipedia:Vandalism[89]. His attitude is that, even in an area of Wikipedia with which he is unfamiliar, he is right and everyone else is wrong. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Kevin McE's conduct in the threads presented has been very poor. Yes, a mistake was made that allowed incorrect information to be presented on the main page. Yes, that's a bad thing. However, when presented with a situation where an colleague has made an honest, you have lots of options. You can ignore it, and hope it won't happen again. You can point it out to them in a friendly way, and hint that a wee check next time might be a good thing. You can point it out to them in a very formal way, and ask them not to repeat the mistake. Or, you can go to their talk page, openly chastise them, and tell them that their mistake implies that they have very little understanding of what happens in sports, and an indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia. I would suggest that the latter is very much the nuclear option, which would be entirely inappropriate unless the person you were speaking to had shown a repeated disregard for factual accuracy in DYK hooks. To address an experienced and respected editor in that manner over a single mistake is unacceptable. I'm not sure whether sanctions are required, but I would support an admonishment for a rude and uncollegiate attitude, and a reminder that we're all human. Girth Summit (blether) 22:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a strong warning, because the amount of places they've posted, and the content is harassment of other users. They're pinging me demanding an apology for who knows what, as well as changing the article whilst wrongly claiming what sources say. I would also like a one way topic ban against this user towards me, as they have done nothing but harass me for 2 days over edits it's unreasonable to expect me to make when I'm away. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's start with a weird topic ban: Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately the editor chose fit to launch another personal attack, edit-conflicting with my post on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for applying the 60-hour block. As that is only 2.5 days, is it possible to leave this thread open for a few days? It's good to have the above comments here in case this flares up after the block expires. And it's possible other editors might want to air their past experiences on the matter.— Maile (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maile66, you have put your finger on the sore spot: a tiny topic ban and a short block for harassment, that's the easy way out. The bigger problem is behavioral and possibly persistent. I didn't close the thread, and that was on purpose--I'm hoping someone will have a better idea, possibly with the input of other editors/administrators. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Drmies, you and I share a similar experience over a disruptive editor on the Audie Murphy article. Eight blocks over a 5-year period, and they just kept doing what they were doing, until that final Indef. They were convinced they were the only one editing that article correctly, and the rest of Wikipedia was in the wrong. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found Kevin McE's behavior to be rather galling. I admit that I might have taken a semi-confrontational attitude towards him, namely in suggesting that equating editing the ITN template to vandalism was inappropriate. But he took it as a personal attack, which was not my intention. He was similarly rude and crass to other editors in that ITN discussion. I support a warning as well.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unacceptable for Kevin McE to treat other editors that way. I endorse Drmies' block and support the proposed topic ban. Going forward, if this kind of behavior continues in other areas I think additional topic bans and escalating blocks would be appropriate. I hope they aren't necessary. Kevin McE has been here for a long time and should know better. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having become aware of Kevin in 2019/2020 over an issue where another user was making inappropriate edits, it was Kevin that caught my eye: his response to that user was to HOUND them, stalking their contributions to reply to any and every comment in the condescending fashion noted above. This is a pattern first attested in 2006, as was throwing around "vandalism". It is possible to have disputes without being simply mean, we all do, but Kevin doesn't. I would even characterize his behavior as similar to that of a troll. For clarity, I do not think he is a troll. That would probably be better. No, he truly believes he is in the right to behave this way, and that other users showing even a shred of authority in their tone are disrespecting him. All the while he is condescending to them as a greeting, but with long tenure feels that is his earned right. This is purely an assessment, I know the type, call it baseless etc. if you want. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) He will pick petty fights and, once he has your well-meaning attention, will proceed to throw mindless insults out instead of even pretend to stick to a point. It's frankly distressing to see it escalate to not-really-veiled verbal (textual) abuse of unsuspecting users, not counting the obvious matter that it leaves a toxic trail of pointless personal discussions across a variety of both appropriate and inappropriate talkpages. (Because with Kevin, everything is personal: he takes everything personally, and you can tell that what he writes is supposed to be felt as a personal attack.) I'm happy to see a warning and temp ban, but without sounding pessimistic, am doubtful of what its efficacy will be after expiration: He writes to other users as if they are naughty children and he the grumpy grandfather... in 1980. Language to uphold a power imbalance that is inappropriate in a collaborative environment, and that is no longer tolerated even in unequal situations, still being used suggests innateness and a need to actively try to unlearn that tendency. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for enacting a block and one-way ban- this seems like an acceptable outcome to me. I have removed their user talkpage from my watchlist, so I don't foresee any further issues from my side. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timely block as it was too drawn out to be considered letting off steam. In hindsight, their WP:FORUMSHOPPING in starting all those threads appears to have been driven by a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to assign blame rather than collaborating to assess what can be learned and improved.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shoot for the Stars

    Blocked endorsed and user community-banned. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)

    I don't want to get this editor in trouble or anything but they are making some questionable editing choices in articles. The editor is adding low quality images such as these [90] [91] [92] [93] in articles without explaining why. I have made a comment at their talk page about this issue nearly a month ago but didn't get a response. This editor also adding mugshots as well [94] [95] [96] [97], which is against the guidelines (WP:MUG).

    Don't get me wrong, this editor has get several articles to GA status. However, the image issue that I can't ignore. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see a two-way discussion between the two of you on their talk page, which is partly about images, from July. They don't appear to be uncommunicative - why not try talking to them a bit more? I'm not saying you're wrong about the images, but ANI seems premature. Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Girth Summit: Another editor Deepfriedokra have pointed out the image issue while the editor was still blocked at the time. I have made a second comment regarding the low quality images at that time as well but my comment was ignored. I doubt they will respond at their talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That puts a rather different complexion on things. With a bit more digging (which I should have done before my last comment), I see that this user has twice been CU blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, and that last time they were using their sock to upload mugshots after they ones they uploaded under their main account all got deleted. (archived SPI for reference). That's far too much disruption around images in a very short space of time for a single user - I'd be interested to hear whether they have anything to say in their defense, but it looks like some sort of editing restriction (or just an indef block) might be in order. Girth Summit (blether) 14:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an indef block to this account would be the best. I’m sick and tired of getting in trouble. It’s high time that I move on with my life and start focusing on my career. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry it ended like this, but I've blocked Shoot for the Stars indefinitely. Should they have a change of heart and request unblock, I'd suggest a TBan from images on BLPs as a minimum unblock condition; I wish them all the best with their career and moving on from this. Girth Summit (blether) 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding me. WTF. This is the user who was pleading to be unblocked early at UTRS 'cause school was about to start soon and oh my God, I just cannot wait. The user I told one month is a boon and they agreed to a TBAN on images and HighinBC declined to unblock on the 30th and the block expired on the 4th!? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indef block. This was strike three. And it looks, based on two earlier self-requested blocks, like retirement by admin action. This is, indeed, disappointing. May they find joy and happiness in their off-wiki endeavors. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'Endorse site ban per below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indef block: This user is a compulsive liar and has been lying for months on end now, whether it's lying to someone to get them to review their featured article candidates, lying to administrators about when school is starting to get unblocked early, or something else. At this point enough WP:ROPE has been extended to them and I can no longer take them at their word. They have gotten away with lenient sanctions for sockpuppetry twice and continue to cause trouble. This discussion gives a good picture of the disruption they have caused in FAC space, including incivility and personal attacks. I suggest formalizing this sanction more so that they cannot get out of it in the future without a community discussion.--NØ 09:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, they told an FAC coordinator on June 2, that they will be starting a full time job and will have to leave Wikipedia in July, to get them to waive off the two-week waiting period between nominations. This changed, however, when on July 30th they were pleading to be unblocked, according to Deepfriedokra. On August 6, they were "back and ready to edit again." This user has also weaponized Pop Smoke's murder to further their interests on Wikipedia (Special:Diff/1037392582) which is just unfortunate.--NØ 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • endorse siteban per all above.Ratnahastin tålk 10:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User said that they were leaving for school and needed early unblock at UTRS appeal #4602810:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry to say, but I add my voice to those supporting Shoot for the Stars' ban. Stars previously edited here as Beatleswillneverdie and, from memory, pretty much all their contributions were contentious – uploading bogus cover art, replacing images with unnecessary and inferior alternatives, adding other non-free cover art with little or no regard for fair-use criteria, repeatedly making these changes while apparently unable to respond to other editors' warnings/concerns or to use a talk page. If that sort of behaviour has continued under the user's new name, then it's no great loss to see them go, at this stage at least. I considered them intentionally disruptive at the time (2019-ish), but perhaps it's more about competence, given they appear to have been school-age (which I didn't realise back then). I hope things are different in years to come; I'm sure they will be. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse this ban as well. Like JG66 said, I remember when they were under the name Beatleswillneverdie and they consistently added images both JG & I ended up reverting numerous times (most notably this one). As others here have said, they have displayed quite a few instances of being unstable and consistently changed their mind on things (i.e. FAC disruptions). On top of the fact that they have changed their username four times (which seems overly excessive, like they change it based on their current mindset) and has caused numerous issues with quite a few editors, including myself, I think it's best they stay banned. – zmbro (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indefinite block and site ban the user has caused enough disruption already (which includes multiple rage quits prior to returning), and the sockpuppetry only made things worse. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Jixby Phillips

    User:Jixby Phillips has demonstrated intense WP:SPA attitudes in regards to episode order of South Park (season 1). He has posted long rants with unreliable sources to prove that his view of episode order is correct and everyone else is wrong. When warned on his talk page of his SPA behavior he responded with a threat. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Jixby Phillips for 31 hours for that unacceptable personal attack. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rdp060707

    User:Rdp060707 is a useless editor. He is reverting perfectly valid edits. 122.56.208.45 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you made several dozens reverts today, with you, 122*, overstepping four reverts in a few articles. The communication between you has been so far substandard. May be you could stop and figure out whether these two categories are really needed in the articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And please notify Rdp060707 as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like User:Rdp060707 is on autopilot with semiautomated editing app. And both you and User:Rdp060707 are not actually looking at the quality of the edits. I may be an anon editor but I know my way around WP! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @122.56.208.45: I did not make Wikipedia more useless.----Rdp060707|talk 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    122.56.208.45, if your last sentence is true then you doubtless know that the thing to do if you disagree with a revert at The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository is to start a discussion at Talk:The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository, which I note is a red link, rather than edit-war and then come to WP:ANI, which does not deal with such content issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue is about the poor quality of their edits. An experienced edit will so that I am right and they are wrong. So there! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia works by people discussing disagreements like mature adults. If you want to edit then please join in with this, rather than simply indulging in playground name-calling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An experienced editor would not take kindly to an immature statement like "I am right and they are wrong. So there!" - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 122 editor has a serious attitude problem. That said, their edits here and here to remove an unnecessary category were correct, reverting a category change 2 or 3 times with no comment other than "unexplained content removal" is not good communication. Rdp060707 has tens of thousands of edits and should know better. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know better. The two diffs (that mentioned by User:力) are said to be correct, but it doesn't appear to be explained. Before I reverted them, I noticed on the summary that it appears to be nothing, so it is unexplained content removal. The IP address supposed to explain, on its removal of anything that the one disagree on it, like this: Remove unneccessary category; rm-unneccessary, etc.----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmad Hangtuah

    Ahmad Hangtuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added false infos, both on ENWIKI and IDWIKI. Flix11 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmad Hangtuah has only edited twice this month, which tells me that this is not an urgent incident and should not be here. And, of course, what they do on id.wiki is not our concern. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    82.33.72.42

    82.33.72.42 (talk · contribs) is becoming tendentious with their attacks on "Western academics" over at RSN and attacks on "capitalist controlled sources" [[98]] over at Elections in Cuba‎. It's clear they are POV pushing (and edit warred over trying to exclude question the use of said sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please point to a single edit I made where I removed sources? You have repeatedly accused me of removing content yet when I have asked for evidence you haven't provided. On my talk page there is a clear example of an accusation you made that I proved wrong, I asked you to apologise and you have not. My issue is that those sources are not neutral, and while they should be included they must be given proper context and sources that disagree also deserve to be included. The article lead does not reflect the content of the article, which includes sources arguing both that Cuba is and isn't a democracy, this should be reflected in the article lead but it keeps being reverted to a version containing the objective phrase "elections in Cuba are not democratic", cited only to Western sources. I am merely trying to restore balance, if you want to accuse me of removing sources you must show evidence. Any time I have noticed that I accidentally removed a source in my editing, I have always restored it (see for example [[99]]) 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have rejected to their use using that phraseology [[100]]. You want false parity between academic and Cuban government sources (and have drawn false parallels between western media and Cuban government sources). When told this can't be you have resorted to going on about US state terrorism and capitalist propaganda. When told you are wrong you have resorted to wp:battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit shows that while I reverted parts of the article to restore my own sources, I did not remove any of the new sources or statements introduced by Snoogans. I have always been careful to incorporate them into my own edits, Snoogans et al are the ones who indiscriminately remove sources they disagree with. Try again. Show a source or statement that I actually removed outside of "elections in Cuba are not democratic", which as I explained is not reflective of the article as a whole. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have raised this to let others decide if you are wp:nothere or are here to wp:rightgreatwrongs. I am not alone in telling you you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want it on record that you have repeatedly lied about my behaviour and when challenged have refused to back down. It is telling you cannot show any examples of what you accuse me of. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see where he has lied about your behaviour. You aren't helping your case in saying so. Calm down and if there is a content issue, then discuss it. But you are becoming disruptive. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And Cuba is a western nation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Not taking sides (i have little knowledge of the electoral system of Cuba, or which sources that inform us about them are neutral or reliable), but when people talk about whether Cuba is or is not a Western nation in what context do they mean? ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what they mean, one of their edit summaries was "the characterisation of this content as being by "western academics" is substantiated by checking the author affiliations, this isn't difficult. as explained, western journals are hardly neutral on this issue. the cuba solidarity campaign is likewise biased, but a biased source is not inherently non-reliable. Again, the lead must reflect the whole content of the article" As if the fact they are "western" makes a difference. That is kind of my point, as Cuba is a western nation its hard to see what this objection refers to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They also seem to have an issue on other pages and have just had another edit war waring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • IP, the reality is that most of the pertinent 3rd party sources are published in countries that are liberal democracies, and since the general consensus there is that a one party system isn't genuinely democratic, it is what it is. Now, proponents in Cuba might advance the political-philosophical position that their electoral system mobilizes a class-for-itself, thereby making it more democratic than liberal democracies. But, again, obviously this is a minority view in the world at present. Somewhat surprisingly (to me, also), I'm not really that familiar with the Elections in country x series of articles to tell if the blunt declaration in wiki-voice that "Elections in Cuba are not democratic" is par for the course. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.
    Quick note (perhaps a bit OT) about overlapping terminology of "Western," culturally and economically. Western World versus Eastern Bloc? Was communist Czechoslovakia more "western" than communist Mongolia? Well, at the very least it was to the west of it! Arguably, both were more western still than, say, Saudi Arabia. Or, culturally, are western values more prominent in socialist Cuba than in capitalist China? So precision in terminology is key. And for that, Rockwell Automation has got us covered P.S. Slatersteven, can you better differentiate what is or isn't a quote in your message? Maybe use {{tq|text}}...? You have quotes inside quotes inside quotes, it's confusingses. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slatersteven pretty much sums it up. The IP holds a False equivalence between One-party totalitarians states like North Korea and Cuba and liberal democracy. Their issue with American academics is even more bizarre given the numerous Castro/Cuba sympathetic academics in US universities, that have been around pretty much since the start of the Revolution. This is not even getting into the fact that most academics if not sympathetic to Cuba at the very least oppose the embargo by the United States. As mentioned above the Ip has done this will North Korea and human trafficking, claiming that the US state department is not reliable for information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuatrero's renewed attempt to move Prisioners of the Revolt

    I would like to ask administrators here to move back Prisoners of the 2019–21 Chilean protests to its original title Prisoners of the Revolt. Kuatrero has, again, been moving it without a discussion or consensus. This is the second time I report Kuatero's unilateral attempts on the article. See previous incident archive here. The discussion that emerged back then did not end in consensus (details here). I further propose to give the page some protection against Kuatrero's unilateral moves as he, despite being an experienced user, appears to insist on giving the article a name of his choise wihtout doing a move proposal. It's quiite a waste of time to deal with this behaviour. Dentren | Talk 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dentren: With all due respect, this can be solved just by discussing on the article talk page. There is no 'incident' here. I suggest you stop bringing any matter up to the ANI just because you disagree with someone else. Additionally, your previous report was not even taken up by an admin. I reiterate that, if you disagree with the page move, go and discuss it in the talk page and/or bring it up to WP:RM. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the day this WP:SPINOFF was created (July 5) by Dentren, Kuatrero boldly redirected it [101], which was reverted by Dentren [102]. Then, Kuatrero nominated it for deletion [103]. While the AFD was running, Kuatrero boldly moved the page [104], which Dentren reverted [105]. Kuatrero moved it a second time [106]. Dentren raised the issue at ANI [107] and Jerm moved it back to the original title [108] (this is all within four days of creation). The AFD closed on July 29 as no consensus, and today Kuatrero again moved the page [109]. I have moved it back to the original title. Meanwhile, today is the first time anyone has posted anything to the talk page. Kuatrero, I am not an admin and have no authority to sanction anyone, but if you do this again, I think you are likely to be sanctioned. Follow WP:BRD: if a bold edit, including a bold move, gets reverted, don't re-instate it; instead, discuss on the talk page. Specifically, follow the procedure spelled out at WP:RM if you still think the page should be moved. Levivich 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Sure. I have no problem with that. However, I don't think it should have been brought up here (which I find it harsh) without Dentren discussing it with me. At least, I've had the intention to do so. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuatrero, you knew there was no consensus, and you are not new to Wikipedia. Anyhow, the article needed to be reverted to its original name before a propper discussion on move could begin. Please restrain yourself from unilateral non-consensus moves in the future, it will make both of us waste less time. Dentren | Talk 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see there was a clear opinion against its current name in the deletion request, although it was not the point of discussion (it was the article's deletion or merging). There was no consensus to delete or merge the article. Do not misrepresent facts. Kind regards. Kuatrero (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Highly disruptive editor is WP:NOTHERE

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 24 hours

    Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has had 10! final warnings, was previously reported here (though was obviously not blocked) and continues to make highly disruptive edits to BLP articles as can be seen here. It's clearly a case of NOTHERE so can an admin just please put a stop to this once and for all. Thank you. Robvanvee 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for 24 hours, since no one has blocked them yet. Let's see what effect this has. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Daniel! Robvanvee 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Transphobic/homophobic personal attacks

    Can somone help with Special:Contributions/202.146.244.238. A quick block and some revdel would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are some people so full of hate? I just don't get the mindset. And I would remind this editor that in English the singular "they" is even older than the singular "you". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, thou hast offended me with thine new-fangled grammar. Get thee hence! Girth Summit (blether) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    I've RevDel'ed the edits and edit summaries from the history. GiantSnowman 16:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, everyone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand, this is what I appreciate about the administrative culture here. I have spent a goodly chunk of time today and yesterday trying to get anyone over at commons to respond to blatant homophobia and doxxing on a public noticeboard, but it took 48 hours and conversations with 4 admins to get someone to do a revdel, and the account that did the doxxing still isn't blocked. I'm feeling quite depressed about the whole experience. Girth Summit (blether) 17:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For Commons, @Girth Summit:, next time ping me directly. If I am around (which is seen from my contribution log here) I should be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit though that this case is way much simpler than the one on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, thanks for that offer. I know what you mean about it being a bit more complex, but for me it's pretty straightforward : if you put another user's real life name, their sexuality, and where they live and work on a noticeboard, you get blocked and the revisions get deleted and oversighted. Apparently not, on commons. Girth Summit (blether) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as we all know, on Commons you can block a checkuser because you are unhappy with the CU results and then insist that whoever unblocks the checkuser should be desysopped. So block is indeed slightly difficult to institute sometimes, but revdel should have been done quickly. Anyway, now I have given them the last warning and was very specific what they are not supposed to do ever again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, thank you. It sounds like the wild west over there. Girth Summit (blether) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons is a project which really suffers from an extremely high ratio between the amount of work needed to be done and the number of people capable of and willing to do the job. Therefore even reasonable users have tendency to get overworked and become unreasonable, or to walk away, and bad-faith and agenda users stay for years under the radar, and sometimes there are coalitions of agenda users with whom nobody can do anything. I am personally doing the necessary maintenance minimum but otherwise just upload my photographs which I seem to shoot much faster than I am able to upload. Probably at some point it will be declared failed and taken under direct governance of the WMF, but I doubt they can make it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [reindent] That Commons thread is so incredibly dysfunctional on many, many levels. I thought 'do I just whinge here about it, or do I try and do something about it', and decided on the latter, so I brought it to the attention of the head of T&S: m:User_talk:JEissfeldt_(WMF)#Wikimedia_Commons_thread_of_interest. I just cannot get over how absurdly handled that was, from an anti-harassment, anti-doxxing perspective. Daniel (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Daniel, I'm glad others feel the way I do. I'm still really troubled by that encounter. Girth Summit (blether) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're not the only one who knows what a fucking horror show Commons is. As I said elsewhere, they not only refuse to get their shit together but actively smear it around and blame us for it because... well, they never really get around to explaining why, but apparently something. It's a shame, because they do serve a quite useful purpose, but in real life I've handled colostomy bags that weren't as full of shit as the admins I've generally encountered there; why they have a raging hate-on for this project escapes me, since we pay their bills much more so than the other way around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the account we were discussing in relation to Commons is now globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Newimpartial claming BLP protection for edit warring

    Going to be bold and close this thread since there seems to be some agreement between the involved parties about how these types of things could potentially be handled going forward as well as in this specific case. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page regarding this instance or the village pump regarding this type of situation in the abstract.
    On a personal note, I will just reiterate that folks should always tread lightly when it comes to discussions about people's gender. They can be pretty heated. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Newimpartial has been warring over women and female categories at the Utada Hikaru biography, claiming protection from 3RR because of BLP violations.

    The external situation is this: Japanese pop singer Utada Hikaru stated on Instagram that they preferred they/them pronouns.

    "I'm sick of being asked if I'm 'Miss or Missus' or choosing between 'Miss/Mrs/Ms' for everyday things. It makes me uncomfortable to be identified so markedly by my marital status or sex, and I don't relate to any of those prefixes... Every time, I feel like I'm forced to misrepresent myself. I long for an alternative option, one that anybody of any gender or social standing could use."

    Utada Hikaru has not denied being female or a woman. Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual. The only thing going on here is that Utada Hikaru does not like, and is actively protesting, the social norms of gender roles.

    Newimpartial is jumping to conclusions by extending the non-binary pronoun preference to also deny being a woman and a female. The edit warring has been going on for two days. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They have also been edit warring at articles like Disorders of sex development.
    [1]
    [2]
    They claimed that certain things I removed there was unexplained even tho I briefly explained myself. I also said that the overview section was repetitive and the information in that section was already mentioned in a later section and they reverted that.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Quinn (soccer) Sai ¿?✍ 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Newimpartial - in the article Utada Hikaru, we have an independent, reliable source reporting not just they/them pronouns, but nonbinary gender identity. Per MOS:GENDERID, WP articles must defer to the most recent, reliably sourced gender self-identification of a biographical subject for all those whose gender may be in question. In this case the subject is nonbinary. That this person identifies as nonbinary and female at the same time is an EXTRAORDINARY claim for which extraordinary evidence would be required, and Binkstirnet has offered none; the claim that Utada is only protesting, the social norms of gender roles is contradicted by the available sources. Furthermore, Binkstirnet's argument that Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual as if that had anything to do with their gender identity or the application of MOS:GENDERID is purest ignorance, to A the most possible GF.

    As far as the pile-on editors are concerned, I know how ANI works, but these are both IDONTLIKEIT complaints about pages where WP:3RR was never at issue. I have also provided complete and cogent Talk page explanations as well as edit summaries, in each case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual." Gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things. I think this is they key problem here, not understanding the basic concepts of both. If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity and MOS:NB applies. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Our guideline WP:GENDERID does not cover this unique situation, because the sex of Utada Hikaru is not in question. WP:GENDERID covers gender identity, not sex. Utada Hikaru is a woman who has thrown her social leverage into the ring of gender identity, to protest against social norms and to support non-binary people. This is not a situation where a vulnerable person needs protection. Rather, it's a case where a powerful person is making a socio-political statement.
    Newimpartial claims that gender identity automatically extends to sex classification. Certainly it is helpful for that extension to occur automatically when we are protecting the vulnerable, but in this novel case there is nothing in the media about Utada Hikaru changing lifestyle, or denying womanhood, or denying the basic female sex. Our guideline does not offer the automatic mechanism that Newimpartial is relying on for protection from 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a new or unique situation, we have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects who identity as non-binary. There doesn't appear to me to be any discussion of 'sex classification' on that article or in Newimpartial's edits, only you in your comments here. If you don't think calling a nonbinary person a "woman" rubs up against MOS:GENDERID, I would advise you to read WP:GENDERID, specifically the section titled "Really a man" which addresses your POV. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: to be clear MOS:GENDERID says (emphasis mine)

    Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources

    and has since the re-write at the end of March this year [110]. It doesn't explicitly mention categories, but as WP:BLPCAT says, categories are if anything more sensitive since they have no disclaimer or modifier (or further explanation). If you still think that this doesn't apply to male/female you can ask on the talk page whether we need to clarify it, but as multiple people have told you, it does. Likewise if you think that non-binary means we should chose a gendered word even in cases like categories where we don't have to you can ask whether we need to clarify the wording but as others have said, we don't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Utada Hikaru (just added by Newimpartial) Sai ¿?✍
    • Comment: With regards to Utada Hikaru, it might be wise to lock the article on a stable version (either no pronouns or using gender neutral pronouns they/them) until the discussion achieves a consensus or an RFC is done and reaches a conclusion to how the subject should be addressed. Aside from that, I'd like to echo Newimpartial and Tbhotch that "marrying a man" or "having children" does not infer anything about the person's gender identity. Isabelle 🔔 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You are right, it's not about gender. The edit warring is about sex: woman and female categories removed. There is no edit warring over gender identity. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      From looking at the discussion and the page history, it appears that there are two things being discussed: what it means for someone to deny female pronouns, and if that means they should be addressed with the singular they or no pronouns at all, and whether Hikaru is non-binary or not, since there appear to only be a single source for that. You are correct, though, that this specific discussion on ANI seems to be about the removal of those categories you mention. My opinion on this issue is similar, in that we should wait for the current discussion in the talk page to achieve consensus on whether Hikaru is non-binary or not. I can understand why Newimpartial removed the categories while the issue is not resolved. Isabelle 🔔 19:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Binksternet, MOS:GENDERID does not recognize sex categories. The categories using woman and female for BLPs are all subject to MOS:GENDERID and are all gender categories. If you think we have sex-based categories for living people that are exempt from MOS:GENDERID, we have much more serious issues to discuss at this ANI than the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You have put your finger on the basic problem: that you are reading more into MOS:GENDERID than can be found there. The majority of the guideline tells us that transsexual person's birth names should not be used (deadnaming) unless the person was famous under the birth name. That part doesn't apply to Utada Hikaru. The rest of the guideline is about pronouns he/she/they etc. That's the only part applicable to Utada Hikaru, and I was not questioning their preference for they/them. Nowhere in the guideline does it say anything about categories. Nowhere in the guideline does it describe how we must automatically extend the pronoun and deadname protection to cover the classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs. You are stretching the guideline out of shape to advance your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Where on WP do you believe you see any classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs, at all? This is starting to look to me like a WP:CIR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also a bit confused here. Generally I'd expect a category to define terms the same way that the relevant articles do. Woman does not define the term as meaning "person with XX chromosomes", "person with a uterus", etc.; in fact its second and fourth paragraphs both reject those criteria as necessary or sufficient. If Binksternet disagrees with that, it seems that Talk:Woman would be the right venue to propose a change, rather than fighting over categories. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, trying to use that quote to justify anything else beyond the use of the preference "they/them" as pronouns is original research (particularly since the quote refers to both gender and society issues and doesn't directly speak to gender identity, and thus the edits to remove the categories is not covered by the BLP exemption of 3RRNO. --Masem (t) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I wasn't using that quote to justify anything. The article sites an independent, reliable source which declares, Singer Hikaru Utada announced on Instagram on Friday that they are nonbinary. Having no reliable sources to the contrary, we do have a RS declaration of gender identity, and therefore the categories represent misgendering and a BLP vio. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's pointing to the same instagram post, and in terms of BLP, I would not consider Anime News Network the type of high quality source for a BLP to make that a conclusion in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Though I see the "I'm non-binary. Happy pride month!" quote mentiond in that article, and for that purpose, ANN would be sufficiently reliable for repeating that quote, but that probably can be easily verified from repeat viewings of the event. --Masem (t) 19:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regardless of any nitpicking, it is reliably sourced and therefore WP:BLP provisions apply. And there is no risk of misgendering by removing "female" categories now; if Utada announces something different tomorrow, and RS report it, we just put the categories back. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • As a BLPN regular, I'm with Newimpartial on the last point. I haven't looked into Anime News Network, but if someone was using it to add a statement to the article I would be fairly concerned and ask if they have a better source. If it's simply relaying information from a primary source or someone's statement somewhere, that would be better but I'd still have concerns. But the absence of female categories doesn't mean the subject isn't female. Therefore despite my concerns over ANN, I would fully support removing the categories if it raises sufficient doubt particularly with a direct quote. And I share Newimpartial's concerns that Binksternet's comments above suggest that they do not understand MOSGENDERID. Given this, I'd say they probably shouldn't touch anything related to gender or sex until they do. (I'm including sex because part of the problem seems to be that Binksternet doesn't understand when each applies on Wikipedia.) If they are unwilling, we can discuss a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are, btw, plenty of other sources reporting on Hikaru's statements:[111][112][113][114] I'm really having a lot trouble seeing why removing categories calling a nonbinary person a "woman" constitutes original research, and that it's appropriate to instead leave them up even in light of MOS:GENDERID. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • For all purposes, as they are quoting the Instagram post and live feed, they are all effectively based on the same piece of evidence. But, I will stress as I did below: the direct quote that says "I'm non-bianry" should be sufficient from any of these sources to take the approach. I think the problem was that the longer quote is absent the specific statement of being non-binary or not specifically identifying with any gender, and if the sources were going off that quote, that seems very iffy (particularly with the sourcing quality here), but given there's a different quote that say it directly, then yes, we should be treating their page as a non-binary person. I'm still a bit iffy if this rises to the level of "clear cut BLP violations" of 3RRNO where leaving the woman categories in place is an issue - this is definitely a content issue that should be confirmed via consensus to make sure everyone agrees that the sourcing is good to use that quote to assert the non-binary factor. --Masem (t) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

              • @Masem: As I understand it, the comment was made in a live stream. For that reason, relying on BLPSELFPUB is difficult, so ensuring a reliable source which we can trust to accurately report on the statement was important.

                But putting the sourcing issue aside, maybe you replied before reading my comment but the problem as I see it is you are still missing that there is a big different between asserting in the article someone is non-binary, and removing an assertion they are female or a woman. While for good reason we don't require explicit self identification for gender categories like we do with some other categories, per MOS:GENDERID and the basic idea of BLP, we still need to take sufficient care with categories.

                The basic tenets of WP:BLPCAT still apply i.e. that categories have no disclaimers or modifiers, and support for any categories needs to be well established in the article. As BLP says

                We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

                The information i.e. the assertion that she identified as female or a woman clearly became contentious once the sourcing emerged suggestion she identified as non-binary. Once it was contentious removing it was the right thing to do, and fully supported by BLP and the 3RR exemption. In case it's still unclear, this is related to but separate from saying that the subject identifies as non-binary in the article (in categories or in text). As previously mentioned, I'd be skeptical about adding it if the only source was ANN. I.E. I'm not saying that the sources were sufficient to add that or edit warring to add that under BLP was justified.

                I'm also not commenting on the pronoun issue here. While I share Newimpartial's view that using they/them is less likely to cause harm if all the information available was that the subject identified as non-binary, I'm not sure if MOS:GENDERID definitely requires that and either way a choice will likely have to be made of the two options. I mean there is the intermediate option of trying to removing all pronouns as I believed someone did but that is also complicated and can be seen as offensive. So for the pronoun issue, yeah sure it's complicated. (I think not so much anymore with recent sourcing.)

                But for the category issue? That's different. Temporarily removing the categories for a few days while discussion is ongoing is clearly the option which risks the least harm and fully supported by policy. Nothing I've seen has come close to explaining otherwise, especially since we never guarantee categories are completely and no reader should infer the absence of women or female categories is evidence the subject does not identify as female or a woman. And if they are we have major problems that go well beyond this one article. So the only real effect is that people trying to find them via the categories wouldn't be able to for a few days.

                Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                • I don't disagree with what you're saying but gets to my point: the assertion that the 3RRNO BLP exemption applies here is very very weak; there's a lot of subtlities for how this information should be included, but none of it is for exactly what you say, the immediate removal of those categories. The "they/them" pronouns in prose, absolutely, but that's it. --Masem (t) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                  • @Masem: I disagree. There is no subtleties about removing information that we have sufficient reason to think is incorrect the moment we become aware of it and relying on 3RRBLP to do so. If information is potentially false, it stays out of the article. That's a basic tenet of BLP. You're a regular at BLPN, some I'm very surprised to see you arguing it's okay to keep potentially false information in a BLP just because you're not certain, in a case where removing that false information does not in itself potentially introduce greater inaccuracies.

                    Let's put this case aside. If our article says someone is Catholic or their birthdate is X-Y and a verified Twitter account tweets they are not Catholic or that their birthdate is not X-Y, and in the case of the birthdate the sourcing is either non existent or not sufficient; would you keep the information in which discussion is ongoing? Or would you remove it straight away and fight to keep it removed until we can be sure we aren't reporting something false? I'm fairly sure the latter, so again I don't understand why you think it's okay to potentially falsely report someone's gender while discussion is ongoing.

                    And yes, if someone appears to have said they are "non-binary" then us saying they identify as female or a woman means we are potentially falsely reporting their gender. And yes us putting them in a gender category means that's what we are doing. There is no but or subtlety there.

                    To be clear, there may be sourcing issues or maybe they identify both as "non-binary" and as "female" or maybe there's some other context we've missed. That's why it's fine for us to discuss it after removing the information. Just like we would for the Catholic one. Or uniquely for the birthdate one, we might even decide "well they said that, but we have great sources which disagree".

                    So maybe later when we've dealt with these issues, we'll re-introduce the information now confident it's not false. That's fine, that's how BLP is supposed to work. It's not supposed to work by keeping information in articles when we can't be confident it isn't false.

                    Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                    • Given the nature of the sourcing (not the greatest when it comes to BLP aspects) and that there are definitely some contextual aspects to be considered: it was 100% appropriate to remove the categories related to being female as a first BOLD action, but given that the talk page was raising issues about the quality of the sources which relayed information as well as the context they were made, it is also completely fair to hold off on this exclusion until consensus was met. The 3RRNO BLP exemption is for clearly for "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced", which is not the same as removing categories which may no longer apply that only had just been reported and that were the subject of discussion (of which Newimpartial was participating before they began the revisions to remove). Yes, we want that consensus discussion to be resolved quickly to try to get all updates appropriately, but this not the same type of information that the 3RRNO covers. Now, assuming the consensus discussion does agree on those category removals, then if some editor came along to readd the cats, 3RRNO would absolutely apply to restoring them per that discussion. --Masem (t) 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is this the correct venue? It seems like a valid content dispute that could probably be resolved elsewhere, maybe WP:DRN. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that this is just a content dispute. Binksternet's above comments speculating as to Hikaru's motives for identifying as nonbinary seem like a pretty clear-cut BLP violation, more than can be excused as just "not understanding the difference between sex and gender" (which if anything I think is a bit patronizing to an editor I've always known to be intelligent). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's kind of my point. I feel Binksternet is trying to make this into something it is not. I don't think they should have brought this to AN/i. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Right but I'm saying this should be kept open for discussion of Binksternet's BLP violations. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree; I have explained below the need to AGF and mitigating factors. Crossroads -talk- 03:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And he continues to edit war with the same claims in other areas. See 1976 Olympics where someone was very notable beforehand and would be difficult to source any other way. I have asked for an rfc on the talk page but he continues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing against site-wide consensus

    In addition to Binksternet (talk · contribs), TJRC (talk · contribs) and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) have been reverting against BLP policy and MOS:GENDERID on Utada Hikaru. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editors on this page have repeatedly asked Newimpartial to take a pause on these edits until the actual quote can be verified. The multiple citations (including ANN) are all repeated copies of subjective recollection of a livestream. If a verifiable and viewable source for the quote can be located, the correct choice for the article will be clear. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, Newimpartial has been requested to refrain from aggressive and harassing language directed at other editors regarding this issue. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By what policy-relevant criterion would ANN not be a reliable source to document a gender-identity declaration (that can also be verified using the primary source)? And why would it be appropriate to reinsert gendered pronouns to a BLP against policy, based on an appeal to local consensus? That goes directly against MOS:GENDERID and WP:CONLEVEL.
        • Also, I don't see how any of my Talk comments or edit summaries could be construed as "Harassment", unlike the actions of certain other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • When contesting past edits, you have asserted that such edits were thumbing their nose at a community, or attempting to distend non-binary people. In each case, logical and procedural points were being made. Assigning personal bias to an editor's arguments is inappropriate. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • ANN's article quotes a Japanese article as its source. It's not an original article. However -- when investigating the sourced article (in Japanese), there is a fan upload of Utada's video stream which verifies her non-binary statement. I'll report this direct source to the editors of the page (I don't think this source was cited directly previously). This direct source is the only thing we've been asking for to comply with the edits you've suggested.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You might want to look at Wikipedia's sourcing policy before telling me that I needed to produce Utada's video stream as a source. That isn't the way anything works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm aware of the policy, and also aware that freelance fan site posts that are based on secondary information often need to be examined closely. We're all aiming for the same thing: to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia page we're editing. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC
    • The title of this subsection is erroneous and should be removed. Newimpartial is clearly following consensus regards MOS:GENDERID. Editors Binksternet (talk · contribs), and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) opposing Newimpartial do not seem to understand (or refuse to follow) MOS:GENDERID or Consensus. I do not think it was helpful to starting a new subsection to continue these attacks. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close thread. The opening post seems to have been under the impression that Utada had only made statements of preference regarding certain terminology, but not of gender identity per se. By point of comparison, the article Farhad Manjoo uses "they" pronouns but also describes the subject as a cisgender man; Manjoo's article cited there explains their language-reform views, though there has also been apparently been debate on the talk page over what pronouns to use. Anyway, since then this thread has well clarified the rules of GENDERID and that Utada does identify as non-binary gender as well. There needs to be WP:AGF given to Binksternet. The discourse on gender identity is fast-evolving. It wasn't long ago that almost everyone conceptualized being transgender as meaning only to make major changes in appearance with medical treatment so as to match the opposite gender, and this is still how many think of it, if they aren't heavily involved in the topic. Cases like this are quite different from that long-time conceptualization and we need to assume good faith. I will say that I think the edit warring that occurred should not have been done; if Utada cared that much which pronouns were used for them, then surely they would have specified their pronouns by now. In any case, currently the article is full-protected without personal pronouns, which seems fine. There is nothing left to do here. Crossroads -talk- 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that some people have outdated understanding of things: You and I recently participated in an RfC where several other users (in good faith) argued that potentially having slept with men meant that someone was a woman. It's an absurd argument, but I agree that some people make it out of ignorance rather than malice, and can include Binksternet under that umbrella of AGF. But you don't need a complex understanding of queer theory to know that it's a BLP violation to assert that a living person's professed gender identity is in fact a "socio-political statement" without citing any evidence for that. "You're just doing it for attention" is a classic anti-LGBTQ insult, and is not something someone should say or imply on Wikipedia about a living person. It would not be AGFing to assume that Binksternet, an editor of 14 years' tenure, doesn't understand that this kind of speech violates BLP; rather, that would be insulting his intelligence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO at a minimum Binksternet needs to understand how our gender categories interact with MOSGENDERID. Note that while malice would suggest an immediate topic ban, the issue here and the reason I suggested it could be necessary is because even without malice an editor can cause harm which we're supposed to be avoiding when dealing with BLPs. Noting that after getting into an edit war, not only was Binksternet the one who started this complaint they continued to make problematic statements here even after been linked to the various policies etc. That's the reason why I said I really think Binksternet should commit to either improving their understanding or staying well away from the area. However I've changed my mind since at the time I forgot this is an AE area. Since it is, I'm fine just leaving things be letting AE deal with it if need be. As I said above, I'm particularly focused on the category issue since that's one where I cannot see any justification for the edits since even if someone is concerned about the sourcing or not sure it's sufficient to establish the person identified as non-binary, the right action would have been to leave the categories out while discussion was ongoing whereas it was more complicated to deal with the pronouns. It would also be nice if Binksternet would take a step back and try to understand why their other statements e.g. she married men twice etc are offensive (and also irrelevant per WP:OR). If it helps, maybe they can consider other similar scenarios like saying someone who has recently identified as gay cannot be gay because of how many people of the opposite gender they married or was known for dating etc. Still we can't require that. And Binksternet is free (within the normal bounds) to advocate for a change to MOS:GENDERID or to advocate for the introduction of sex based categories if they really want, it's just that until they have a new consensus they need to abide by the current one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be clear, I am saying to extend AGF to all that as well. The "socio-political statement" remark was in response to Tbhotch arguing that "If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity", but that is incorrect; such a statement alone would not necessarily be an expression of gender identity, and that's why I gave the example of Farhad Manjoo and their genderless pronouns. Utada's article currently is written in a confusing manner in this regard, making it seem (unless you look closely) they are being called non-binary because of liking the Mx. abbreviation, even though the actual reason we treat them as non-binary is because they said they are, full stop. As for the marriage comments, part of the now-outdated but decades-long conceptualization of transgender people (also given away by use of "transsexual" above) which even now has yet to be dropped by many people is that they necessarily have the sexual orientation that is most common for their gender identity. Crossroads -talk- 16:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) I don't know, it's a tough call. On the one hand, I agree with virtually everything you say above. But I have a concern: our editors have to feel free in a BLP context to make the best call they can on what they think serves the important issues that are raised in BLP policy. You know, I sometimes have concerns that BLP is treated in an almost talismanic fashion, but I tell you, this is one area where I am really grateful for it. I think GENDERID is going to need to take on some nuance under consultation with a broad swath of the community eventually, and the fact that this has not been done yet is a part of why this problem arises. But at the end of the day, I thinker Binksternet was just doing what they thought was the most respectful thing for the subject. And yes to many of your caveats about his kind of telling lack of understanding of some of the issues here. But at the same time, let's be honest, the sourcing is kinda-sorta only just now getting to the place it needed to be? It's a kind franken-pastiche collection of sources, and I agree it works in the circumstances, but Binksternet's concerns weren't exactly absurd in that respect.
    Anyway, I just can't see any sanction resulting here stronger than a warning. I mean it's already kind of embarrassing just to open an ANI and be completely refuted on the underlying issues and have action seriously considered against you. And if that's not strong enough, I'll add my own opinion that Bink probably wants to study up in this area--like more than a little. But I'm not sure what more can be said here but that. If this becomes a pattern, we can consider if this is a real problem next time. But right now I think we are looking at some overzealousness and a little lack of sophistication in understanding of the topic. Intent isn't the only factor, nor even the most important one, when it comes to this kind of situation, but it should count for a bit, unless there is strong evidence of a persistent problem. TLDR: WP:ROPE, with the understanding that this isn't the type thing that you want a reputation for making a bad call on. SnowRise let's rap 16:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, I agree with these points. Also, there is a history of extreme and inappropriate eagerness for sanctions on this topic at ANI. For example, not long ago, an experienced user was blocked (and later unblocked) because he was arguing against some IPs that it's ridiculous to consider "tree" as someone's pronoun. The inconsistency of that whole situation is that some people who by all evidence are cisgender have said their pronouns are something like beep/bop/boop, and they draw outrage for mocking transgender people and their pronouns - that reaction makes sense - but then someone else who is just as evidently cisgender says his ("his" per this discussion) pronouns are "tree", and he gets people on Twitter, a bunch of IPs, and even an experienced admin taking that literally and seriously, and that same admin hauling that user to ANI and another admin delivering a block over it. Why is it not only okay but "valid as f[***]" according to Twitter this time, per the tweets linked there? Why was the user not instead commended for doing the right thing by preventing what is indistinguishable from trivialization or mockery of gender transition from being treated seriously? We see this latter perspective echoed by a trans man in this New York Times article about nouns-as-neopronouns. My point is that, outside of the sort of obvious hateful trolling we get from vandal accounts, editors need to get way less trigger-happy around this topic. Those of us who have been keeping up with LGBT or left-progressive discourse need to step back a bit and think about how different things are from just a few years ago. Not being super-careful around gender was the norm until recently, as was gender pretty much always being the same as the sex they appeared to be. Crossroads -talk- 17:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't intend to derail this thread with an extended rehashing of something that is done and dusted, but I have just stumbled across that I am being spoken about negatively here, and feel it is worth pointing out that your description of what happened with the Lonsdale article is not at all accurate. That incident had nothing to do with which pronouns we ought to use for the subject (as I stated in bold text in my opening statement), and entirely to do with an experienced editor (who apparently ought to be "commended"?) denigrating a BLP subject as well as fellow editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as to your curse of knowledge argument, your point is well taken. As to that final point: I suppose that depends on who you are and what you consider 'recent'. You may be correct that this is just a consequence of my formal background, but I struggle to remember a time in my adult life where I didn't understand that 'sex' and 'gender' were qualitatively different terms: and that's enough years back that we're not going to talk about the exact figures. :) And that gender and sexual preferences are on two independent continuums is also preeeeeetty basic stuff, as both an empirical knowledge and social fluency matter. That said, I will repeat this point: GENDERID is not an ideal policy in its current form. One thing that we need to acknowledge more expressly is that while we can (and barring a good reason, should) discuss a trans BLP subject's preferred pronouns, it is functionally impossible to accommodate an open class of idiosyncratic pronouns outside of he/she/they and possibly a discrete class of pronouns which may or may not get substantial currency through substantially common usage: there's just no way to create a stable policy around an unbounded number of pronouns in a way that doesn't cause extreme difficulties for our editors and our readers. Respect for self-identity is vitally important consideration, but the need to produce clear content for our readers is paramount. But thankfully there are additional options. One is just to omit pronouns altogether, utilizing only proper nouns in the noun phrase context. I was initially opposed to that notion: I was convinced it would create tortured prose. But after being RfC'd to a few discussions over the last five years or so where editors had to cobble together some neutral approach because of the complexities of the situation, it's actually turned out that it is one of the better options in some cases.
    Also of immense use is the fact that resistance to singular they is finally falling away with all but the most ardent language mavens: opposition to it was always more a question of prescriptive grammar, rather than descriptive, but it's utility is so welcome right now, and the old trite historical arguments now so thoroughly debunked that most people can't help but embrace it as now one of the least divisive options--it doesn't hurt for our purposes here that a large majority of style guides and probably an even more significant number of style sheets for major publications turned over on this issue a while back. Anyway, I agree with you that this is the type of stuff that our editors need the freedom to be able to discuss without fear of sanction (I'm a little concerned about some of what you just told me about, if it's an accurate representation). But I'm not sure I can be quite as neutral on the question of whether Binksternet should be embarassed by some of the gaps in their knowledge: they should be. SnowRise let's rap 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A propos of GENDERID, I personally would be fine with style guidance that reserved gendered pronouns to cases that are uncontested, or where a pronoun choice has been clearly declared, and to use "they/them" in all other instances (with perhaps a possible recommendation to do without pronouns in cases where the person in question has clearly disavowed they/them, and maybe other edge cases I cannot currently imagine).
    A default to "they/them" where gender is in question and pronoun choice is unknown is the way contemporary English actually works, and I look forward to a day when WP might catch up on this and stop being vulnerable to POINTey neopronoun interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been mostly offline for a couple days, and I can't wade through all of the above, but here's my take.
    I have no reason to doubt Utada's declaration of non-binariness, and it should be respected; for example, categories indicating gender should not be used.
    But the real question is much simpler: Should a BLP article be edited to ascribe to the subject a preference for being identified as they/them, in the absence of any reliable source that indicates that the subject has actually expressed that preference?
    And the answer to that is easy: No, it should not.
    My sole objection to using they/them in this article is that Utada has not expressed any desire to be referred to that way. That's it. Newimpartial has no special knowledge of Utada's preference, and points to no reliable source indicating that preference. Until a week ago, they had never edited the article at all, apparently having no particular interest in the musical article Utada Hikaru. In the last week they have edited the article 20-some times, solely to impose their view on it; it is a classic case of Righting great wrongs.
    Utada Hikaru speaks fluent English, for those not familiar with her. She makes her living by communicating, writing songs in both English and Japanese. There is no reason to patronizingly assume that she is unable to adequately express her preference, if she has one. It is Utada's preference that matters here, not the preference of Newimpartial or any other editor. The she/her pronouns have been present in this article for almost two decades. They should be retained unless and until there is a reliable source that indicates Utada's preference to be identified by they/them. The second a reliable source published a statement that Utada is on record as preferring they/them, I will wholeheartedly support that change; but not until then.
    With respect to the citation of the MOS to bolster the claim that the pronouns should be changed despite no indication that Utada uses them: that's nonsense. This is not a matter of style. We're not talking about date formats here. We're talking about the identity of a living person expressing in a BLP article. That's a matter of policy, not one of style, and WP:BLP militates against making such changes absent a reliable source that supports them.
    It's that simple. TJRC (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "... Utada, who now uses the pronouns they/them ..." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which I earlier noted, suggesting at that time that it would in fact justify using those pronouns. Subsequent discussion, though, indicated that todayonline.com is not a WP:RS.
    I'm not proposing we dispense with the "reliable" part of "reliable source". TJRC (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-binary recategorization if current gender categories are improper

    I am not expressing any view on the arguments above. In particular, I express no opinion on what the subject's gender is or the like.

    However, I suggest that if it is decided that the subject should be identified as non-binary rather than female, then rather than only removing these categories (taken from edit history):

    … the page should also be added to a non-binary equivalent, e.g.:

    Note, I'm not asserting anything about appropriate wording of the replacement categories. I've not attempted to look at what may or may not already exist, MOS for category names, or the like.

    I am' saying that

    • non-binary versions of those categories should exist if they're non-empty (and be created if they don't already);
    • they should be otherwise equivalent to the female/male versions (e.g. same parent category or the like);
    • I don't see any reason not to categorize the subject as e.g. a Japanese pop singer because one disputes which gender sub-category ought to apply; and
    • I don't see any reason to erase non-binary people from gender-based subcategories — if there are female/male ones, there should be non-binary equivalents.

    Don't just delete useful info as collateral damage; fix it. Same as you'd change it to Category:Japanese male pop singers or Category:21st-century Japanese men if the subject were male. Sai ¿?✍ 23:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA: … and if it's determined that the subject's gender is indeterminable at this point, then the neutral (non-gendered) parent categories should be the replacement, e.g. Category:Japanese pop singers & Category:21st-century Japanese people, with gender-neutral pronouns, but without an actual claim that the subject is non-binary, female, or otherwise.
    I will note here that I agree with User:Newimpartial on their specific point above about default-they. To me at least, "they" is underspecified, but not wrong, if applied to someone who is female or male — and it's correct if applied to someone who's non-binary. I would interpret a neopronoun like "zir" to be explicitly asserting non-binary status, but "they" asserts nothing in my dialect; IMO no gender claim at all is made by saying that the notably-male "Robert Bly is best known for their book Iron John: A Book About Men". Doing so is inapt and imprecise (vs "his") — but neither wrong nor misgendering. By contrast, using gendered terms for a non-binary person is both.
    "They", therefore, is at least a safe choice to use in nearly all situations. More specific (gendered) terms should of course be used for clarity and politeness if there's clear indication of gender identity, as with Bly, but if it's unknown, why not just use the neutral option?
    (Note: I use "non-binary" to cover anything other than the basic female or male — including agender, genderfluid (with higher frequency than one can otherwise update, e.g. changing from day to day), multiple, etc. I use "indeterminable" to cover any situation where WP editors cannot arrive at a clear consensus of the subject's gender.) Sai ¿?✍ 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (who is non-binary, FYI)[reply]
    Thank you, Saizai, for suggesting this. Perhaps it needs to be a Village Pump topic. But this is the kernel of my frustration, that a person can suddenly disappear entirely from critically relevant categories after declaring themselves non-binary. It's like they disappear. The other way to fix the problem is to eliminate all gender categories, so there are no male high jumpers, no female high jumpers, only high jumpers. I prefer your suggestion of adding non-binary. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: Personally I don't especially care whether there are gendered subcategories or not; I only said that if there are subcategories for female and male, then non-binary should be included too. I expect that such subcategories will be kept, though; gender based categorization is rather a salient thing for most people, and e.g. baked into things like Olympic teams, "first female/non-binary _", etc. Maybe that too will change in another few decades (e.g. due to people like Quinn), but right now, that's how it is.
    As for Village Pump, I frankly am not particularly familiar with WP meta stuff like that. Please copy the proposal to wherever is an appropriate forum. I intended this to be a principled tertium quid that did not seem to have been considered in the above "delete female categories vs keep female categories" framing — not tied to any decision on this particular subject, let alone edit war issues. Sai ¿?✍ 01:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - without offering an opinion on this proposal one way or another, I would point out that the bio in question (Utada Hikaru) is currently categorized to the non-diffusing cats 20th-century Japanese singers and 21st-century Japanese singers, and I would add Japanese pop singers and Japanese singer-songwriters right now, if they are non-diffusing cats, except that the article is currently locked.

    That said, I don't think anything in Saizai's latest post is of interest to ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Just use (for example) categories called 21st-century Japanese singers. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That is indeed what I suggested in the case of indeterminacy. And I have no opposition to deleting the female and male subcategories altogether and merging their members up to the neutral category; that would also be equal treatment.
    But if it is known that the subject is non-binary, and there are binary-gender-based subcategories for others, then it seems wrong to me to not have and apply a non-binary subcategory. I feel that erasure by unequal treatment is morally wrong. Sai ¿?✍ 01:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are concerned about erasure by unequal treatment, you may also be displeased to find that there are often not categories like Category:20th-century Japanese male singers and that it is only the women who are subdivided further. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the sub-categories-in-question. That our readers know the people-in-question are Japanese, singers, from 20th or 21st century, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This is a good question, though maybe not for ANI. In the easiest case, if the subject has said they use they/them pronouns and that they are non-binary, I move any "21st-century Japanese women singers" (or similar) categories to "21st-century Japanese non-binary singers" if the category exists, or else "21st-century Japanese singers". If the subject has said they use they/them pronouns but has not made any statements about their gender, I'm of two minds on what to do. We can't assume that everyone who we previously included in women-specific categories who changes to they/them pronouns no longer identifies as a woman, as plenty of women use they/them pronouns. However we can't necessarily assume that they do identify as a woman, and often we don't even know if they ever have—a lot of people in the women-specific categories haven't done a whole lot of discussion of their gender (as cisgender people often don't) and so it's an assumption that has been made based on pronouns, how they present, etc.
      It brings to the forefront a bit for me whether we ought to be more careful in how we place people into these gendered categories, and why there are often only subcategories for one gender, though that's perhaps a can of worms to reopen some other time in some other place. In my ideal world, we would have much more accessible tooling to allow editors and readers alike to find people who are in the intersection of n categories, and then people could slice and dice to find people in Category:21st century people Category:Non-binary people, and Category:Japanese people, and Category:Pop singers... but again, I'll drag that soapbox somewhere else when the time comes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My position is indeed the same regardless. If there's a female subcategory, and the male subcategory would be non-empty, there should be a male subcategory too. Same for cis vs trans or any other status for which a subcategory is made. (I feel that this is rather less likely to be erasure when it doesn't involve a minority, but it would still be unjustified unequal treatment, which I do oppose in all cases.)
    I also believe that there should be a good justification for such a subcategorization existing at all. I don't particularly want to get into what would or wouldn't be justified, though, which is why I'm stuck to just the "if".
    And yes, a real set-intersection structure would be a much better solution if MediaWiki supported it. And yes, deliberately using gender neutral pronouns does not necessarily imply that someone is non-binary (they could simply be opposed to gender being so salient, and I know several cis binary people who have that exact position) — but it is at least the most common reason people do so. I think that switching to 'they' would likely be considered a signal of non-binary assertion in a relevantly high context culture. (I'm at the opposite end of that — in my personal experience, non-binary people tend to say that they're non-binary, not just that they want gender-neutral pronouns — but it's hard to deny that the other communication style exists too.) Sai ¿?✍ 01:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone begins using they/them pronouns but makes no statements as to whether they are non-binary, I would be in support of convention being to remove any categories like "21st-century Japanese women singers" and replace them with "21st-century Japanese singers" as there is at least doubt as to whether the gendered category is accurate (and replacing it with the other category is not inaccurate if they still identify as a woman, just possibly less precise). But unless the subject explicitly states they are non-binary, the category shouldn't be replaced with "21st-century Japanese non-binary singers". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that in the situation you describe (which I am not claiming is or isn't true of this particular person), a move to either the neutral or non-binary category would be justified. It would require more context, including knowledge of the person's communication style, to interpret whether their intent is to decline to state, avoid gender designation, or assert gender-rejecting identity (and thus they should be neutrally categorized), as opposed to asserting a non-binary identity (and thus they should be categorized as non-binary). The neutral category would at least be not wrong, however, and should therefore be the default in case of any uncertainty (as I said above). By contrast, someone who is unambiguously male, like Bly, should not be in the neutral category if there are any gendered subcategories; male is no more neutral than female or (affirmative subtypes of) non-binary. I believe that the article you linked makes a very good point on this. Sai ¿?✍ 02:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More heat than light

    This ANI thread is already well into the "unreadable wall of text" zone. I'll note that I don't think the MOS is a valid reason to edit-war (it's in fact a particularly lame one), but obviously, if people are going to keep throwing WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL at anybody the objects, as though they were somehow unaware of WP:5P5, then this is just all needless drama and everybody deserves a big (luckily, fish are gender-neutral) trout. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You are aware, are you, that one of the main reasons editors (and administrators) have supported MOS:DEADNAME is out of BLP concerns? This isn't some bloodless matter of capitalization. :p Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to argue the merits of that guideline (which is not set in stone). WP:BLP concerns are, as always, alleviated when there are independent reliable sources to support the matter, as you are also well aware. I don't see why this somehow doesn't apply here, or why this excuses what would under any other pretext be criticised as revisionism (fitting past events to modern norms and conceptions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia community has reached CONSENSUS that MOS:DEADNAME, in its current form, does not represent revisionism. You don't have to agree with that, but like all editors, you are expected to respect site-wide consensus when it is pointed out to you. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above seems unwarranted, especially when you're using that to silence honest disagreement, even more so when it's in apparent blindness to WP:5P5. Nothing (except actual legal stuff such as copyright violations or libel or defamation, which this is not) is so much set in stone that it does not allow reasonable exceptions. That you disagree with the reasonability of my arguments is not a good reason to act in a condescending manner (telling me I'm "expected" to "respect" "site-wide consensus") about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are taking an absolutely typical case of what the community decided in DEADNAME and saying "but it's exceptional, and the 5PS apply instead". As if the people participating in, closing, and implementing the many RfCs were somehow less committed to the 5PS than thou. Nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion. Emphatically, I disagree. Now, move on, go find some actual issue to fix, such as the self-promotional mess that half of the WP:Requested articles pages are, instead of edit-warring over stuff that's overqualified to be listed at the lameness page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that this is ANI, right? No actual issues get fixed here. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anshsaini0304's editing on caste-related articles worries me somewhat. Most recently they began a spree of small edits to a list removing descriptions next to the names of people included in the list. Their justification is that another editor removed content they added to the Sinai article.[115][116] I can't tell if this is WP:POINT, WP:CIR, or gaming to get to extended-confirmed (a lot of the WP:GS/CASTE topic area is EC-protected, including List of Saini people). Other issues include using self-published sources for contentious biographical information,[117] using sources that don't contain the information at all,[118], similar for non-biographical information,[119] removing information that seems to be sourced,[120][121] and probably a bit of a POV issue.[122] Their original contributions to List of Saini people all had to be reverted, and the page had EC protection applied.[123] I think the editor probably needs a stronger grasp of how Wikipedia works if editing in a contentious topic.[124][125] Seemingly, warnings and advice has already been dispensed.[126][127] I don't really know what can/should be done here. They have plenty of good edits in the mix, but also plenty of disruptive ones. I do honestly think many of the dubious cases in their editing history others have concern with[128][129] stem from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than being WP:NOTHERE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of 473 total, I counted 157 at Yadav (surname) and 57 at List of Gurjars (xtools). I restored the descriptions and then removed all the unsourced entries (including ones not added by Anshsaini0304), many of which were probably BLPs. The remaining entries still need to be checked that they are reliably sourced and verify the people's self-identification. I'm leaning toward WP:GAME as an explanation — List of Saini people was protected on June 13, after a series of mass removals by NitinMlk (talk · contribs) and later Sitush (talk · contribs) of unsourced or poorly sourced entries, including content added by Anshsaini0304 a week prior. Consult that page's history for more information — I see an unsourced addition on February 10 and lots of additions of refs and images between June 4–6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Anshsaini0304 is an WP:SPA focused on Saini-related articles. Earlier they created many WP:BLP violations by connecting people with Saini caste on the basis of WP:UGC. Note that the mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of BLPs – see here for details. In fact, after multiple explanations at my and their talk pages, they returned more than one month later to create the same BLP violation: [130].
    At Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021, when things didn't go their way yesterday, they made a lot of unhelpful edits at Yadav (surname) to get the extended confirmed status. And from this comment, it seems they wanted to get that status for directly editing Saini article. They are also making unhelpful comments at Talk:Saini, e.g. calling a source unreliable because it was published in 1998. In short, they are here to promote Saini caste rather than to build an encyclopedia. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, two months earlier, they were also asking another Saini editor regarding extended confirmed status: [131]. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, seems to be a bad-faith SPA. The Saini articles attract them quite a lot (and socks, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One option is a topic ban of User:Anshsaini0304 under WP:GS/CASTE. But it appears that this editor is not just misguided but actively unhelpful. An indefinite block seems logical. The apparent gaming of EC, via the 175 edits at Yadav (surname) is especially bad. Regular editors have a lot of work trying to keep these caste-related lists up to Wikipedia standards. Based on the above evidence it seems that Anshaini0304 is going to keep on undoing their work. As recently as August 2 Anshsaini0304 was continuing to make caste assignments with bad sources, even after reminders. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please wait and have a time to read and understand me.
    The user : NitinMlk is trying to depict that I want to disrupt the caste related articles, specially those belonging to Saini caste but that's not true. He is not telling anyone what I am suffering from, Please check out the last thread of Talk:Saini, As I am new here I am having some problem to show everyone what I want. I have no intentions to promote any caste, let alone Saini caste but what is incorrect will be said incorrect everytime, although it's a different thing when a few specific editors don't want to accept that. anshsaini (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After all this disruption, they provided an irrelevant source (see these edits and my responses here). And now I have been waiting for their response for the last two hours. So I will be now logging out. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I have responded and now definitely you will find a new excuse. anshsaini (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anshsaini, you are not going to get your way. When multiple reliable sources say something & you cannot offer a reliable source which contests them, we show what they say without qualification. That some of those sources are over 20 years old & still seem not to be contested by other sources rather supports their validity on the point. Please see WP:VNT. I am sorry that Paine Ellsworth got your hopes up by initially doing as you and other apparent Saini editors requested ... but they were wrong then on policy grounds & remain so now. You are editing disruptively and tendentiously, & seemingly trying to game the system. Such editing consumes a vast amount of the time available to other volunteers. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sitush, Paine Ellsworth has nothing to do with my hopes, even It's not a hope. What's correct is correct no such thing of hopes are involved in this! And for those discussions on sources and all, you are also welcome to Talk:List of Saini People. I am already dealing with editor like you there, who genuinely don't want to understand the point of view of others.
      Just one request to all of you, always remember editing an article if something is correct then it will not lesser down your reputation on Wikipedia. I am observing that you and NitinMlk have some personal problems with these castes, anyways I don't care why you don't want to digest the truth I will not agree with you until you will come to a genuine solution. anshsaini (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect by "genuine solution" you may mean "until I get my way". It won't happen, for the reasons I have just given here and at the article talk page. But the discussion here is more about your behaviour, not the content dispute itself. You are doing yourself no favours. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush To make you more informative let me clear that by "genuine solution", I mean correct content of the article. To the reasons you gave on talk page of article, I replied although there were no reason just another attempt to manipulate me as you did to other editors who are unable to put what they wanted to show everytime. anshsaini (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I do understand your point of view. I have been editing caste articles here for over a decade & likely there aren't many opinions I haven't seen. But Wikipedia isn't based on the opinions of editors, which is why I pointed you to VNT. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You "think" that you are editing caste articles but you are only making them in your way and that too some specific caste related articles. Moreover I am not saying anywhere to modify the page in accordance to my views, everytime I have to provide sources check on the talk page. anshsaini (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem not to have provided a single valid source, as others have explained. Please read WP:RS and, in particular, WP:OR because you are asking us to draw conclusions which are not in the sources you raise. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not asking you or anyone else to draw conclusions but yeah I am asking to use some common sense in understanding the difference between some words i.e. Farmers and Gardeners. I don't know why you are not able to see this that they both are different completely. Now I think indirectly you are trying to ask me to provide "scholarly sources" to differentiate these words too.
    Also I think it's better to discuss these on the Talk page of the article. anshsaini (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Anshsaini0304 is now EC. Regardless of whatever else happens here, I think at minimum EC should be pulled for the gaming, until the editor can make 500 legit edits and request at PERM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader Sure, whatever access you want to take over from me you must go for it because I never intended to vandalise any article or to modify it in my way nor I am willing to use the EC access to that article by my own, I will always prefer a discussion at Talk page of any article because I don't want that anyone after some days just revert it as it takes lots of efforts. It's just that NitinMlk is trying again and again to prove that I want to vandalise any article. anshsaini (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors pushing caste issues? Must be a day that ends in y. Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out, the user also has a puppet. Seems like I need to recalibrate my AGF meter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For caste stuff involving new-ish accounts, ABF will usually work better as a default mindset. I remain convinced, regardless of our general ethos, that all caste-related articles should be protected in some way by default. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VNC200 and their contributions

    @VNC200:. Repeatedly violating MoS guidelines even after warnings (like addition of Indicscripts in articles against MOS:IS, here [132], [133] etc), creating alternative files of existing logos of different articles and reverting other users (and even datbot) revisions (here, [134]). Adding incorrect or poor quality logos, even when better ones exist (like [135], [136]. Behaving like a WP:OWNER.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I only see a generic warning on their talk page. Have they been told specifically not to use Indic scripts? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aussie Article Writer. Yes, I gave a final warning here User talk:VNC200#July 2021  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  04:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding the [137], I think the user believes what their uploads are correct (or valid) in some sense. The corresponding Commons upload was nominated for deletion. The user has added a link to the source and removed the {{delete}} tag [138], which should not be done. I've posted on their Commons talk page, but the user seems determined to fix the issue by tagging a Non-free template (which of course is a wrong template and reverted.) -- DaxServer (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term disruption from a couple IP ranges

    Resolved
     – Both ranges blocked for a month

    Last week I stumbled across these IP ranges causing disruption going back months. Almost all their edits are reverted. Per my request on his talk page, Daniel Case blocked the ranges for a week. I just checked the ranges again today and they are back at it. I know we generally do not do long term blocks on IPs but I think these may warrant perhaps a 6 month block (or something). S0091 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them again for a month this time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: It was not my intent for you handle this. Quite the opposite but I appreciate the response. S0091 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091: You mentioned my name and no one else had, so I figured why not? Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by Chitoro

    Resolved
     – Blocked indefinitely

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

    User is hellbent on using obscure websites as sources to alter the ethnic demography in Takestan County. Out of his 10 edits, he has reverted the article 7 times. Not to mention he accuses others of racism [140] [141] and threatened to sue another user [142].

    Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef as DEOA. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jgwikid: personal attacks, disruptive reverts

    Hi, could an admin take a look at this user's personal attacks, and bad faith, disruptive reverts? User:Jgwikid left a bizarre personal attack on my talk page User talk:Atiru after instantaneously reverting edits I was trying to make to the Letesenbet Gidey page.

    The user wrote:

    "Clean up after yourself, like you do in toilet - this is of course under a serious question mark. As I have written at my talk page:

    "You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. If there is a grammatical error, that can always happen, you can correct - if you want to contribute, not spoil things. Let's make it very clear: you are simply cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous. Do we understand or you need some better written "rules", which, what is obvious, you need to become familiar with?"

    There is no one to do it for you.

    Also, add her WR's and WChamps results to the lede"

    The user made (an attempt at) a personal attack in the edit summaries in their reverts. Jgwikikid seems to have a history of similar behaviour with similar messages from other users on their talk page User talk:Jgwikid. User:Journalist seems to have had similar experiences in regard to the Elaine Thompson-Herah page. Jgwikikid has made personal attacks against other users here: Talk:Beatrice Masilingi and here: Talk:Christine Mboma. The user appears to take personal offence when parts of articles in which they have an interest are edited to improve the English. Atiru (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, just to provide some thoughts (and unfortunately not the administrative action you may need) here, there are definitely elements of WP:TE and issues with WP:AGF apparent, but looking at those various pages, the real concern for me is one of WP:CIR, by way of English facility. Capability with a particular language is always one of my least favourite criteria for calling another contributor out, for a number of reasons: the Wikimedia movement relies upon editors being able to make that transition and share efforts and perspective; in some contexts, small difficulties and idiosyncrasies in language often get exaggerated as a proxy for bigotry to keep able and valuable individuals out of certain spaces for trivial cause; editors vary considerably with regard to whether (and in what contexts) their incomplete capacity with a language prevents (or does not really prevent them) from contributing in a meaningful way to mainspace; and lastly, I just know from my own experience what it means to make such efforts, both on WM projects and in general: it's no easy thing to leave your language comfort zone to try to collaborate.
    All of that said, it looks very much to me like this might be a situation where CIR can be legitimately invoked, because its really not just the uneven English (which it must be said, really is pretty bad in places): there's also the sense of touchiness and WP:OWN that is coming through in their comments, and a generally hostile disposition towards criticism, down to borderline WP:PAs, a pretty noticeable refusal to AGF, and just a generally WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented mentality when it comes to discussion. Not to mention the edit warring. Those behavioural traits are exacerbating a language competence issue that is not, if I must be honest, exactly a small one here. Jgwikikid would be well-advised to slow their roll a little and not take every edit which changes the wording of their prose so personally, because if they are going to be contributing to mainspace with that level of English facility, it's simply going to happen a lot. Whether we can successfully communicate that need to them may just end up being the litmus test for whether or not their efforts can be retained on this particular project. SnowRise let's rap 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Atiru (talk · contribs), when creating an ANI report please do not forget to notify the user in question. I have notified Jgwikid (talk · contribs) on their talk page. From me, telling another user that they are cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous shows an issue in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. Saying that the other contributions are just "spoiling things" is also a problem in WP:AGF. Statements such as You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. also have issues, as it is casting aspersions that the edits are made in bad faith, while it may not be. On the other hand, previous contributions and interactions made by Jgwikid is pretty good and have no problems. SunDawntalk 00:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Snow Rise (talk · contribs) and SunDawn (talk · contribs). I notified the user about the ANI report underneath their response to my comment on their talk page. I didn't create a new subsection, however, so it may not've been clearly visible; apologies. Snow Rise (talk · contribs), I think your points are spot on. The user's language competency is clearly a cause of both poor-quality edits and a personal sensitivity to improvements of their edits. After this episode, I'm obviously not the best person to try to effect a positive change in attitude with this particular user, but hopefully they'll respond better to someone else who has the time and energy to engage with them. Atiru (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear ones. Please ban me, I really have no time to contribute for free. But do not forget to check 'Made On Purpose, Disruptive Edits' by Atiru (talk · contribs). And do it carefully and wisely to know who should be banned with his poor language and bad-faith edits .
    I work for free, adding competition tables, PBests tables, charts, sources, some info. All in good faith - I have never changed anything with bad intention, (just simply never changed at all) in articles written by the other. Sometimes I can make grammatical error (neurological problems) - small one in this case because just 2/3 short words needed to be added for really proper English. But he left nice tables (which say do not touch me - I am perfect) broken for a few hours and removed important info frome the lede. The woman in question is not only Olympic medallist as he changed the lead to, but also WChamps silver medallist - what he removed. He also removed from the lede top her two records - these are important Olympic distances' WR records - a WR double. Info is notabale for the lede top without any question. What is more - he also removed her junior medals info from the second intro's paragraph . As you see we have 'made on purpose, disruptive edits by Atiru'.
    Anyway yes. I really have no time to contribute. Thanks. Jgwikid (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you asked for it... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...does this user think the rest of us are getting paid? SnowRise let's rap 11:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if I had even just one dollar per hour... -stares off into space- SnowRise let's rap 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I anonymously volunteer my time for the status and glory, but that's just me. Thanks everyone for taking care of this situation. I do feel sorry for the user that it ended this way. Atiru (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Aruba... Huh? Oh yeah, you're quite welcome Atiru. I agree it's a suboptimal outcome in the respect you note, but better than ongoing disruption. The user can always make an unblock request if they feel they are prepared to work within community expectations. SnowRise let's rap 03:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continious homophobic and person attacks from user whos following my edits

    I'd hate for it to come to admin intervention, but I continuously get attacked by someone using an IP from what I think is the California region. They continuously respond on my talk page to even unrelated comments to just bring on name-calling, examples can be found on several pages:

    The user seems to be hopping around 63.194.188.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 186.139.255.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 47.147.70.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among others. Is there anything we can do to figure this out? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm noting for the record, since I think several of the diffs presented here will need to get revdel'd, that the edit summaries and talk page comments include a number of brightline violations of our WP:harassment policy, including outright slurs directed at sexuality which I think can be fairly described as hate speech, though it is unclear if it is also an effort at trolling. This issue is probably going to need to be handled by admins with a fair degree of technical facility regardless, so they will be able to see the full context in any event, but just in case this ends up having some broader community relevance, it's worth recording here that the tone of several of the edits is pretty ugly. SnowRise let's rap 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of this is acceptable, but unless it gets to the point where real-life legal action is feasible, I'm not sure much can be done. Asking admins to watch the relevant pages and quickly revert-block-ignore the content may be all that is possible. And, fortunately, this is the place to ask admins to do so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, blocks may very well be an option if this user is using the same handful of IPs consistently, though of course we may be looking at just a part of the disruption. Of course it's increasingly difficult these days for LTAs to abuse an infinite series of IPs via proxies (and the IPs need to be reported as potential proxy service IPs if nothing), though not impossible. Regardless, some combination of blocks or range blocks may be technically feasible and advisable here: there's a number of reasons that might not work out, but without some technical investigation here, it feels a little premature to say nothing can be done. I don't want to get too in the weeds here, given WP:BEANS, but there are potential options. SnowRise let's rap 03:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As they're jumping /8s and using different providers (and one of them geo-locates to Argentina) I'm not optimistic. If there is a way to block them, I agree that per BEANS we shouldn't spell it out here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked a couple of IPs, and done some revdel. More can probably be removed by anyone from Talk:Eazy-Duz-It and maybe some other pages. 186.139.255.129 and 47.147.70.139 seem to be long term static IPs. Any IPs from Argentina, etc, should be handled by one of the proxy bots if their type thinks of returning. If it kicks off again then page protection is probably an option - just give an admin a shout. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RogueShanghai, for the third time

    A self-described member of the "Barbz" on Stan Twitter, RogueShanghai has a clear agenda on Wikipedia: to use it as a weapon to edit with puffery the article of their favorite artist, with heavy ownership issues, removing anything bad written in the article by any means, while throwing everything inflamatory and pushing narratives on the articles of the artists they dislike: the user's contributions speak on this. Citing random guidelines to undo edits. Writing stuff like:

    Even though the user has been warned multiple times about their biased, disruptive behavior on Wikipedia on their talk page, it continues. I'm the third editor to report this user since July 2021 in ANI:

    I'm asking, please, to have a response on this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've read through both the previous threads and looked at some the edit summaries and page revision histories. I do think there are some reasonable concerns with regard to bias in the reported editor. However, I'm also concerned that Cornerstonepicker did not make clear that one of the two "previous discussions" is in fact live on this page right now, covering substantially the same issues. Cornerstone, I note that the last editor you queried about the matter wanting urgent action informed you that there seemed to be no consensus in that discussion for sanctions. So creating this additional thread, running in parallel to the previous one, does not strike me as the most appropriate and constructive response to that situation. You are already engaged in this matter above, along similar arguments. Opening a new thread at ANI under those circumstances might be taken as WP:Disruptive. Like the advice Bilorv gave you above, this should not be taken for me saying that action against RogueShanghai isn't needed: for my part, I would need to look into the matter further as it's clearly a nuanced case of fan zealousy and I'm not sure how far over the line they are at this point. But you just don't seem to have made your case (or been lucky enough to get it noticed, perhaps), so trying another bite at the apple with the other discussion not even closed isn't really likely to get you the result you want, put candidly. SnowRise let's rap 03:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I was sure the previous one was on its way to getting archived. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, at this juncture I think you have only two possible courses of action here, neither of which I think is going to leave you overjoyed:
    • 1) just accept that there is no community consensus to take action against RogueShanghai at this time, and return to make your best efforts at discussing issues with them (assuming that avoiding them entirely is not an option because of shared namespace interests). If the problems persist, you can file another ANI at a latter date, or seek administrative aid through another venue. However, I would recommend only doing this if some time has passed and it is absolutely necessary. Needless to say, there are some types of behaviour that are brightline violations of policy that you shouldn't be discourage from reporting under any circumstances, but short of those (and you'll just have to use your best judgement on whether a particular action qualifies), I would advise that discretion is the better part of valour here.
    • 2) you can always continue to pursue this in the still on-going thread above, but I think Bilorv has the right end of the stick on that situation: it doesn't look like there is community will for action just at the moment, and so I can't say as I recommend this option. Regardless, if you do decide to keep the discussion going there initially, but other uninvolved community members start to suggest to you that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK (or make comments even remotely in that vein) I would let the matter go immediately for the immediate future.
    I'm sorry I can't give you better options than that. I will continue to look into the matter and perhaps provide some input one way or another, but it may not come immediately and even if I do comment, it will not amount to much more by way of community consensus, so my first recommendation of letting the matter drop remains my best advice. But in any event, another thread running in parallel to this one and on substantially the same topic isn't going to help make the situation less messy, but rather quite the contrary. However, if there is another down the line, please feel free to ping me at that time and I will use whatever information I have gathered at that time to provide some feedback. I can't absolutely guarantee it will be to endorse your view of things, but it will at least be one more response keeping the next thread (if there absolutely must be one) from getting lost in the mix. SnowRise let's rap 15:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm perfectly satisfied to work with Cornerstonepicker on improving the Minaj article. The issue is, there seems to be a cycle. In April 2021, I opened a section on the talk page that discusses if Minaj should be said as the "Queen of Rap." I wanted to get other editor's opinions and reach a consensus if she should be called the Queen of Rap. [145] The consensus was decided upon that Minaj should be called the Queen of Rap, decided upon by the talk page.[146] Cornerstonepicker completely ignores this and enforces what THEY should think the article should say.[147] This seems to be a recurring issue when it comes to cornerstone's edits on the Minaj article. A consensus is usually decided, then Cornerstone completely disregards said consensus when it comes to the Minaj article and enforces what they think should be in the article. I elaborate on this problematic cycle of cornerstone more here.[148] "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"(talk to me!~) 04:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify that the ongoing consensus (between many editors) was proprosed by me, for a cleaner lead section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that was months after the original consensus had been decided. You knowingly disregarded the CURRENT consensus that was in place, and edited it as you see fit, and then you opened another RFC to support your own view. The order is important context in this scenario. I've explained your problematic history against Nicki Minaj before in detail, here. [149] "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"(talk to me!~) 04:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another reason why editors don't follow up with RogueShanghai; the user uses misleading wording to accomodate an accussation. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative information is still information. I believe that if Complex Magazine, a popular hip hop magazine, states that a campaign about Cardi's accusations of drugging and robbing has spread online, then it is worth including in the article. The entire section about her allegations seem to have huge WP:TONE issues, seemingly written in a "justified" point of view. What Cardi did to those men in my opinion is wrong, but the tone and wording of the entire paragraph is written like it's supposed to normalize drugging and robbing men if you are desperate.

    This is nothing more than a blatant personal attack coming from someone who I recently called out for endless bias, disregarding of talk page consensus decided by multiple editors, and constantly getting called out for unconstructive edits to female rappers he seems to not like. This person who accused me has been accused of unconstructive biased edits by multiple experienced editors to multiple female musician articles, such as Normani Kordei,[151] Megan Thee Stallion,[152] and Nicki Minaj [153]. I've been openly transparent about being a fan of Minaj, yet User:Cornerstonepicker seems to have no problem consistently attacking me for my open transparency [154] as well as going so far as to misgender me.[155] I reported more of his blatantly problematic editing against Minaj in AN3 here, [156], yet nothing was done about it. Cornerstonepicker seems to have a very problematic editing history CONSISTENTLY against Minaj and hides under the veil of "holding up policy" to consistently enforce an agenda against Nicki Minaj. Other editors [157] have corrobated me on this, that cornerstonepicker is consistently a difficult editor to work with. They seem to not like that I am just trying to add well sourced information about women in hip hop in general. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"(talk to me!~) 03:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    Mass vandalism by range 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34

    The current partial block is not sufficient, based on hundreds of recent edits. Probably a mass reversion and a deeper block are in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins have been piling up a series of six partial blocks of this range. Time to consider a sitewide block instead. A /34 looks like a big range but most of these edits are bad. In fact, the recent ones have nearly all been reverted. I suggest a three month sitewide block of the /34. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: (Non-administrator comment) You're an admin; why not do it yourself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of hoping someone--any admin--will review this further. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Special:Contributions/2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 for three months sitewide as proposed above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranting fundamentalist

    User:83Gulf has been edit-warring at Book of Ruth, repeatedly violating WP:CENSOR, and spewing rants which are fundamentalist attacks against mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also acting of their behalf: Special:Contributions/155.246.151.38. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a diff:
    And their edit summary: "Such arrogance to think that one published piece of garbage should outweigh centuries of carefully considered thought. What would you say if I'd said this thing about your holy venerated mother? Apparently nothing because you have no values and all thoughts are equally relevant in your weak mind. Wiki is quickly becoming a vast garbage dump of ramblings and murmurings. Weak utterances of thought don't deserve the time of day to reconsider." Carlstak (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing dispute. Per WP:redflag extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which is what 83Gulf claimed in different words. If you believe I am sockpuppet, please file at SPI. It will be futile.155.246.151.38 (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEAT is good enough, it does not have to be WP:SOCK.
    It's not WP:REDFLAG: Michael Coogan stated the same in God and Sex. Seems to be a pretty vanilla claim among modern Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ES [Many modern commentators see sexual allusions in this part of the story, with 'feet' as a euphemism for genitals.] - deleted. Intellectual graffiti from a perverted mind steeped in the weak morality of our current society. An attempt to undo thousands of years of established religion by an atheist. makes me wonder about their ability to adhere to NPOV; especially as one of the atheists in question is Gerald West, Professor of Religion and Theology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and another is Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.
    Conservapedia is thataway → Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please argue that point at talk. A claim of WP:redflag was made. Address it at talk.155.246.151.38 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative, IP. No change in venue is warranted. This is the place for conduct matters. I don't even know what this is about (Narky Blert: Cow Man says, diffs = friend), but I do know that telling someone that they are of a perverted mind and are of a weak morality is a personal attack if directed at an editor, and a WP:BLP violation if directed at an otherwise living person. Neither is acceptable. Either is a cause for sanctions. El_C 06:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff. Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Narky Blert, this is why I'm so good at what I do. I start reading a report from the middle! Blocked indefinitely for egregious misconduct. El_C 06:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not convinced the 155 IP editor is the same as 83Gulf, and I'm not convinced of anything that should happen regarding the editing dispute at Book of Ruth (please use the talk page). However 83Gulf is very close to being sanctioned for inappropriate comments, and the 155 IP editor has had quite a lot of their edits reverted for NPOV issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy update

    Thank you for the courtesy update, it is appreciated.
    I'm not wishing to censor this away, but I do believe a discussion past the point of the remarks already made would not be in the best interests of all those involved. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: I'm only posting this because this event is easily missed by anyone who isn't online 24/7, & will lead to bafflement & misunderstandings for many. I'll leave the work of providing further details to others.
    It has come to my attention that Chris Sherlock, who most lately has been contributing under the username Aussie Article Writer, has been indefinitely banned. The immediate cause was that he violated an WP:IBAN. The more general cause of his ban is that, simply put, Wikipedia is not a healthy environment for him & he needs to stay away from here. (It is possible: I've taken several Wikibreaks in the past, & am about to take another.) I sincerely wish him all the best, & hope for his sake he doesn't come back. -- llywrch (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would also be great if people could avoid the temptation to post on AAW's talk about this, which somehow three users, two of them quite experienced, have thought it was a good idea to do. There's a very real risk of directly harming AAW's mental health by doing so. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A brief essay expounding upon the above: Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know, shortcuts WP:OPAQUE and WP:NEEDTOKNOW. Hopefully people can keep this essay in mind for future cases along these lines. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Llywrch, I believe he has been indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action, not banned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. I indefinitely blocked AAR for their multiple egregious violations of their community-imposed interaction ban with BHG (note for those following along that the ban was imposed on their previous account Chris.sherlock). I do, however, deeply regret any emotional turmoil this has caused him. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the gist is: we don't reject people, we reject pieces of abstract knowledge. If my piece of abstract knowledge gets rejected by the community, it is not me who got rejected, it is not my person who has been censored. Some people take it too personally, but in fact we do not judge real persons, we judge knowledge. And this should be extra clear from the requirement that we never render people's personal opinions, but only the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. We judge edits not editors, and we judge edits against RS. Levivich 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl

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

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

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

    In addition to this incident, I'll also note that at the same time, just today, BrownHairedGirl seems to have written similar AGF/NPA-violating comments directed at User:The Rambling Man ([164] "TRM, please do try to stop trolling"). User:SQL asked her to tone this down [165]; which didn't go down so well judging by the fact that after few short exchanges SQL themselves was asking her to "retract personal attacks" made against them: [166]. BHG's posts on her talk page in response to SQL: Accues an editor (presumably TRM) of being a troll again; does so again, referring to (presumably) TRM as troll four times; does so twice more again, and accuses SQL of "harassment and victimisation"; next she refuses to retract the previous accusations, repeats it and the "troll" comments, and adds a new one, accusing SQL of "being a troll-enabler"; continues to repeat a bunch of those accusations again; and finally ends with repeating some of the above and and saying "Your choice not to communicate further is a blessed relief after your terrible behaviour, so please make your non-communication permanent until you repent of being a force-multiplier for a troll.".

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

    • As this will inevitably draw the anti-TRM hawks out of hiding, I'll just say that the kinds of things being expressed by BrownhairedGirl felt to me like just venting and while toxic, didn't bother me at all. I've been too busy lately just creating shit-tons of featured and good material, and keeping errors off the main page, to be bothered by that kind of stuff. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely reject Piotrus' claims, and am preparing my response. But there are a lot of diffs to collect, so it may take a few hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm interested to hear both sides of this, so could we please break ANI tradition and try to work through this without the typical high-octane drama? There's a lot of signal to noise ratio issues at play, and if we can cut through that and work out what happened and why, we might just get through this without it becoming a cluster (I'll let you choose which sort). ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by BHG. I stand by my comments about Piotrus. For example, Piotrus falsely accused me[167] of You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial. That was because I had pointed out that in the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers (including Bobby Sands) the question of political status was a major political dispute at the heart of a low-level civil war. You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side. The nature of that dispute is uncontested: one side insisted that they were political priosners, the other than they were not. Piotrus wants to create a situation where en.wp editors will have to make a binary choice between one POV or the other, because categorisation is a binary choice.
      Piotrus's decision to accuse me of "inventing" undisputed historical facts is just one part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics which he has adopted in relation to political prisoner categories, and I make no apology for calling him for his malicious slurs. I could provide a lot more details on his antics, but I hope that his attempt to smear historical facts as inveting is sufficient illustration of his tactics and why I eventually questioned his integrity when he repeatedly pushed the same point by demanding sources for that simple, core historical point, and I stand by that comment.
    So Piotrus's decision to come here to complain about my responses to his antics is bizarre.
    As to TRM, the situation is at core relatively simple. TRM posted at BRFA a comment which was pure snark[168]. It offered no insight or value to the decision on whether run that bot task; it was purely a personal attack, and as such it was classic trolling. After I called it out as trolling[169] and hatted it[170], TRM unhatted the off-topic comments,[171] and posted another round of trolling.[172].SQL hatted the discussion again, and I replied to TRM.[173]
    Then SQL came to my talk to reproach me for posting in the hatted area. SQL's concern was not that I had been trolled or that the BRFA had been disrupted by the trolling, but I had replied to the troll. SQL's opening comment tome[174] was If you have an issue with another editor, you know where to take it up. That inverted the core fact that the whole thing was a matter of another editor taking issue with me in the wrong venue. But there was no reproach to TRM, only to me. After several rounds of this, I eventually asked SQL to stop this harassment and victimisation, and go reproach the troll who had accused the disruption. SQL took offence at that, and we both tried to disengage.
    I then went off to explore the background of TRM's comment that another editor has advised him to come to BRFA. I then discovered that in fact, TRM had been goaded into action by Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) (formerly Chris.sherlock), a long-term highly destructive editor who has waged extraordinarily long and vicious vendettas against numerous editors,and who began his vendetta against me after I opposed his vile vendetta against @DuncanHill. As a result,Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is subject to a one-way IBAN re me and DuncanHill. That IBAN was flagrantly broken by his antics on TRM's talk (permalink to that discussion,which is busting with personal attacks on me by all three participants), and by Aussie Article Writer's trolling of my draft RFA (permalink), and by Aussie Article Writer's continued breaches of the iBAN on his talk after being blocked for the IBAN breaches (permalink).
    Sadly, SQL was uninterested in any of that shoddy background when I posted about it on SQL's talk: permalink.
    Now, having slept on it, I am much less annoyed at SQL and TRM. All three of us -- TRM, SQL and me -- were all played like puppets by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, whose exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. I sincerely hope that they are again banned (as they were for three years) and they are never again able to spread poison like the did to collaboration between me, TRM and SQL.
    So Piotrus's post on my talk today[175] was an attempt to leverage the drama created by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, by falsely linking it to my rejection of his smears at DRV. I promptly reverted it as trolling, and stand by that label: it was a clear attempt to make mischief by falsely portraying me as the cause of two dramas instigated by others.
    Now, please can we end this drama and get back to editing?
    SQL and TRM, please be wary of that menace Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock. And Piotrus ... if you making false accusations that another editor is inventing history, and double down at length with FUD tactics ... don't cry "personal attack" when your integrity is challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if it's worth anything, I wasn't aware that (a) AAW was a sock and (b) the owner had been IBANned with you. I assume good faith with editors I've never heard of coming to my page. Although I probably should have learnt a lesson from years back when a rather excited admin blocked me for apparently deliberately proxying for a banned editor. Live and (in this case not) learn. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: I wholly accept that. You had no reason at all to know about the IBAN, and your AGF was taken advantage of.
    As I wrote above, I think in hindsight that you and me and SQL were all played like violins by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock's latest attempt to do what he has done successfully for years: create conflict to discredit others. Chris had enough insight to see how to press our buttons, and has enough malice to try to maximise destruction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to AAW it wasn't technically a sock account - it wasn't block evasion and there wasn't any overlap of the accounts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, your comments regarding Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are egregious personal attacks. I don't care whether or not they are blocked, or whether or not they have personally attacked you, those comments are unacceptable and are unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor with as much experience as you. I ask that you strike them, and I am prepared to hand out an NPA block if necessary. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability Which comments? About his vile vendetta against me? Entirely justified. About his spreading of drama and malice for many years? Entirely justified. I'm sure you noticed his attempt to blame me for his problems during his last meltdown. Stop letting him press your buttons. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: as @DuncanHill notes below, my comments on Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are entirely based on the facts of his appalling conduct over many years.
    It is entirely unacceptable that Wikipedia editors have continued to be exposed for so long to the vendettas of Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer. He chose in this case to knowingly violate an IBAN to pursue a multi-venue attacks on me -- and you are criticising me for describing this? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Note that Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer also violated his IBAN re @DuncanHill by posting repeatedly on Duncan's talks: see the history of Duncan's talk.
    Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is well aware that bot IBANs are in place: see this disastrously botched appeal against his IBANs, last month.
    Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer has been actively targeting editors for years. Why do you want the targets of his vendettas to refrain from noting that when he has another swing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I don't think there actually was an IBAN againt AAW with regard to me. There should have been one years ago after an email he sent me, which got one of his then-blocked accounts a loss of email privileges. He regained email by reappearing as another account. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    nope
    • (edit conflicted of course) I find myself reading another ANI thread where things can go one way or another - we could spend a long time quoting each other and end up with someone blocked, or we could try to look at this from an outside perspective. Wikipedia is weird, it causes otherwise lovely people to get rather annoyed about things which often wouldn't cause such a dramatic response (myself included!).
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Some of your above comments have merit, others are combatative and have only escalated things. And that's what a lot of this is, on both sides - escalation for very little outcome. Your behaviour has been rude, and regardless of how anyone feels or how justified it may well be, we can do better than be rude. In an ideal world, I'd ask you to please refactor/strike things other people have found to be a personal attack - not on the basis that it may or may not have been one by the letter of some website's policy, but solely because what do you honestly lose by doing so? What we gain though, is de-escalation, and that is worthy of small concessions on a project built on collaboration. I'd also like to note that even though you have been rude, your experience of being harassed and targeted is valid and deserves investigation - everyone should be reminded that being uncivil does not preclude someone from also being the target of harassment, and we must not dismiss someone's claims solely because of the manner in which they present them. I appreciate your attempts at trying to disengage, and understand that sometimes that's easier said than done.
    • @Piotrus: I hear you, and I agree that things have been said in a manner which aren't great. I understand that the resolution you would like is for BrownHairedGirl to retract/refactor their statement to you and apologise. I think that is a reasonable thing to request and would help de-escalate things.
    • I've tried really hard to hear both sides of this - I don't want to see anyone blocked where the outcome could still be one we learn from. Incivility has no place here, we can do better in how we speak to each other and we can always choose not to escalate a situation. I'm not expecting people to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but stepping away, having a mug of wine tea and working together on this is a good start. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I an not willing to refactor my comments in relation to Piotrus unless their allegation that I invented historical fact (and their many followups in similar vein) are clearly withdrawn.
    To my mind, that sort of attempt to smear another editor's reasoned objections is many orders of magnitude more destructive than possibly rude words in response. Wikipedia may survive rudeness; but malicious allegations of historical falsification destroy the substance of what we here to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: What's the outcome you're looking for here? I understand your stance - de-escalation is almost always something that has to happen on both sides. Do we need to look at more IBANs as a way of moving everyone away from each other here? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime: Some misunderstanding, maybe? I didn't bring this to ANI, so my only desire here was to defend myself.
      I would be quite happy for his discussion to simply to be closed as "no action needed", and put an end to the timesink. But if you want something specific, then i ask that Piotrus retract all his bogus allegations that I invented an NPOV problem, and the rest of the spinoffs as the dug in deeper. If that happened,then I would of course retract/refactor some of my comments in reply.
      I don't think that any IBAN here would be constructive. This at heart a content issue, where Piotrus has been waging a campaign to discredit anyone who point to complexity and nuance and POV problems in the application of a label which he insists can be objectively determined. That cannot be resolved by constraining Piotrus's interactions with one or more individual editors who have had the temerity to challenge his simple certainties; it needs a change of approach by Piotrus, or their recusal from a topic where they are too heavily emotionally invested to assume good faith in those who say "it's not that simple". Note for example that in the DRV discussion, Piotrus has repeatedly pronounced that those who point to POV issues in the term "political prisoner" are supporting "fringe views", taking a pro-western stance, etc. I will see if I have the energy to collect more diffs, but here's one to start with; Piotrus dismissing as a straw man [177] my assertion[178] that In the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange or Leonard Peltier, there is not a mainstream view versus a fringe: there are two radically different worldviews which have opposing concepts of what is a political prisoner. Choosing one pOV over the other is breach of WP:NPOV. That sort of counter-factual bluster is deeply corrosive battleground conduct, and there was lots of it from Piotrus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl: Evidently action is needed, I was really hoping you'd reflect on the words you've used and come to your own conclusion on their suitability for use. They are not suitable. We're all guilty (myself, recently) of using inappropriate language to describe other editors. We must be better. I'm stepping away from this conversation now as its fairly likely to spiral into ANI-class bullshit, and at 9:30pm I'm more inclined to go put my feet up than continue this. I'm fairly sure this will result in a block, and perhaps it should. BrownHairedGirl, defeat the trend we're seeing on this project and apologise - do better than we've all done previously ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime: again, I will make no apology for eventually standing up to a sustained attempt by Piotrus to smear and misrepresent editors who accurately pointed to complexity in response to his campaign to erase other perspectives.
      If Wikipedia really is a place where the response to such POV-pushing and bullying is more problematic than the POV-pushing and denialism itself, then it will no longer be an NPOV encyclopedia. Collegial discussion requires open exchange of views and willingness to accept factually-based counter-arguments. I am very troubled by your lack of concern about that conduct, because NPOV is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should their other accounts get indefblocked as well?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this thread on SQL's talk page shows a real lack of civility. SQL had already asked BHG to stop contacting them at this point. BHG justified the post by saying that it presented new information. Ok, sure, fine. But SQL replies reiterating clearly that they wish to be left alone and feel BHG's behaviour is approaching harrassment. Even after that BHG leaves another comment. Then SQL asks again for BHG to stop, and then BHG comments again. This is the kind of treatment that drives editors away from the project (cf. Special:Diff/1037702885). Colin M (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I was close to being driven away from Wikipedia by SQL's stonewalling, both over their initial refusal to recognise that I had been trolled and by their later refusal to even acknowledge that the whole saga had all been stoked by a serial vendetta-monger who breached an IBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as BRFA/bot processes are concerned: I've never had a bad personal interaction with BHG, but I've noticed she can brush off as a bit verbose/abrasive when in a dispute. Aside from the incident linked to in the OP, there was this extended issue (along with the various spin-offs on other talk pages; and the history since a bunch was redacted by BAG members, eg here). As a result of the incident, the volume of text and the heat-to-light ratio was such that no other BAG member wanted to review the issue, and I'm surprised Primefac made the effort. I think she means well and often identifies an actual problem, but I'd just gently advise this approach is not always particularly helpful, especially when you want BAG attention on something, and it can discourage bot operators (like QEDK, who stopped running the bot and says "I'll probably let it lapse anyway since I have no intention of running a bot on this wiki again"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: I found that episode absolutely horrible, and it severely dented my faith in BAG.
      The facts of that case were quite simple. A bot was authorised for category-related tasks, the BRFA having been notified at central talk pages. When it began work, it started populating a category which was nominated at CFD, where everyone except that bot operator opposed the bot's work. It was clear that owing to an oversight in notification, there was not actually consensus for its work, but the bot owner dug down and insisted that there was consensus, despite the overwhwelming opposition.
      BAG handled that very badly, focusing on a procedural defence of their initial good faith authorisation, rather than on the current consensus that the bot would do a lot of damage to category redirects. I was horrified by how hard I had to push the simple point that a good-faith assessment of consensus had turned out to be radically mistaken, and that the authorisation needed to be reassessed.
      I felt that QEDK was badly let down by BAG, who supported QEDK's destructive digging-in instead of simply saying "let's pause and reopen discussion". BAG guided EDK into confrontation rather consensus-building, and I am unsurprised that QEDK was disillusioned; I was disillusioned too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I quite agree with that reading. I don't want to run this sub-thread too long, but I'll just say that I do think it was largely how you decided to handle the problem, as well as the specific comments you made, that led to the great deal of animus discussion and the bot being retired. In addition, QEDK (unsurprisingly) basically disappeared after that month and he's now largely inactive. Obviously I can't say whether it's connected or not but I'd imagine so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: we'll have to differ on that. I tried all the usual gentle steps at escalation, but was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by QEDK, and stonewalled by BAG. The animus arose out of BAG's collective failure to reopen the consensus-building, which required an escalation of pressure to stop the bot doing damage.
      It could all have been so vastly happier for everyone if BAG had simply re-opened consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears the bomb robot has tipped at a hill. 😡 El_C 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      BrownHairedGirl, gotta say, after reading the linked threads and all the diffs above, I have to agree with PR and others that your tenor and demeanor appear to be have the opposite effect of what you intend in these discussions. Far from resolving these disputes, it is making them escalate to all-out brawls. I actually agree with you re: the CfD and deletion review discussions linked above, but I agree with others that your behavior is still problematic, regardless of what the right call is in the linked discussions. One can be right, and still be wrong about how they go about being right.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (I reply against my better judgement...) You say "escalation of pressure" as if you moved a user talk discussion to WP:BOTN. I feel the need to emphasise to you, after jogging my memory by reading the diffs again, that the whole affair was the most... ruthless... thing I've seen in the bot space, and I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's not often you see Primefac writing in all-caps. There was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task, three BAG members reviewed (and denied) your complaints, following which your messages towards QEDK included a vile, gaslighting thug, vile, scummy conduct, you systematic mendacity and persistent gaslighting, repeatedly stonewalled, deceived, bullied and gaslighted, whether this bot-owner is competent to run a bot, and those are just excerpts from two comments. You repeated similar stuff over dozens of other comments. Do you honestly not see how this would make another editor feel? Speaking for myself, I'd say that whole affair would be enough to throw in the towel and do something else onwiki, or find a different hobby altogether. It's not how we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RE: a vile, gaslighting thug... [etc.] — holy shit! P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, once again, Cow Man says: diffs = friend. El_C 20:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ProcrastinatingReader: we are back to the core problem:your assertion that this was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task. I fundamentally disagree on both counts.
      QEDK repeatedly dismissed the objections of all the category regulars, often very insultingly. none of the regular category editors supported him, but he dismissed all the objections. That is not the conduct of a good bot owner.
      Similarly, this was not a "legitimate task". It was a task which had been approved in good faith without notifications treated at the most relevant editors, who objected en masse when they became aware of it. A good faith error was made in approving it, but once such widespread opposition became clear, it was no longer a legit task.
      That's the problem:the way we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment is to reopen a decision which turns out to be unexpectedly controversial due to lack of notification. I pleaded for that opportunity to discuss it collaboratively, but was repeatedly rebuffed. When BAG block the collaborative pathway, expect anger in return
      You have quoted me without diffs, which is unfair because I cannot review the context ... but I do recall utterly vile personal attacks from QEDK, to which I was responding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Diff for you are again behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the diff. That allows other editors to see my comment in the context of my explanation of the behaviour that I was describing.
      QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. He was ploughing on with a task which clearly did have consensus, and had been lashing out at me in multiple venues. It would be much more productive to read the whole thread than to cherrypick the points where I snapped at the antics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (FTR: I did give a diff in my original comment (of Primefac's removal, which contained that comment).)
      I remember reading this and the preceding/related discussions last year, such as on his user talk and though I can't remember all the details, I can remember that (on the whole) I didn't come away with the 'QEDK wasn't listening' impression. I also felt that even his most frustrated response fell short of "utterly vile personal attacks", and he kept his composure better than most of us would've. I think he was trying to listen (see how he responded to Trappist the monk's concern, on the same link), although after a while probably felt you weren't engaging in good faith. The BAG members responding also seemed to be more concerned with what you were saying (eg [179][180]). I also remember QEDK said he paused the bot's activity until BAG gave an all-clear, which removes any sense of urgency in my opinion. I'm not necessarily saying you were wrong about the content issues (I haven't reviewed them in depth, and in general you often are right), I'm just dismayed by your approach and how QEDK was treat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In that WT:BRFA discussion, it seems QEDK didn't really know that category redirects often have no backlinks and no members by design (even {{category redirect}}, which QEDK cited, says admins should only delete category redirects "If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages"!). It took me a while (and multiple re-reads) to understand that too, just now. Yes, maybe QEDK should have made sure he deeply understood category redirects before proceeding. But that's no reason to throw AGF out the window and write something like this comment, which I will quote at length: You have now made your goal crystal clear [...], and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors. There is no justification for escalating rhetoric like that. "Manipulating consensus", specifically, is a nasty and (in context) unfounded accusation. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I've looked at some (but not all) of the diffs, and one thing is clear: BHG needs to learn when to dis-engage with a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support block (struck; the support was for a temporary block to prevent continuing personal attacks in this thread, those have now stopped User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)) even if QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug is accurate, constantly repeating these personal attacks is degrading to the conversation. Multiple editors have told BHG this. I still haven't read the initial deletion discussion that led to the DRV, but this diff about Piotrus your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand is clearly a personal attack. I don't see any option other than a block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        For goodness sake, I repeated that comment about QEDK solely because it was dug out of the archives by someone else, and i explained why I used it at the time. My offence here was to defend myself.
        As to the DRV, please read the discussion and see that comment in context. I was being heavily goaded: accused of "inventing" historical facts, of creating a straw man pointing to one of he biggest political crises in Northern Ireland... and eventually I snapped. Your quite here omits both the context of the rest of my comment, and the wider context of the discussion which proceeded it. For the record, Piotrus made multiple claims at both DRV and at CFD to expertise as a social scientist ... yet his conduct of a FUD campaign against inconvenient facts was incompatible with the norms of that profession. So I didn't make a statement 'as quoted: I asked a question about what was was going on, with that as one possible explanation. I can't even quite the whole of what i wrote, because it seems that doing so will be treated as an offence in itself.
        This mining of decontextualized quotes is a terrible way to assess a lengthy discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I have finished reading the CFD and DRV discussions. As this is a dispute over content that has turned into a behavior dispute, I will give my opinion on both. Both BHG and Piotrus are bludgeoning the DRV discussion. There is certainly a philosophical dispute regarding how categories should be used regarding controversial classifications. Whether or not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT applies to prohibit Category:Political prisoners is the topic of the open DRV. BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered. That said, Piotrus's suggestion that modern scholarship and not just contemporaneous opinions be considered is reasonable (we would certainly do so for 19th century political prisoners), and I don't see how that implies he is POV-pushing. With any amount of context, the your claim to be a social scientist are false comment is needlessly inflammatory; please do not insist that comment is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @力: It was a final-straw response to Piotrus's repeated claims that I was "inventing" the issue as a "straw man". I am glad that you agree that it is not. But can you understand how I was goaded by the repeated attempts to erase the issue and cast me as a liar,as well as by the wider bludgeoning?
        Of course, the views of contemporary scholars should be represented in the article, along with the views of the protagonists and contemporary observers and scholars. But to single one of those perspectives out as the "fact" summarised in a category entry or omitted from the category is a distortion of multi-polar reality.
        One of the issues here is cultural. Poland has moved far to the right, and its rejection of the communist era is complete; everything from that period is viewed by the vast majority as bad. Ireland has moved from centuries of conflict into a very different space, where everything is about creating space for two traditions to co-exist. So we are very much in a space of multi-polar narratives,and allowing all POVs to be heard, and not requiring a single official truth. It's fuzzy and complex,but least we not shooting each other no more.
        I don't expect outsiders to understand that, but I do expect that they at least try to educate themselves before denouncing it as fabrication. I remain highly alarmed that someone who claims to be a social scientist has been bludgeoning an en.wp discussion to insist that there is only one POV and no subjectivity. That pursuit of rigid certainty is the polar opposite of the critical analysis of complexity that I expect from social science, and I can't reconcile the two things I see. If I had been less goaded by the repeated malignment and by the repeated denial of a POV divide on the issue, I would probably have expressed my concern more cautiously, but that's not the situation I found myself in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The second quote needs a bit more context, but is not much better with it. BHG is saying that either QEDK is lying about being a social scientist and lacks thinking skills or that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. I unfortunately recognize this sort of dichotomy from some of BHG's previous comments which were cited in the Portals arbcom case. Examples of it being applied to three different editors: one, two, three. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. I think the community is often naïve about the damage that power-users with chronic civility issues do to the movement. Editors like BHG drive away others in a manner that adds up to much more lost effort than they can ever contribute on their own. Even for the rare editor who is a net-positive despite chronic civility issues (which I don't believe BHG to be), it sends a message to other users when we let them continue editing—a message that creates a chilling effect. It's really easy to not call people things like "vile". If someone can't manage that bare minimum, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, whether they have 2 edits or 2,000,000. Until BHG can show that she understands CIV and NPA, and understands that they apply even when the other person was a jerk to you, and even when you feel you are in the right, she should not be editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, at what point did blocking enter this discussion?. I don't see a reason to block anyone. I do see some good reasons for certain editors to step way from interacting with each other, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I must confess I started it (possibly sooner than helpful); I've simply seen enough comments where it appears BHG is defending their personal attacks by repeating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is quite unpleasant to be a participant in any conflict with BrownHairedGirl. She insists she is right, she is quick to assume bad faith and rarely backs down from that, and she is absolutely terrible at de-escalation. The fault is always with others (who "goad" her). She seems to have learned nothing from the Portals case (the discussion surrounding a block preceding that case is quite comparable to what we have today). I tend to avoid her if possible (fortunately our interests don't overlap much). BHG has gotten away with bullying and incivility for a very long time because she has many supporters, and ANI in particular has historically been spectacularly useless with respect to BHG, who has been allowed to continue and repeat her behaviour here. There is not a problem of Piotrus/BHG or one of SQL/BHG or one of QEDK/BHG (or earlier NA1k/BHG) that could be solved by mutual voluntary or involuntary interaction bans, it is a problem with BHG. She could end these conflicts by disengaging, but either chooses not to or is unable to. Both are bad for a collaborative environment. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has had a somewhat heated disagreement with BHG about renaming some categories or other (something like that), I really can't say I recognise that description of her. She stands up for what she believes in, and she challenges bullies. She has never shewn any signs of bearing me a grudge for our disagreement. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl:: There are many examples of personal attacks by you, above (and elsewhere). It would really be helpful if you could acknowledge that, and agree to moderate your behavior. Paul August ☎
    • Well said Kusma — Ched (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kusma and others said it well. Uncivil, rude and abrasive behavior creates a toxic environment on enwiki and already drove many good editors out of this project. Sadly, BHG has a history of repeatedly assuming bad faith and being quite rude and uncivil towards others. Unless something changes in her behavior, I am in favor of adopting sanctions towards her. - Darwinek (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Late, for sure. I haven't felt like being on Wikipedia much, and I really didn't want to go back through this, but I thought it might help give context from my point of view. Should this be in it's own section?
      • This started when I came to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 8. This was the page when I arrived: [181]
        • There appeared to be two editors (BHG (not pinging, BHG seemed not to want further contact from me - and I will respect that), and The Rambling Man) having an argument about things unrelated to the BRFA at hand. This can be very disruptive, and I felt that I was in a good position to stop it early on.
        • I went ahead and collapsed the argument: [182]. The message I left was "Arument between editors irrelevant to this request. Please take behavioral issues, accusations of trolling, and complaints of personal attacks to the appropriate venues.".
      • Immediately after, I was contacted by AAW and TRM [183].
        • I actually feel in hindsight that maybe I didn't do very well here. I was short with both of them, when I shouldn't have been. I also made a mistake and warned AAW that I had asked them not to comment on my talkpage. I was remembering the wrong editor from years ago. They've changed usernames so many times that I had a hard time keeping up. I apologized to them on thier talkpage, as one does when they've made a mistake [184].
        • It is worth noting that AAW and I have not really gotten along in the past - and I had opposed thier unblock a few years back.
      • Shortly after, BHG started editing the collapsed section to take a potshot at TRM (edit summary "reply to troll"). [185]
        • This is clearly disruptive to the BRFA, and is in my opinion a personal attack.
      • I left a message with BHG asking her to stop [186].
      • I tried again to explain why BHG's edits were disruptive. [187]
      • I tried again to explain that the reason I didn't leave messages for TRM was that they stopped at my request on the BRFA page. [188]
      • BHG baselessly accuses me of harassment [189]
      • I asked BHG to rescind her accusation, and stated that I had done no such thing. [190]
      • I informed BHG that I had no further desire to communicate until the false accusation of harassment had been retracted. I asked at this point that she stop pinging me. I was clearly watching the page, and did not require a ping with every message. [191]
      • Not getting a reply from me at her talkpage, BHG started a thread at my talkpage [192].
      • I asked BHG to stop contacting me again. [193]
        • I plainly stated "Leave me alone.", and indicated that I was starting to feel harassed.
      • BHG contacted me again, and indicated that she did not believe her baseless accusation of harassment was a PA. [194]
        • BHG claimed that I had gone "several rounds" at her. I was just trying to reply to her messages, until it appeared that no matter what I said, it would be twisted, and I would be attacked.
      • I ask again to be left alone. [195]
      • I'd had enough. I hung up a wikibreak/frustrated template, and nullrouted wikipedia. [196]
      • After being repeatedly asked to leave me alone, BHG felt the need to get the last word in. [197]
      • I'm sorry for the long read. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I initially commented on this thread it was far shallower. I see now just how deep this rabbit hole goes. I do not intend to read all of this. I will just say that I am no longer confident in my opinion and don't have the time or intention to give this topic the research it deserves to make a confident statement. Apologies to anyone I offended if I got things wrong, that being said I am also not confident I am wrong(or right). HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    • BHG can't really respond now that she has been blocked for a week. I was so stunned I had to make an uncomfortable trek back to ANI to try to find out why and how this happened. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not defending BHG's abrasive style of interacting with editors she believes are incorrect about interpreting Wikipedia policy but I have to say that when it comes to categories and understanding how they are and should be used on Wikipedia, she is never wrong. And that's my POV. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose action against BHG, I can't believe I even have to say this but nothing here rises to the level of a block. Not every ANI discussion needs to break into a support/oppose discussion. Rumbling for a block because someone is a "power user" is not part of the blocking policy. Christ the things we let certain users get away with and then people try to bring the hammer down down relatively minor venting because of who they are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaand I see GeneralNotability has gone ahead and done it already. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got a whole load of respect for you HighInBC, but excusing behaviour (like this?) as "relatively minor venting because of who they are" is a fairly substantial understatement. I don't believe expecting base civility is really that much to ask ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was saying her venting was minor. And I was saying they are being targeted by some for who they are, ie a "power user". I have seen truthful statements about serious harassment that has resulted in the user doing that harassment IBANned from the community and later blocked indef. And I have seen minor comments like referring to editing as trolling. Not giving anyone a free pass because of who they are, but I also think they should not be targeted for who they are. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a troll is not minor. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is if they are trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on. So it's ok to call someone an asshole as long as you think that's what they are? Every personal attack can be justified that way. Paul August ☎
    Ever heard of a duck? DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... WP:NPA says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." It doesn't add the caveat: "unless of course they deserve it." Paul August ☎ 00:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull the other one... DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what that means. Are you trying to be rude? Paul August ☎ 00:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August: If I were trying you would surely know. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pull the other one, it's got bells on" is a traditional extension of "you're pulling my leg" in British English. Don't you have this in America? Perhaps Peppa Pig's missionary work will get round to it. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill With all due respect and to avoid confusion, since BHG has called several editors trolls here. Do you believe I was trolling? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Well you started this dismal thread, make of that what you will. What I do think is that 99% of the criticism here wouldn't have started without AAW's baiting. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, Duncan, I don't know AAW, I don't believe I interacted with them nor that they participated in the deletion discussion that me and BHW did. If your comment was about AAW only, so be it, but since as you say, the tread has been started by me and concerns comments directed at me, and since you didn't answer clearly above, I ask you again: do you believe I was trolling, or not: yes, or no? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I think most of the editors calling for BHG to be blocked are (presumably unknowingly) being triggered by AAW. Now, It's perfectly possible to have a legitimate discussion about "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who dislike her", but this discussion ain't it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill While you may be right about some editors not being familiar with AAW, my question to you, for the third time, is whether you agree or disagree with BHG calling me a troll. Seriously, a simple yes or no is not that hard here; and if it helps, here's the exact diff in which she called me a "troll".
    As for the word dislike you use, I'd also like to note that it suggests some folks (like myself) dislike BHG. I'd kindly suggest refactoring your statement, as for one, I don't feel it's fair or correct to describe me as an editor who "dislikes" her; so may I suggest the phrase "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who disagree with her" instead? Bonus points for changing emolliently into something that most spellcheckers will recognize, like "positively" or "less combatively" or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly sorry you have an inadequate spell-checker. I will flagellate myself accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: I would also like to know if you think it was ok to call Piotrus a troll? Not answering Piotrus’ question seems to imply you do. If you don’t it would be helpful if you said so. Paul August ☎ 01:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you want me to say? DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Self quote: my question to you, for the third time, is whether you agree or disagree with BHG calling me a troll. Seriously, a simple yes or no is not that hard here Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the cock crowed three times? DuncanHill (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus please consider disengaging from this absolute train wreck you have caused. I will AGF that you didn’t know the background but must know by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am DuncanHill and I endorse this message. DuncanHill (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie Please note that my dispute with BHG has NOTHING to do with any misbehavior by some AAW (if this it the background you are referring to, no, I didn't know about it, still don't know it, and it is not relevant here. I, therefore, quote this right back at you: "I will AGF that you didn’t know the background" - so please read my OP to familiarize yourself with it). Please tell me how I caused any problem? I was called names, including troll, in a discussion totally unrelated to any "AAW", and I find being called such names quite offensive. I have stated my case (I don't like being called a troll, and if someone calls me that, I expect them to apologize, or have their conduct subject to scrutiny by the community). Nothing more, nothing less.
    I will nonetheless disengage myself from this sub-thread, which is indeed hardly constructive, and ping User:Paul August who asked the same question, and is clearly a less involved and neutral party than I am. Whether they want to pursue this in the capacity of an uninvolved administrator or not is up to them (as well as other uninvolved parties). For the record, I find the behavior of editors who are empowering others to call people names, or otherwise clowning around, quite unbecoming of the proper wikiquette, and worthy of admin's attention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: or otherwise clowning around. And now I'm sad. Honestly, though, Piotrus, I did ask for you to make your OP more legible (diff), but I guess didn't want...? El_C 04:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @El C: Responding to direct ping. I will strike that out, if you find it less than ideal of a descriptor for edits like [198] (I mean, isn't it a reference to the jester's hat? c'mon), [199] or [200]. The emotions are getting too heated in this and as I said, I am leaving this subdiscussion to more neutral parties. I am nonetheless disappointed that you find the quoted part to be the most objectionable part of the comments here. As for my OP, I thought blue makes it easier, not harder, to read. I mean, green is ok for quotes but blue is not? Personally I find blue more readable than green... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: (ec) I can assure you that [201] has nothing to do with a jester's hat. Even a jester does not wear his hat on his leg. DuncanHill (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought you were insulting Cow Man's integrity, so I felt compelled to retaliate. The thing is, though, it isn't about the colours per se., but the way lengthy hyperlinked text is displayed. Just letting you know that I kept waiting for you to fix it, and greatly delayed reading it as a result (and I really am trying to work on reading reports from the beginning, see "fundamentalist" thread above for more on that). I am nonetheless disappointed that you find the quoted part to be the most objectionable part of the comments here — I think my comment here shows that not to be the case. El_C 04:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I hope this is what you wanted. If I totally misunderstood you and this is worse, feel free to revert, and/or show me a report or such formatted in a way that you think is best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: 👍 El_C 05:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps. One more note. Having reviewed the "AAW" incident more, it seems to me that User:DuncanHill has been subject to some harassment from that editor, if I understand this correctly (I apologize if I am wrong). I am still not sure what BHG has to do with this case, or how the "AAW" incident became a part of this discussion. As someone who has been subject to serious harassment myself, I want to assure DH that I am not defending any editor who might have harassed him or anyone else, and I express my sympathy for any harassment that occurred that the community did not stop promptly enough. My disagreement with BHG had nothing to do with anyone called "AAW" or their alt account/sock. To make it clear, I feel a victim of harassment here, as in, a victim of personal attacks from BHG (such as her calling me a troll), originating in a discussion that, to repeat myself again, had, to the best of my knowledge, nothing to do with anyone called "AAW". I certainly do not defend any harassment aimed at DW, and all I am asking is that he extends the same courtesy to myself. I hope this clears most, if not all, of any misunderstanding here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some harassment" is an astounding understatement. BHG was one of very few editors to have the decency to stand up to AAW on my behalf. She is an editor who lays into bullies, not is one. DuncanHill (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, As I said, I am not familiar with your case. If BGH helped you with your problem, that's commendable. But the topic here is something else (her less than helpful comments towards or about other editors). If someone helps you, that's good, but it does not make them an infallible saint beyond reproach. If you are on good terms with BHG, I'd suggest you try to talk her down and help her moderate her behavior, so she can continue helping others without hurting them (as she did to me, and yes, I consider myself quite hurt by her comments). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say to block her because she's a power user. I said to block her because's she's chronically incivil, and that the fact that she's a power user shouldn't make her exempt. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block or any action — FWIW, BHG is an extremely productive editor and a net positive. Some (or most) of her comments are acerbic and abrasive(I’ve run afoul of this, so I’m no saint myself) Her obnoxious comments(incivility) are what largely led to her de-sysop. I find that BHG is always more often than not the cause of their own calamity for example BHG claims she wants a reasonable outcome from this ANI(closed as action needed) but her refusal to see or claim some responsibility to what this is spiraling into is very contradictory to the aforementioned stance. @BrownHairedGirl, could you just apologize to the relevant parties even if you feel you ought not to do so? That is, if you indeed want a reasonable outcome from this ANI, I for one would never support a block and I’m not sure why, how or when that premature proposal was made. Believe me, i know first hand what it feels like to be “correct” and still need to apologize, that way you show maturity and a sincere wish for all this to be over and you return back to normal editing. Like I always say at ANI's I’m saddened when productive editors are at loggerheads with a potential block looming, whilst there are real and more serious problems affecting the encyclopedia. Furthermore can you learn to not to edit when in a sour mood? Also could you learn to use less abrasive words (which can be seen as PA's) when addressing editors like I stated earlier, there isn’t any universe in which I’d ever support a block, you an extremely productive editor, don’t let ego get in your way. Celestina007 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block responses to baiting initiated by AAW were remarkably restrained. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sit it out While BHG is indeed a net positive editor and a main contributor to this project, I hate rude editors, so even though I would never have supported a block proposal, perhaps she should sit this one out and understand that being rude and refusing to back down from a conflict situation is not good practice on a community editing website. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur Debresser, just sit it out. Right now, the emotions are high. BHG should not have used such language (troll, etc.) but, people have bad days sometimes. I'm quite certain that BHG, in a day or two, will agree that she made a mistake. Will you BHG? That's all lacked here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG is not bullying and that isn't her intent at all. When she doesn't feel listened to, she gets increasingly frank and blunt, up to and far beyond the point of rudeness, and she doesn't get when it's time to drop the stick. (Piotrus isn't so great at dropping the stick either: that DRV is, by word count, about 40% comments by him.) Piotrus is able to disagree without so much incivility and that makes him more pleasant to work with. Unlike BHG, Piotrus also has the social skills to de-escalate conflict. He hasn't chosen to use them in this matter, and I'd like to know why not.
      Although I'm confident that Creffett's block was intended as preventative, I think there's an opportunity for him to read the room and reflect on whether to reduce it to time served.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unblock

    • I am involved in this only insofar as trying to prevent a long-term Wikipedian from being prematurely sanctioned. I, for one, am still trying to understand what the basis for all of this is. I respect both Piotrus & BHG; for the record, I have met Piotrus in person, but never have BHG, so if I favor any party in this it would be for the OP. When two long-term Wikipedians clash like this, we need to understand exactly what has happened. And waiting for a consensus to emerge here is hardly an unreasonable expectation. Lastly, I will abide by the decision made by whoever closes this thread. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, llywrch, but that's a pretty weird explanation. Undoing another admin's block without attempting to engage said admin 1st is not great, as far as admin conduct is concerned. El_C 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) BHG had requested an unblock, I responded to that request. Had there been no request, of course I would not have unblocked her. First I knew it was a firm rule to discuss a requested unblock with the blocking admin first. As I have written, all of this is moving way too fast. -- llywrch (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Llywrch has unblocked on the basis Active & ongoing thread in WP:AN/I about this user. No action should be taken *until* that discussion is concluded, which is not a reason I've ever heard of to reverse another admin's actions without consensus. Llywrch, you should self-revert. This is an inappropriate circumstance to unilaterally unblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) typo corrected 00:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I've a prejudice against presenting a sentence first then verdict afterwards. If any sanction is needed to protect the Wiki, it can wait until we've come to a consensus here. -- llywrch (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, I would've written something endorsing that block until it was lifted. And I agree with Tamzin says above. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Llywrch: Unblocking in this way, without first attempting to seek consensus or discussing with the blocking administrator, is highly irregular. See WP:RAAA. I strongly encourage you to self-revert until a consensus has emerged. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree with Kusma. I have never even interacted with BHG, but just seeing the vitriol she is allowed to direct at other editors again and again dampens my enthusiasm for the project. (And no, I don't believe it can all be explained as "fighting back against the trolls". SQL did nothing that begins to approach trolling, and was still treated very badly.) When we allow this kind of incivility, it emboldens would-be bad actors and scares away editors who want to work in a respectful, collegial environment. If she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, I see no solution other than a block. Colin M (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a big discussion and disagreement, I don't think any admin should be taking action until there is a consensus here to do so. Yes the rules allow admins to act unilaterally, the rules allow admins to reverse such actions. That is where it stops though. Perhaps we can finish the discussion and let the community decide, or not decide to take action. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what the fix is but this is not a one-off issue. In addition to all the stuff above and Kusma's list, I also remember hatting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#RfC:_usernames_in_signatures (Praxidicae/BHG); there was also this ANI (RexxS/BHG) which was largely the same stuff. There are probably many others. They occur frequently, and go back years. It's demonstrably led to editors retiring. I think the gist of it is that BHG forgets she is talking to real people when she feels passionately about a content dispute. I suppose the community has the right to decide what it will and won't tolerate. And if it's willing to tolerate calling fellow contributors "vile thugs" etc, without even assurances of a change, then so be it; that's the culture we sow and enable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the personal attacks, yes calling someone a troll is a personal attack. If we blocked users everytime they did that then there would be a LOT of blocks given out. Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning.
      If you want our NPA policy to have more teeth then go to WT:NPA and propose that, I may even support it. Until then we should enforce the policy as it is written. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC, Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. I think it has been suitably demonstrated above that this has been part of an egregious, ongoing issue that has not been corrected by warning. I seriously believe a warning would've done next to nothing, given the history here. I don't get your point about calling other users "trolls"; that is usually a phrase reserved for vandals/obvious not here cases, so In my eyes, calling an established user a troll is essentially comparing them to a vandal- which I would imagine some would find offensive. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighInBC: Interesting. Do you really see the issue here as a one-off incident that is correctable with a warning? The evidence here and at places like the Arbcom case suggests otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. That sounds like exactly what happened here. BHG has standing unretracted PAs against what, three editors right now? Piotrus, AAW, and QEDK? Most editors would have been blocked at one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: BHG's comments about AAW are entirely justified, and anyone objecting to them is defending one of the worst trolls we have ever known.DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the comments referenced in this thread were not about AAW. ST47 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But resulted ultimately from his triggering. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, calling an asshole an asshole still violates WP:NPA, and does no good. And objecting to calling an asshole an asshole is not the same as defending the asshole. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it in a way you may find appealing: "Those are not the comments you are looking for". (And for everyone else: "Those are not the comments my complaint in the OP were about"). I complained about comments directed at me (and also noted comments directed at TRM and SQL). I never said anything about any comments directed at someone called AAW. I hope this clears part of the misunderstanding we seem to be having? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Four. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Colin M above: if she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, then we have a serious problem. Paul August ☎ 00:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, was napping. HighInBC, while I personally wouldn't have endorsed a block at this stage, I agree with my learned colleagues above that this is a bad unblock. P.S. I see that the diff I asked was was provided (thanks, TNT). And it is from Aug 2020. See, this is why we can't have nice things (and why Cow Man runs over refs, probably). El_C 00:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the Wild West days of Wikipedia were over. The block was at best premature, & at worst a vicious action that will drive away one more valuable, long-term volunteer from the project at a time when we need experienced contributors. When Piotrus opened this thread, there had been no discussion of anyone being blocked; then 力 announces out of the blue "Support block"; & less than 3 hours later BHG is blocked to the surprise of all. This is moving so fast, that I'm having trouble not only keeping up, but typing explanations without encountering edit conflicts. (And I touch type.) If everyone wants to block her, then make it clear that is what is being discussed. Otherwise, let's proceed on this much slower. -- llywrch (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The declared intention to block was for being honest about a troll, and had been objected to, and those objections had not been answered. We could add GN's failure to act on a personal attack by AAW to our understanding of this. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duncan, you keep bringing that point up as if, merely by virtue of being an admin aware of the issue, GN somehow inherited an affirmative obligation to personally clean up every aspect of another editor's disruption to the complete satisfaction of every observer. That's just not a reasonable complaint. GN blocked (in fact, indeffed) Chris for their blatant harassment: how is that a "failure to act"? I just don't think this nitpicking grievance has legs, and (with so many moving parts her--concerns for the community to consider, and interests to weigh), that this is helping things. Indeed, I would like to suggest that you're being a little too vociferous in your defense here in general, and maybe not doing BHG any favours with that approach. It really does seem as though your shared experience with regard to Chris has bonded the two of you together in a sense of outrage--which is absolutely understandable, in the circumstances. But there are absolutely issues here which the community needs to resolve which are quite independent of the nexus of the disruption related to Chris, and a lot of your commentary above seems to evidence that because you perceive some of the events that fore-ran this discussion as unfair to BHG, you're just going to go full-throated on defense of her on every point.
    Again, I'm not sure that's in her best interest, even just in the short run with regard to this thread. If the community agreed that the circumstances around this dispute completely obviated the need for this thread, it would already be closed. Clearly there is a perception that the situation is not that simple. And I'm frankly a little concerned that some of your behaviour here could be perceived as stonewalling and that frustration with that could get transferred to BHG, and your efforts here could have the opposite of the effect you intended. SnowRise let's rap 02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think I shouldn't point out the background of the case? Well, fair goes, it's a position. Not one I could ever take with regard to anyone or anything at all, but a position none the less. GN had an obligation (as any admin does) to act decently and transparently, and they failed so to do, as far as I can see. Also, and I dare say this is a cultural difference, I find it hard to deal with anyone who uses the word "nexus" in cold blood. DuncanHill (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cold blood? What on earth are you even talking about, now? A nexus is an area overlap, nothing more: it's a completely innocuous and neutral term without anything remotely approaching prejudicial or pejorative subtext. How are you taking offense to that? For the record, this is precisely the point I was trying to raise with you: these little "don't back down in the slightest" fights that you are picking throughout this thread are going to antagonize people who are on the fence here with regard to BHG, and then she is going to reap the "benefit" of being associated with your approach, while you pat yourself on the back, convinced you are her number one friend and ally in this. As someone who would rather see an outcome that doesn't involve BHG blocked, I am asking you sincerely to reconsider your attitude and approach here. SnowRise let's rap 07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Needlessly obscure and high-falutin', that's what I should have said. You don't care for my attitude and approach, and I don't care for yours. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference being, I haven't posted in this thread 27 times in the first day. It gets disruptive at a point, you know? Any necessary "background" you felt you needed to add, you've had every opportunity now. The need to register a (often aggressively confrontational) response to every facet of the discussion is not helpful to BHG's case: best intentions for her benefit not withstanding, you're adding more heat than light, and all you're going to accomplish is to harden positions and exhaust patience, which is not the kind of mood we need prevailing here... That's my second and last effort to rephrase this for you in a fashion you can accept. You can just immediately dismiss it out of hand again if you must, but if you are really here for BHGs sake, and not for some need of your own, you'd at least consider the possibility that showing more restraint is the best way you can help her at this point. SnowRise let's rap 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember a very astute remark by Colin (on an unrelated issue). I will quote it since it's particularly insightful: I wish [X]'s friends had been this keen to remark on "extremely ill-considered" comments posted by [X] over the years. [X] might have learned to moderate things, if his friends had a wee word with him about it from time to time, and ask[ed] him to strike some things like we see here, or apologise. When [X] ... showed persistent hostility to those he disagreed with, those actions hurt other editors, real people, who are what Wikipedia is just as much as article content. The arbs have to consider those people too. "[X]" may be substituted with the name of anyone who finds themselves in this position, with vocal defenders. If people put the same amount of energy in getting through to their colleagues, to encourage them to make some changes, perhaps we'd never find ourselves in these unpleasant dilemmas at all. What a pleasant time that would be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for repeating that, it echoes my thoughts for a long time. Often when these sort of disputes arise there a number of editors opposing a block or asking for an unblock etc, and offering support on the editor's talk page, re-affirming the view it was a rogue admin or the editor got unlucky etc. While I understand this and it's often reasonable, from what I've seen too often even when they recognise the editor's behaviour is a problem they don't make this clear enough to the editor concerned. Depending on the situation, it may be reasonable to wait a while for the editor to have time to calm down from the situation or maybe do it in some other case, but IMO it's important that the editor get a clear message even from supporters that their behaviour needs improvement. Noting that putting aside harm to the community if the editor doesn't improve, it likely harms the editor themselves since it means they have to deal with more of these threads, and worse will suffer escalating blocks. It isn't something those who are opposed to the editor can do, both because it won't be received the same way but also because in a number of situations it will be seen as grave dancing or trying to provoke the editor which is fair enough. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch, Your unblock felt very much like a "Wild West" thing. You did not consult the blocking admin, and your assertion that the block was "premature" seems like a premature thing to say in itself. I get you were trying to de-escalate maybe, but I believe your actions have only caused more issues. On your point about "Driving away long-term productive editors"; I can name at least two users (Not AAW) who fall into that category who seriously considered leaving/did leave upon negative encounters with BHG. But yes the edit conflicts are annoying, this is why I hate getting into these discussions. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, to take just one example of a civility thread still on this page, was #MjolnirPants incivility a warning, but this was a block? I understand why those two situations should be treated the same (whether warning or sanction), but I don't understand why we treat them differently. Levivich 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In my observation it seems to be because some members of the Wikipedia community are biased. It's ok to let MPants be incivil because Wikipedia wants his enemies banned from editing, but User:BrownHairedGirl does not get that same protection because the opposition are treated as valuable contributors. 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️[reply]
      Jesus fuck, dude, get off my dick. Go do something that isn't about me, for fuck's sake, or I'm going to start a new ANI thread with your name in it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The community should be aware that there was a comment here added by MjolnirPants [203] which was then removed by Moneytrees [204]. 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
      Instead of removing this obvious taunting I'll leave it up and strike it. I should've struck/redacted Mjolnir's post as well instead of removing it, so I will re add and strike it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on this AN/I discussion, it seems that one of two conclusions can be drawn -- either enforcement of WP:NPA is bizarrely inconsistent, or I am utterly incapable of understanding what constitutes a personal attack. jp×g 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Is enforcement of civility policies inconsistent? OMG, let's alert the news media! Who would have thought?! But whatever the outcome is here, gratuitously bringing up another thread, about someone else, makes the logical error of assuming that both situations were the same. That, and WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then let's start making it consistent. Let's come up with a set of rules and apply them equally to BHG, me, and everyone else. There are multiple open incivility threads on this page right now, let's deal with them together. Same rules for everyone. Same consequences for everyone. Whatever they may be. Levivich 22:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, a good topic for its own discussion, and one that should be framed as applying to everyone, as opposed to highlighting a single editor, who was not otherwise a topic of this discussion. Oh, and do you remember when you accused me of "clutching my pearls" over a personal attack against me? (That's a rhetorical question, and I'm not really interested in your answer.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but remember that in that thread, Cow Man was at the helm. And he's kind of a wuss, ultimately (sad but true). El_C 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm curious why Cow Man supports a block here but not there? I mean, sincere question, I don't perceive the difference. (For the record, I think either a block or a warning would have been a justifiable outcome in all three threads.) Levivich 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question, Levivich, and the answer is that the peanut gallery protects its own. Some people are just too popular to block. In response to your question we see the user make another personal attack that an admin, rather than warning or sanctioning in response to, decides to remove without comment. And this is one of the admins I have a great amount of respect for. — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand why Llyrch unblocked in the middle of this discussion; there was no obvious need for an urgent unblock, and there was an ongoing discussion about the block. I agree with the original block, as BHG has made multiple personal attacks which she has not rescinded or apologized for .Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a reminder, I asked for a refactor and an apology, not a block. If those were to be provided, I'd see no reason to issue any block, as I dislike the punishment post-fact aspect of this for people who have reformed. Unfortunately, no apology or refactor has been forthcoming, even after the recent block-unblock (see BHG's latest comments where I see no indication of heeding any warning or reading the room here: [205], [206]). I'll stress again that I neither seek a block of BHG nor that I consider it to be the best outcome. The best outcome, IMHO, would be for BHG to acknowledge she has lost temper towards me and several other editors on several different occasions, and that she has problems adhering to WP:CIV, apologize for those occasions and promise to behave in a more civil fashion in the future. This would be the best, win-win, outcome of this situation - nobody is blocked, and WP:BATTLEGROUND-like language and behavior becomes (hopefully) a bit less common. However, if no apology/refactor/promise of improved behavior are offered by BHG, the community does have the unpleasant but sadly not first-time choice to make: are going to shrug off this behavior (saying that repeated calling editors vile, obstinate, aggressive, trolls, etc. is ok - "grow thicker skin, Piotrus, being called a troll is perfectly normal on Wikipedia") and move on closing this as no action, or are we going to enforce CIV and related with some form of a stick (which sadly does include blocks, both as a form of preventive action - as in, preventing BHG from making more personal attacks - and correctional, as in, telling her that such behavior is not tolerated). Again, however, I once again hope we can deescalate this without the need to (re)block, but the choice for this is entirely up to BHG (apologie, refactor, promise to behave better - and seriously, these are not hard things to do, are they?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: I've always liked you; whenever I see your name, I feel comfort, knowing a brilliant editor is on the scene. However, I implore you to see reason, as to how you have misconstrued Piotrus' contributions. I know it has been quite personal with your dispute with Chris.sherlock, but I do not see Piotrus as being a manipulator - or victim of manipulation. If you could simply apologize, it will resolve this whole nasty affair. BOTTO (T•C) 20:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Botto: thanks for your kind words, but the reality is that I was falsely accused by Piotrus of having "inventing" the fact that the political status of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers was a POV issue, and of thereby creating a "straw man".<br /.I will not apology for questioning the scholarly credentials of someone who makes such blatantly false and malicious allegations, unless of course Piotrus withdraws those allegations. I was basically called a liar, and I do not find that acceptable ...but of course I would accept Piotrus's retraction and apology if it was offered.
          I find it very very sad that so many editors seem happy to accept Piotrus's personal attacks on me without criticism, but to pile on me for questioning the credentials of an editor who tried to sway the debate by presenting me as a liar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl: I see your perspective. @Piotrus: How do you feel about that? Would you be in favor of issuing an apology in return, regardless of you offending BHG being intentional or not? If we could bury the hatchet over a misunderstanding, that would be ideal. BOTTO (T•C) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the DRV, you focused on Bobby Sands and what a huge problem it would be on that article if the category was not deleted. Piotr said You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial bold mine. You are framing it as being accused of inventing historical facts, and that's not what he said. It takes a bad-faith contortion on my part to read it as you being called a liar. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Schazjmd: I invented nothing. The articles on Bobby Sands and (as far as I have checked) all the other on the 1981 Irish hunger strike and the wider dirty protest take no stance on the question which side was "right" in the dispute over political status: both POVs are presented.
              However, if we have categories where individual prisoners or groups of prisoners are categorised as "political prisoners", then there has to be a binary choice between either putting them in the category or omitting them from the category. There is no half-way house, no possibility of a note to accompany each article title in the category, no means to attribute POV.
              That means the category system will reflect one or the other POV on the central issue of that dispute. Deciding which side to choose will inevitably be highly controversial, and anyone with any knowledge of the history and politics of northern Ireland in that era can attest that would be highly controversial. If you want confirmation of that, we can raise the issue on WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Northern Ireland.
              It's bad faith contortion to claim that I "invented" any of this. A good faith, civil editor who was ungfamiliar with the topic would have asked for evidnece or third opinions; but Piotrus instead make a a direct accusatio that I was fabricating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an ANI thread with so many experienced editors and admins has no clear outcome yet, blocking is, IMO, inappropriate. The unblock can be called inappropriate as well, but righting a wrong in the wrong way does have the net effect of righting a wrong. I will add that I do think many of the comments directed at Piotrus are pretty plain personal attacks, and I'm sad that BHG chose to make them. Calling a troll a troll because they are, supposedly, a troll is just not a good thing--and it is clearly not that obvious that P. was trolling. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Always worthwhile to agree with Drmies: absent an emergency it's rarely helpful for people to rush about blocking and unblocking over the top of an active ANI thread. Let the ANI play out and then act on community consensus: it's the best way to make the outcome stick. We've had a full block/unblock cycle: can everyone now just back away from the admin tools for a bit and let the conversation proceed. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have blocked; the problem with blocking is that now everyone is talking about the block and unblock, which is adjacent to the actual issue. On the actual issue, this isn't a new problem: a vested contributor behaves badly and then refuses to be held accountable. Accountability can take different forms, such as acknowledging the mistake, or submitting to the judgment of the community. BHG hasn't done the first, and the problem with the second is that there are a fair number of users who--whether that's their intention or not--will frustrate that aim. If this is a one-off incident, then it's one of many. What's the plan here, folks? Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was maybe too early, and the unblock was similar, although neither was objectively wrong. Like some other veteran editors and former admins, BHG is nearly unblockable (and I say this as an admin). A regular editor would have long been sanctioned for far less. Part of why she was desysopped was behavior toward others, and that hasn't improved in the intervening time. While I have not directly been the target of her name-calling, I have seen it unfold in a predictable manner each time someone edits against what BHG believes to be "correct", which may or may not actually be so. She has done good editing work, there's no doubt about that, but I question whether the encyclopedia is actually improved by the endless arguments that come out of many discussions and interactions. Regardless of an IBAN and now indeffed editor, the page he edited is going to lead to more heat than light as well. Struck: page has since been deleted. Star Mississippi 02:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rushed block made while the discussion is still ongoing being reversed does not make one unblockable. If there is a consensus here for a block, then a block will occur. The community has the ultimate authority in this matter. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this point is that the block was for (rightly or wrongly) policy violation (NPA), and had nothing to do with "consensus". — Ched (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kind of where I land, Ched. HighInBC, unblockable not in the sense of this discussion, but if other editors behaved this way (specifically at the moment thinking of a recent signature discussion, and the edits that led to the recent BRFA), they would have been blocked. BHG is held to a different standard, likely out of respect for her tenure. I hope this discussion achieves consensus as to whether that's acceptable, or if it needs to change. Star Mississippi 13:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry (because I have not really been following this), but aren't blocks supposed to be preventative rather than punitive? Was there any ongoing incivility/personal attacks etc.? If so, the block was likely warranted, though not for 7 days (24-48 hours to have a break would have been enough). If not, then the block was not warranted. GiantSnowman 10:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In my judgment, there was indeed ongoing incivility to several different editors. I opted for a week knowing because, as the diffs above indicate, this is an ongoing issue and BHG has been warned about civility in the past (particularly at her ArbCom case). GeneralNotability (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The hidden hand?

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

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

    IBANs all round

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

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

    What to do about BHG?

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

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

    My immediate impulse is to prefer a warning, so as to prevent wheel-warring in the administrative sector with back-and-forth blocks. With the exception of AAW, there are valuable contributors on both sides (it sickens me to use that term of phrase but there's no other way to say it). Of course we should all be concerned about WP:CIV and we know this is not BHG's first rodeo here. But there is no point in escalating to another block, since - if you don't go by counting heads - consensus does not exist for that. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go with what works. BHG's Arbcom-imposed topic ban from portals and 1-way IBAN with NA1k have been very effective in preventing disruption while allowing her to edit. Perhaps we can craft something where BHG is prohibited from commenting on editing skills and motivation of any other editor, with escalating blocks for any assumptions of bad faith? —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen those type of restrictions to be effective. A similar restriction was imposed on The Rambling Man a long time ago. The effect that ended up having was a net negative - it simply led to "gotcha!" attempts by his antagonists and a lack of clarity as to what constituted a reflection on an editor's competence or motivations. That sanction was eventually rescinded. From that episode, one could be led to the conclusion that sanctions based on behavior or civility for high-volume contributors tend to be ineffective or detrimental. WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's difficult to make such restrictions effective when the restricted party doesn't agree that there's a problem and doesn't make a real effort to remove the source of the problem. As a community, we've often bent over backward to retain "net positive" editors, accepting the negative as part of the deal. The problem here is that we are implicitly privileging their contributions over those of whoever is on the receiving end of the "negative" behavior. Further, we're privileging their contributions over all the other editors left to pick up the broken crockery. I have no objection to issuing a warning, but my question stands: assuming the warning is unheeded, and past behavior suggests that this will be the case, what next? Mackensen (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Kusma, I'd support that although I have doubts it will work. The trouble is it's IMO not something easy to follow and likely to lead to a lot of wikilawyering discussions about whether BHG violated it. I'm not saying I have an alternative, I don't which is why I support that and frankly nearly anything else to try and restrict BHG's behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether there is anything short of a siteban that could work. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if your responses was particularly directed at me, but for clarity: What I'm trying to say is, I'm not convinced this will work; but if others feel it might, I'd support it. If it comes down to a choice, sadly I'm leaning towards a site ban as my first preference given my doubts and how long BHG's incivility and PA problem has been going on. I'm not sure if I'll check out this thread again, but if someone else has another suggestion and I see it I'll of course reconsider but I can't think of any. (P.S. I wrote my initial response before WaltCip posted and didn't modify it when I read their response but it also sort of is a good contrast to my POV. It sounds like WaltCip is close to opposed whereas I feel it's still worth a try in the absence of anything else, also noting that it's not clear there will be consensus for a site block.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community decides it is unwilling to do anything here, then we only have two options. Either we tell the editors on the receiving end to 'learn to live with it', or this is kicked upstairs to the Committee in their capacity as the final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. But I really do think it's an indictment of community dispute resolution if we can't even figure this mess out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior isn't going to change. I need to reread the ArbCom, but my recollection is that her behavior isn't appreciably worse now then it was then, so if they didn't find it block worthy then, they won't now. Possibly though with a new committee who can see it through the lens of ongoing despite the de-sysop. IBANs are one thing (and I don't know the detailed history with AAW/Chris, so staying away from that), but when it's multiple people, I don't think an IBAN will solve anything. There needs to be something that indicates the behavior needs to change. Star Mississippi 14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented in the DRV, and I (like some others) tried to inject some humour there. but after what I have read above about escalating agf blocks or potential banning, I'm thinking that it just isn't fair, so I just thought I should comment.
    My guess is that she'll be mildly surprised that I am defending her here, but whatever.
    In my time editing at CfD and elsewhere, in my estimation BHG has an uncommon understanding of the category system and the various policies and processes thereof.
    And as long as we don't talk about (in my estimation) her seeming bias when it comes to UK/British isles/Ireland-related stuff (among a few others), I think she's been a real asset, and a very diligent editor.
    Now something I've been noticing more and more as I look around the various corners of Wikipedia, editing content just more and more seems to becoming a battleground. I don't think it's what any of us wants, but it's what it happening.
    And in my estimation, BHG is someone willing to wade into those discussions with a full throated defense of policy.
    However, when you start seeing everything as an apple, when an orange comes your way, you may mistakenly see it as an apple.
    And "battleground-experienced" editors who know policy can get sneaky with saying things in certain ways, etc. So it's not surprising that someone in "battlefield mode" might mis-read an intent in this type-written environment, and following that, say things based on the mis-read. (Yes, I'm being charitable here.)
    So yes, things several people said should not have been said, and things should be apologized for. (I'm not holding my breath.)
    But if we ban everyone who is trying to defend policy and our processes, we may find that there is no one left.
    So anyway, the short of it is that I don't think issuing IBANs to BHG is a successful solution in this case. In my experience BHG doesn't typically hold "grudges" from discussion to discussion (though she may use other discussions as "evidence" in the process), this is all about "winning the battle" of the moment.
    So all you are doing is setting this up to where she will be IBANned with others one-by-one over time.
    And another warning is just more additional "words", a speedbump to work around for the next "battle". (I was thinking of adding diffs, but I don't see them as helpful at this point).
    I'm not sure what the solution is here. But I'm not sure we have the ability at AN/I to solve the greater battleground problem at Wikipedia. - jc37 13:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been following this thread with interest but haven't said anything knowing it could end up at ArbCom. But to answer the question Paul asks I think the following are the options I can think of:
      1. Community handles it
      A. Do nothing: the community could decide that there is nothing which violates our policies and guidelines (PAG) and so no action is appropriate.
      B. Warn (or issue a Final Warning): the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and warns BHG against further instances.
      C. Interaction ban(s): the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and to prevent future instances passes an interaction ban (perhaps 1 way, perhaps 2 way) with BHG and some combination of Piotrus, SQL, and QEDK
      D. Short term block: the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and to prevent continuing disruption a short term block (of length TBD) is necessary
      E. Indefinite block: the community feels that there has been conduct which violates our PAG and the only way to prevent further disruption is to pass an indefinite block. Indefinite of course does not mean infinite but this would require the community to accept an appeal from BHG before she could return to helping the project
      2. The community doesn't handle it: the community is too divided about the issues, the thread is too sprawling, and nothing is ever done
      3. An editor could send this to ArbCom:
      A. File an WP:ARCA: As BHG was party to a case in 2020 an editor could ask for ArbCom to revisit the issue through this venue. From there ArbCom will decide what happens next (likely some form of nothing, sanction through motion, full proceeding)
      B. File an WP:ARC: As the other people involved are substantially different than the 2020 case and there are other issues raised a new case request could also be filed. From there ArbCom will decide what happens next (decline the case, accept and resolve the case by motion, accept and open a proceeding)
    I would add, only briefly because this is the what to do about BHG section, that options 1A, 1B, 1E and 2 could also be applied to AAW. Obviously this list of options will not contain any wisdom not already known by the editors here but I find sometimes the laying out of all options helps me to gain clarity about what I think the right option is and why. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by a relatively new, non-admin editor: Strewth, I'm nearly lost for words. Back when I was in primary school, and the equivalent of Administrator's Noticeboard (Incidents) was the dinner-lady, whose Word was Law, life was simple. She'd have told us all to stop arguing and find something more useful to do instead. If I'm understanding correctly, this whole of this wall of text is based on a very simple foundation: Piotr says that BHG called him a troll and must apologise, and BHG says that at the time he was being a troll so she won't. In dinner-lady terms, is it time for someone to tell everyone to stop arguing and go back to lessons? Isn't there an encyclopaedia round here somewhere, that needs attention? Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely disregarding these comments BHG made toward Piotrus:
    • I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus?
    • Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations.
    • your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality
    Those are unacceptable. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed above, it is interesting to see how thoroughly Schazjmd ignores the fact that i was falsely accused of inventing historical facts and/or controversy.
    In Schazjmd's approach, it seems to be entirely acceptable to make a thoroughly bogus and unfounded accusation of fabrication ... but entirely unacceptable to respond forcefully to such smears. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus is also not the only person who has been wronged here. If this had happened once or twice, sure, everyone could be slapped on the wrist and sent back to work. It's apparent that there is a larger pattern of behavior here, and if BHG isn't willing to even acknowledge it (I asked her to address this on her talk page, and she said I was being incivil), then I expect that this will keep happening, unless we do something about it. If this is to be addressed in some way other than with a block or arbcom case, then we need a good proposal to discuss. It is unfortunate that we don't have any good way to deal with long term civility problems from otherwise productive editors. ST47 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps BHG could be prohibited from using adjectives, second-person pronouns, or mentioning any other editor's name except to identify a comment that she is agreeing with. Yes, I'm being facetious. I think. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something to be said for banning all adjectives from article space except for indisputable descriptive ones (unless sourced). Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ST47: This is the sort of thing that really makes me despair of en.wp's dispute processes.
    You refer to a post on my talk, but without linking the diff to facilitate others to scrutinise it.
    So here is the diff: [207]. A you can see, the reason that I described your posts as uncivil was that you were completely ignoring what I wrote: You are entirely ignoring the fact that GeneralNotability explicitly promised to block me for criticising Chris.sherlock,[208] and you are responding as if that never happened and had never been mentioned by me. Why?
    You are also ignoring the fact that I was in the midst of a situation where CS had set two other editors out to wind me up.
    You have not responded to that question ...but instead you take my words out of context, and post here to use them against me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: I apologize for not including a diff to our side conversation, thank you for doing so. I headed to sleep after my post last night, and upon reading your reply this morning, got the distinct impression that you didn't want to talk to me. I think that we are at an impasse: I share your frustration with Chris Sherlock, and if every offensive comment linked in this thread was about him, we would all be ready to close the thread and walk away. However, multiple users have spoken out in this thread, and unless I am missing something, your only response has been that those users had been "set...out to wind [you] up". This is not a one-time thing.
    It's still my work hours, and I really only intended to log on to check some bot things. I will try to follow up with this thread later, but I wouldn't be surprised if I don't have much time to. Busy Monday. ST47 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ST47: Thanks for the civil reply, ST47.
    However, it seems that you still miss my point. That was a discussion on my unblock request, but you ignored everything I wrote about why I had made a request in that form.
    You only seemed to want a fork of the wider discussion, and I don't see it being helpful to fork that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the community is perfectly capable of handling this and it isn't necessary to involve Arbcom. The evidence is all on-wiki and there's no need for any of that secret squirrel stuff that we need Arbcom to handle. I think the killer question is Kusma's: whether there is anything short of a siteban that could work. We need to focus on that question and come up with a genuinely workable alternative... or bite the bullet.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with S Marshall the community can (and should) deal with this. And so far at least, there seems to be a consensus for some kind of sanction. Paul August ☎ 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are so many separate issues here, perhaps a structured sub-page would help? The conflation of the AAW issues, the Piotrus v. BHG issues, and various other BHG diffs makes this almost impossible to follow. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Please keep this on the main noticeboard as long as possible. Subpaging drastically reduces the number of neutral watchers. —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG is one of the most productive editors on this project. She is also somewhat easily triggered, which makes her an appealing target for trolls (like AAW) seeking drama. I would imagine that such a troll would find it particularly satisfying to poke and prod two or more easily-triggered editors into conflict with each other, or to exacerbate such a conflict when it arises. I would also imagine that such a troll would find it particularly satisfying to get the community involved in the high drama of blocking or banning an overall productive editor. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @BD2412, the thread here was started by Piotrus, an editor who is at least as productive as BHG (BHG has so many edits that it isn't easy to tell how productive she is) because he has been subject to personal attacks by BHG that do not seem to be connected at all to the banned user you mention. We shouldn't easily excuse personal attacks against such a productive editor. Whether our reaction makes some banned user sad or happy should not influence our actions here. How do you suggest we protect Piotrus against these attacks? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm aware of how we got here. Neither participant in the original dispute is a cupcake. BD2412 T 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether an editor is a cupcake or has been desysopped for cause has very little to do with repeating personal attacks after being called out on them. Do you really think that is acceptable? —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read through much of the thread above, and many of the linked diffs. The conduct of several users here makes me despair; there's just so much needless escalation, as several others have pointed out. I thoroughly endorse the indefinite block of CS/AAW; their conduct was appalling. For the record, I was the admin who implemented the one-way IBAN against them, and so I have some familiarity with this situation, and no reason to take their side. However, their conduct, and that of the others in this dispute, does not in the least excuse BHG's utterly needless aggression, and complete inability to self-reflect following conduct that many many uninvolved and experienced users have described as sub-par. Sniping at someone when you're upset is quite understandable. Returning to the conversation hours or days later, and declaring that the other parties deserved your rudeness, is neither understandable nor excusable. Besides which, at least a few of the many users who have been targets of BHG's hostility in the last few days, at least a couple did nothing to deserve it; SQL was making nothing more than a good-faith effort to defuse the situation, and absolutely did not deserve the rhetoric they got.
      As I see it, we have three options here. First, we can just drop this, and provide more evidence for the commonly-held belief that different rules apply for experienced contributors. I'd rather we didn't do that; IMHO more experienced contributors have a greater responsibility to be collegial, not lesser; but I suspect I'm in the minority there. Second, we could try to fix this via escalating blocks for violations of WP:CIVIL. To anyone who argues that a block would not be preventative, I'd point out that BHG wasn't rude in the heat of the moment, but came to this discussion many hours later, repeated her rudeness, and defended it at tedious length. Third, we could attempt a restriction along the lines of "BHG may not comment the behavior of other editors", but really I'd be fine with anything similar. I know the community hasn't had much success, historically, with such bespoke civility sanctions. This would nonetheless be my first choice, because I believe it's the most proportionate response that is directly addressing the problem, and also because there are far fewer editors here who are likely to game such a sanction to persecute BHG (the person most likely to do so has an IBAN and an indef block). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an editor who is personally acquainted with the behavioral issues that led to BHG's desysop, I'm dismayed to find that there are still some people willing to defend this kind of behavior. Yes, I'm aware that BHG is a very productive editor who does a lot of good work. And yes, I realize that we can find examples of bad behavior on the other side of the dispute. I've seen these excuses/justifications before. The behavior isn't changing and at this point it is blindingly obvious that it will never change. No, I don't pretend to have an easy solution, but can we at least acknowledge that we are dealing with an intractable problem that we can't just explain away by only focusing on the specifics of the most recent fracas? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear that BHG's orginal desysopping was one of the worst decisions ever made by an ArbCom (I have voted against every ArbCom candidate who voted for it, and will do for perpetuity) and whether we need to go into the details of whether that decision would have been the same had BHG been male is quite another issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You have your opinion. I, as a target of some of BHG's problematic editing, have mine. I think the record reflects that the ArbCom in question was also willing to desysop influential male admins when it was necessary to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but let's face it, the "Findings of Fact" against those male admins were indeed factual, as opposed to a number of the "facts" in BHG's case. Can't think why that might have been. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You should probably save that line of reasoning for people who didn't experience BHG's chronic incivility firsthand. I had formed my own opinions on the matter long before any findings of fact were posted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is another reason why we should make a decisive intervention here instead of kicking it upstairs to Arbcom, and I wonder whether Black Kite has any thoughts on what the remedy should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say no to indef block/ban. No articles have been vandalised (to my knowledge) & zapping editors off this project, because of words, isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      BHG's words have resulted in editors leaving the project or reducing their activity levels (for example, see the Portals Arbcom case). "It's just words" does not mean there is no damage to the community, or to the encyclopaedia that is created by the community. WP:CIV is a policy. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why we shouldn't treat this case with the seriousness it deserves. The diffs show that this is a rather extreme case of bullying and harassment by BHG against users who did nothing whosoever to deserve it. Presented with Vandamonde's options, I strongly favor a preventative block, with a note that the blocks will escalate if more violations occur. DIACHRONY (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this?:

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

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

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

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

    Formal proposals

    Censure

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

    Censure
    Wikipedia's community of editors formally censures BrownHairedGirl for repeated and continuing incivility.
    • Support as proposer. I think this is the minimum action we should take here, and it should be taken independently of whatever other measures the community decides are appropriate. In particular, in addition, some sort of probation (such as suggested by North8000 above) enforced by escalating blocks might be worth a try (see below). Paul August ☎ 12:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paul August: Please can you clarify whether I have understood your view correctly. It seems to me that in your assessment you take no account of:
    1. the fact that my brush with TRM and SQL was caused by sustained disruption caused by the IBANNed editor Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer who had pursued several vendetta vendetta who had been stalking me to find a point of contention in which he had no other involvement, and who broke his IBAN multiple times to try (successfully) to stir trouble at three venues: see [209],[210],[211].
    2. That the spat in which QL became involved derived from me making a minimal oblique reference (with no name attached) to disruption of a discussion by TRM, conduct which TRM himself described[212] as boorish behavior. TRM then posted twice to the BRFA to add nothing of substance, just disruptive snark.[213][214], which for brevity I labelled as trolling.
    3. that when I uncovered the fact that this incident had been instigated by a lot of work by an IBANned stalker, I was understandably exasperated by SQL's complete lack of interest in the fact that the whole thing had been set up as yet another calculated act of disruption by a serial trouble-maker.
    4. that in the DRV, Piotrus falsely accused me[215] of inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial, and that it was a straw man[216]. Note that I was not accused of being mistaken or exaggerating, but of "inventing" the fact that this is highly controversial topic. That is effectively calling me a liar. My view on its relevance was later endorsed[217] here at ANU by User:力,who is otherwise a harsh critic of me: BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered
    5. that my harsh responses to Piotrus at the DRV were in response to those blatantly false statements that I was inventing a controversy, and that I have offrered to withdraw an apologise for my comments if Piotrus withdraws and apologises for the false statements about me: see[218]
    6. that reason I called Piotrus a "troll" when I reverted[219] his post on my talk was because a) he was complaining amount my response to him falsely accusing me of inventing controversy; b) he did so by posting in a discussion section with SQL which was about the disruption successfully instigated by Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer, and I was at my wits end with all that drama and was utterly exasperated.
    I want to understand your position, so please can you clarify: have I understood you correctly that in all of this, the problem is that I responded harshly to a sustained round of attacks from several quarters? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal reflects my reading of the community's opinion as expressed above. Presumably any possible extenuating circumstances have been considered. And, by the way, extenuating circumstances do not relive one from the obligation of being civil. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, extenuating circumstances absolutely can relieve one of the obligation to be civil. We can all imagine circumstances where someone tells someone else to "go f themselves" and it's absolutely OK. I don't think it's helpful to say that extenuating circumstances are irrelevant or don't excuse incivility. More helpful is to talk about whether the extenuating circumstances in this case excused the incivility in this case (my answer is mixed, in some cases yes, in others no). Levivich 15:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My part in this has been mis-represented here. Please see the contribs and timeline that I posted above with diffs included !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regretful Oppose This proposal has no teeth. Additionally, This has already been tried. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 12:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If a community member is genuinely behaving in a habitually incivil fashion, then a half-measure is half of a measure short on appropriate action. If a community member's conduct does not rise to that level, then a half-measure is half of a measure in excess of appropriate action. "Censuring" someone (particularly with language which expressly acknowledges the problem is ongoing) without applying an approach that has a chance of correcting the issue (and without getting a commitment from the party in question) equates to little more than posturing. Worse, indeed, because it is basically an admission that we found this editor's conduct to be in error but we were effectively unable to hold them to account: it very much sends the wrong message to the community at large. I get the impulse that it would be nice to have something that is sterner than a warning, but this is not the way to go, imo. SnowRise let's rap 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Snow Rise, who put it very well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Snow Rise.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A formal censure by the community, as far as I'm aware, has never occurred. This kind of measure has the virtue of clearly establishing the community's displeasure with BHG behavior. Such a thing might well have more effect coming from the community of fellow editors, than from Arbcom. It seems worth a try. As for "teeth", this measure is not intended to be the only measure we take and does not preclude other additional harsher measures. The opposers seem to think that I've proposed this in lieu of other proposals. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I for one noted that wording in your !vote: it was well articulated. I simply believe the solution, non-exclusive of other approaches though it may be, is (forgive me again my bluntness) counter-intuitive in its own right and does not justify itself. SnowRise let's rap 15:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Probation

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

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

    Usedtobecool's last ditch effort

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

    Proposal 1: BHG restricted

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

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

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

    Survey

    V93's proposals

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

    Proposal 3: BHG subject to escalating blocks

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

    • Support, as proposer, and as a first choice to any other proposals presented thus far. I personally prefer a more directly tailored sanction, but historically speaking, bespoke behavioral sanctions on experienced editors with a lot of wikifriends tend not to be successful. I think the second part (this is a community sanction) is necessary to circumvent the "unblockable" issue; we've seen too often the cycle of a sanction-enforcing block being followed up by a rapid unblock that cannot be reversed because of WP:WHEEL. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I wrote a much longer-winded version of the same idea. Folks, this is the best BHG can hope for, if this gets to the committee, I can't see any way they don't at least impose such a thing. And it's much better if the community does this. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - avoids the "unblockable" issue, and escalating blocks is the normal way of dealing with persistent severe incivility and personal attacks. Of course the community will have to keep its eyes open for attempts to bait her, either by those (like AAW) who have a specific problem with BHG or by people who just like to generally cause trouble and may try and pick on a target just because they can.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as otherwise there will always be a sympathetic admin willing to unblock, as we have seen.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I had a similar idea and agree with Vanamonde's rationale. It removes the second-mover advantage provided by WP:WHEEL by requiring a consensus that the block was inappropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Something needs to be done about this, and better here than at ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Short of an ArbCom case, this is the community's best option, and the problem has gone on long enough that this is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this rather lousy but frankly plausible compromise, if only to avoid a trip to ArbCom!--WaltCip-(talk) 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer enforcement short of blocks as the first course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind? Paul August ☎ 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, if it is a comment, enforcement measure by admin can be through reversion, and if that comment is reinstated without being adjusted to the satisfaction of the admin who reverted, then a block can be imposed as proposed here. The onus on revising text and obtaining approval for re-posting will be on BHG. It forces policy compliance more effectively and any inevitable discussions which follow the enforcement action is likely to be more constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - What happens to an admin who disagrees with the block and reverses it? Can we say the block can be re-imposed without fear of wheel warring? Is the unblocking admin then subject to sanctions? I'm not trying to be awkward, it's just that when somebody gets an Arbcom sanction like this, everybody knows up-front that you don't touch it unless you want to be desysopped - but the community doesn't have the authority to set criteria to desysop anyone. So how can we ensure this proposal has "teeth"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, first choice to proposal 4 (below). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seems specific enough to me. Fine with this and/or proposal 4. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, works for me, my concerns have been addressed. I'm still a bit of the mindset "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done" but if this can avoid a depressing Arbcom case, then let's do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although 12 hours seems inappropriately short as this is not a new problem nor a new editor. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is the only remedy presented here that at least solves a problem. It adds further enforceability to WP:CIVIL (setting a lower bar than the policy requires for enforcement), and prevents the issue of blocks being reversed for something like "time served". It may well just be kicking the can down the road, but this could work. Re Ritchie: It should be made clear that overturning such a block is like overturning an AE block or unblocking a site-banned editor. If there's still a teeth concern, then it could help if ArbCom 'endorses' the remedy by motion, so any such blocks are AE blocks. That would also make it easy for ArbCom to review this if it isn't working (as per the jurisdiction clause of the arbitration policy). Separately, I would cut the "beginning with a 12-hour block"; if an admin only sees a thread after several comments of higher severity, then they should have the discretion to set a higher block length. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposed. I see zero problem with escalating blocks which start at one hour. The issue isn't so much that BHG can't control their own behavior as that they have a hard time seeing their own behavior (and I'm plenty guilty of that charge myself). They are also somewhat easily baited (and I was watching these recent interactions in real time). I predict that given a regimen of potential blocks, BHG rarely trips the wire. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would only somehow request that BHG is protected from the needless and unhelpful sniping of the sort they experienced here, which was itself inspired by an editor IBAN'd from exactly such behavior. I feel like this may encourage further needling and goading, but as a sanction it's probably the best option so far. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support trying this. Community-based sticky blocks are an interesting idea, let's hope it doesn't have unintended consequences. (One problem is that many admins have been in past conflict with BHG and are not "uninvolved", so many people will still need to report instead of acting). —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - which is the first constructive thing I can say in this thread. (As one of the possible few uninvolved administrators...). To @Mr Ernie:'s point, I'd only say that any general "this applies unless 'goaded'" specification would be wikilawyered to death (and part of the point indeed is that there are better ways of responding to provocation than rising to it); however one hopes that administrators would apply judgement in particularly clear cases where someone is having a go at her. The Land (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but this is de iure unnecessary This is already regular policy. Any editor who persistently violates behavioural standards can be issued with escalating blocks, without the need for a visit to the dramaboard to confirm this. If there are issues that the editor in question here is a WP:UNBLOCKABLE, then what is more appropriate is taking a stand right here and imposing a community block for some time period, since obviously previous sanctions haven't gotten the message through and the problematic behaviour is continuing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RandomCanadian, common practice is to let a good bit of incivility slide; I don't like it, but it's true. Additionally, though, this would make the block something an individual admin could not lift, and that is quite different from how an ordinary civility block would be treated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this is probably our best shot at resolving the issue at the community level. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as first choice, and my understanding of this proposal is that blocks starting at 12 hours is to be read as a community-mandated minimum. It is not a cap, so behaviours that warrant a longer block should receive one.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My only issue is that 12 hours is rather short for someone of BHGs tenure - 24h would be better but than again this proposal is a start and is better than nothing/Arbcom. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oppose: I'm stumped. Is the subtext of this "in exception to our usual practice that long-term editors are not blocked for blockable offenses..."? Why is blocking someone for 12 hours for incivility not an action normally available to admins? Furthermore, WP:NEVERUNBLOCK bullet point 3 makes no odds when a rogue unblocking admin would insist that the premise When the block is implementing a community sanction ... is not met because "Actually, no violation of WP:CIVIL occurred". — Bilorv (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Bilorv, As I said to RandonCanadian above, the difference is these blocks can only be lifted after a community discussion. I appreciate your concern about gaming, but it really isn't an issue here; the proposal doesn't say "if WP:CIVIL was violated"; it says "if, in the opinion of an uninvolved admin, WP:CIVIL was violated". The former has endless potential for wikilawyering, the latter, not so much. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, your proposal does actually ward against my gaming concern (good job on the specificity of wording), so I've struck that bit. However, I don't see that this restriction is different enough to the status quo (users can be blocked in escalating lengths for incivility) to be worth enforcing, which comes with it a number of confusions and technicalities (enough people have to be aware of the sanction; future discussions have to be had over whether it's been made redundant; and so forth). I think I now understand the impetus, but this is not how you show that an unblockable is not unblockable (you do that by blocking them here and now...). All of that is just my theoretical objections, and in the specific case of BHG I can see even more reasons this is not the right move. So I'll regrettably have to oppose this. — Bilorv (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My preference would be that this debate had reached consensus to reblock BrownHairedGirl indefinitely; her conduct has been way beyond the pale, we are all required to suck it up and be minimally civil with each other in order to edit here, no matter how strongly we disagree with another editor's position, having been harassed does not give an editor infinite permission to behave miserably, and rudeness does drive aditors off the project, as BHG has demonstrated. I would have expected her to have filed an acceptable block request by now had she not been given the rope to tie herself up like a Christmas present. But it seems that a commitment to apply an escalating series of blocks, starting extremely small as if this were a new editor who could not be expected to be familiar with policy, is the best to be hoped for, so this is the proposal that I support. (Also, far better than Arbcom, for all concerned.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal 4: BHG restricted from personal commentary

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

    • Support as proposer, but iff proposal 3 above does not reach consensus. This is a more specific solution, and is less of a blunt instrument, but may also be more difficult to administer, per above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as above (to be clear, per the proposer, this is only if proposal 3 fails). Hobit (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to Proposal 3, above. I think that Proposal 3 gives less wiggle-room in term of enforcement. Also, and maybe more importantly, it's a bad idea to set up a situation where "personal commentary" is legitimately needed in dispute resolution, and the dividing line is subjective. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to proposal 3. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Better version of what I was thinking of. Fine with this and/or proposal 3. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; perhaps this could be rolled into 3, as in "...violates CIVIL or comments on the behavior or motivations..." Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose history of this specific restriction shows it does not work. (one example). Mackensen and WaltCip above also discussed why it's difficult to make these effective. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I believe these solutions will work because BHG will choose to want it to work. Six months. Far better alternative to blocks or bans. I will trust BHG with their own self-control. I will also flag the editor if I see them start to get iffy. I imagine others willing to engage the editor with good faith messages will also be heard and heeded. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in addition to civility blocks as per P3. Better to have an extra fence here. Ideally, combined as per Schazjmd. —Kusma (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. In principle, I am fine with this. But in practice, I fear that it seems to grant licence to others to goad and attack me (as happened in the cases discussed here). Can it be made symmetrical, so that there is prompt remedy for when for example an editor falsely accuses me of "inventing" a huge POV dispute? My experience of such matters is discouraging, e.g. when I came to ANI after RexxS singled me out and pledged to remove all my posts as "polluting" (cos I used the usual indentation), and when he did delete one post and I came to ANI, nothing was done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a very positive development to see that you are willing to agree to a restriction. As to symmetry: All editors interacting with you are bound by WP:CIV and other policies. However, we should not have extra rules that only apply while interacting with you. I expect there will be people pointing out that you can't respond to certain things, and will help you as per meatball:DefendEachOther. —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The RexxS example shows some suboptimal behaviour on both sides. A way you could have responded differently right from the start is to accept that you (and many other people) have mistakenly been indenting posts incorrectly for some time, and let him make these tiny corrections to the indentation format. Then the whole event would never have occurred.
      In general, when goaded, it's possible to do nothing. You have the option to walk away from trolling without responding. There's no need to rebut insults or statements that are obviously untrue; the people who matter already respect you and will not take the word of a troll as fact. When provoked, I always try to follow the example of the precepts of Wikipedia:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values.— Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the problem is that this is too vague to be realistically enforceable. For example, if somebody reverted a "bare URL" tag and left a post on BHG's talk page "Hey, stop putting these tags on articles, fix the damn problem yourself!", what's BHG going to do? Ignore the problem and let the mild snark stand, or justify themselves by replying "Hey, calm down, we have had success fixing link rot so I don't understand your concerns" and run the risk of being blocked for "commenting on the behaviour or motivations of other editors"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Letting the mild snark stand is exactly what's the correct response in many cases, far preferable to escalating just because you are right and the other editor is wrong. In your example, BHG could explain her actions without discussing what the other editor might want. If the other editor gets personal, she could just say "please discuss content, not the contributor" and then go to ANI if the other editor does not comply with a polite request to keep the discussion on topic. For things where she has a history of personalising and escalating the issues, she will need to rely on others to defend her. Given that she has many admirers and supporters, I find it difficult to imagine her not finding any defenders in cases where she is clearly not at fault. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We are getting somewhere. BHG is here saying "I'm willing, but what if?" Several editors have raised the valid concerns of policing the what-ifs. This is a healthy conversation to hold. We owe every editor a safe and civil editing environment, sometimes even from ourselves. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inquiry would a user talk page be considered an appropriate forum? I support the general principle (I mean, the general principle should more-or-less apply to everyone), and a hard restriction on BHG prosecuting other editors on BRFA or CFD discussions would address much of the disruption that is her fault. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already policy, and what exactly does this address? This looks like a jury-rigged patch which might address the symptoms, but not the root cause. Concerns about the enforceability of this, previous ineffective remedies of a similar nature, and the fact this is also already somewhat within policy (i.e. users persistently accusing others of misbehaviour or similarly throwing discussions off-topic is already covered by WP:BATTLEGROUND) don't seem to help. Nor would it address the issue about WP:UNBLOCKABLE, because if there are grey areas, we'll get the same kind of problem as when previous sanctions were imposed on this editor. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RandomCanadian, apologies for multiple pings. I fully accept concerns about enforceability; but again, we typically allow editors a lot of leeway with respect to discussing conduct in inappropriate fora, and this takes that away, at least in theory. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice, and it's a pretty distant second. BHG's concerns about being trolled or provoked trouble me. "Look what those bad people keep making me do! You should stop them provoking me" is a line I hear a lot when working with people who show persistent offending behaviours, and I challenge it whenever I hear it.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second choice to Proposal 3 - On the fence with this one to be honest but meh what can go wrong .... –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose: I came here to say the same as ProcrastinatingReader—no familiarity with their example, but I've seen this restriction fail in other cases. The problem is the ANI/ArbCom exception ("fora dedicated to addressing that behavior") is where the drama happens anywhere: instead of a snarky comment at AFD you now immediately have to go to ANI and so you're starting a spark in a room full of gasoline rather than a spark in a room full of... not gasoline (bad analogy, sorry). I don't think this proposal succeeding would be bad, per se, but it wouldn't solve anything and we shouldn't run this through and pat ourselves on the back for solving the root cause of the issue here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose only weighing in here once. This is the kind of sanction which is prone to abuse from those who wish to rid the project of BHG. Literally anything can be construed as "commenting on the behavior or motivations of other editors" such as "I don't think you meant to do that". This is the kind of sanction which draws in hawks and is deliberately loaded to destroy a productive editor. Having personal experience of a "waiting crowd" on this, along with "primed admins", this is definitely not the way to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A special exemption from policy that in some ways is more of a hindrance than a help—it's a big project, any editor may come across someone causing problems and for the good of the project, believe they need to draw attention to the fact, or may have a different theory of why an editor is causing problems and believe they should point this out in a discussion, and as many have pointed out above, BHG's judgement is often good—and it's extremely hard to enforce and extremely unlikely to work; plus the problem is not that this editor comments on others, it's her nastiness when doing so. There is no compelling reason to exempt this problem editor from policy, even if this suggested solution were likely to work. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Olden Creed and persistent disruption

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

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

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

    187.87.77.43 continuation

    187.87.77.43 (talk · contribs)

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

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

    User:Wikieditor1008

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

    The user was earlier involved in a dispute over content at Ramdev. A section "Kapalbhati" was in great dispute, and is argued by the user to keep, has been removed by Hipal at [220] stating WP:BLP. The user was also given BLP DS notice. The page was also EC protected for BLP violations. Post the expiration of the ECP, Wikieditor1008 (has ~150 edits as of this and is not EC user) has once added the disputed section back to the article [221] citing good faith. (To disclose, I was earlier involved with the Ramdev article. After a request from Hipal to hold editing until the neutrality is resolved, I agreed and recused myself from the article.)

    The user seems to have now moved on to editing Khatri caste article, and removed content stating undue [222], [223], [224]. I'm concerned of the actions from the user, especially after a call to another editor with a caste-promotion message [225]. The first sentence of the message certainly looks good, as the user is asking for help to maintain a stable version, assuming a sourced stable version. But not the following part of the message. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the edits to Ramdev. I've not had the time to review Wikieditor1008's other edits, but this looks overall like a WP:NOTHERE situation. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've requested the article be protected for the third time since May over this content. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the same content. The content you complained about was removed prior to your revert. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Ndrw010

    Ndrw010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Could we have a block of this account please? They seem to be a trolling only account and are disrupting the teahouse and the article IBM POWER microprocessors with claims that they own IBM, Rolls-royce, are the "emperor of earth" and will have all Wikipedia editors executed by the military for being involved in organised crime. [226]. Thanks, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, the statement in diff (last para, very end) is a direct physical threat against Wikipedia editors which merits a block. NOTHERE regardless.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:Girth Summit, so this can be closed.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was... strange. Blocked, and I removed that ridiculous screed (and revdeleted it, since it contained the names of some presumably real people) Girth Summit (blether) 12:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was certainly more entertaining than usual, I’ll give them that. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional editing and other disruption by a single-purpose account

    WalterWhite72 was created on May 23, and the entirety of their contributions are to the article about Kevin Paffrath (a candidate in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election) and closely related pages. They have been engaging in promotional editing, edit warring, casting aspersions against other editors, and refusing to work towards consensus on the talk page or accept past consensus. They were briefly partially blocked for edit warring three weeks ago, and apparently evaded the block. I think they need an indefinite p-block from the page, at minimum. Some history:

    Some diffs of the issues:

    • Adding "social media star" to the lead: [228]
    • Introduction of a glowing but irrelevant quote about Paffrath: [229]
    • Attempt to portray a judge's decision not to allow Paffrath to be listed as "Meet Kevin" on the ballot as a "denial of his right": [230]
    • Selective inclusion of polling information, and wording in a way that is likely to be misunderstood: [231]
    • Addition of "Paffrath is the leading contender against existing Governor Newsom" to the lead based on selective sourcing: [232] (this is a poll that has been described as a "shock poll" etc. as being way out of line with other polls such as this one, which puts Paffrath at 1% in "Which candidate would you vote for to replace Gov. Newsom if he is recalled?")
    • Aspersions: "Do you work for Newsom?": [233] (I have already clarified my lack of connection to anyone involved in the CA gubernatorial race to a different editor who was casting aspersions and later blocked: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags, and I make no secret of what I do for work and for whom)

    As a note, there is some indication that there may be multiple individuals involved here ("all we did"), and Paffrath's team has been involved in trying to edit the page ([234]). I looked on their talk page to see if they've responded to any of the COI notices to explain their relationship to Paffrath but didn't see anything; it's possible they've done it somewhere else and I missed it, but I don't think they have. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely from the page. If someone else would like to do more with that block, be my guest. Izno (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I was typing a comment, Izno took decisive action. What I was going to say: Support page block. WalterWhite72's edits are clearly intended to slant the article in favor of the subject, presumably to boost Paffrath's candidacy. His version was a glorified campaign site before GorillaWarfare undertook to clean it up per WP:NPOV. Schazjmd (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Horse eye's back

    Horse eye's back has decided to begin haranguing me at WP:RSN with the apparent goal of trying to provoke a response, and I'd like an admin to warn them to stop it. See [235], [236], [237], [238], [239]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, not haranguing you... Still very confused about why you're flying off the handle at me when I simply and in an non-argumentative manner pointed out that you appeared to have mischaracterized another editor’s argument[240]. How you handled this is just not ok and you should probably expect a boomerang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is among what I consider to be you flying off the handle but that is not what I was claiming. Note the present tense of my statement, you’re still flying off the handle. You just made an ANI case out of a molehill. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: I don’t think I did besides for an accusation of incivility which I would be more than happy to provide evidence ("Oh, get over yourself.” etc) for if thats what you’re talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: I'm mainly referring to your accusations that MPants did not WP:AGF and that they were exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I don't see evidence of either. In my opinion it's not worst thing you could've done, but nonetheless I understand MPants's concern with false accusations. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "you’re backing yourself into wp:battleground territory which I assure you is not called for” is not an accusation, its letting them know that they’re getting *close* to exhibiting battleground behavior. The failure to AGF is not taking the contention that they appeared to be mischaracterizing another editor’s statement at face value (an appearance which turned out to be accurate, although that is immaterial). I thought "at the very least you need to WP:AGF and realize that to another reasonable editor it looks like you mischaracterized an argument.” would have made that clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't throw around wp:battleground unless someone is exhibiting that behavior, as what you said can be seen as accusatory. I also don't think mischaracterizing another editor’s statement qualifies as not assuming good faith. It seems at the most they just misunderstood the other editor's statement; there was certainly not any maleficence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not what I’m saying the failure to assume good faith is... The failure to assume good faith is dismissing the accuracy of the claim that they *appear* to have mischaracterized another editor. You can’t just dismiss the fact than another editor perceives something like that, you have to take it as face value and go from there even if you disagree. Note that if they had they would have realized that they were wrong and we would have immediately moved on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I categorically didn't dismiss it and I highly doubt you legitimately believed I did.
    I asked you aquestion and added an explanation as to why any valid answer would reinforce my point. You explicitly refused to answer the question, stooping to making unfounded accusations, instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like a more current example of failure to assume good faith can I point you to a mention of myself in the wall of text they just posted on their talk page? "I mean, as we speak, there's an editor blatantly trying to provoke me at RSN.”[241] is certainly the least charitable take on the situation possible, especially after I’ve made it clear that my purpose was never to provoke them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand now. In my humble opinion this was just a pissing contest and we'd do well to close this AN/i with no action required. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything overly wrong with HEB's comments. The battleground comment isn't helpful but that was only after a series of back and forth comments that seemed to be escalating. I have disagreed with HEB on a number of occasions. I've found they are willing to take a side bar and discuss things. Not only has this been helpful in terms of fostering understanding, it also has lowered the temperature when it was starting to rise. In this particular case I think MPant's view is the obvious one and only after thinking about the other side did I see it's validity as well. I can see how HEB would take some of MPant's comments as terse/biting but I can see how MPants might have viewed the reverse as well. I can't imagine that a sidebar on HEB's talk page couldn't have sorted this all out and perhaps it still could. Springee (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The linked discussion is hatted as a "pissing contest", which seems apt here. Especially given that MjolnirPants was in the same discussion saying stuff like "Oh, get over yourself", and describing HEB's comments as "incredible contortion of logic" and "unnecessarily personalized bs that doesn't merit any response" (while continuing to respond to it). I hardly think it's unfair to describe those comments as confrontational, and I hardly think it's unwarranted to say that you don't want to be talked to in such a way. Sure, HEB was in the pissing contest as well, but at the end of the day it was a two-person pissing contest; one participant creating an AN/I thread to punish the other afterwards seems unnecessary and vexatious. jp×g 22:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd note that you haven't bothered to give even a single hint as to what any of those quotes were in response to. A fact which says more about your purpose here than it does about my behavior, there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I opened the comment by saying it seemed like a pissing contest, later said that HEB was in the pissing contest as well, and added that it was a two-person pissing contest, videre licet: a "slang idiomatic phrase describing contests that are "futile or purposeless", especially if waged in a "conspicuously aggressive manner" [...] used figuratively to characterise futile ego-driven battling". If you would like me to reiterate that I think it was a pointless argument in which two otherwise intelligent and capable editors were being silly, I'd be glad to. jp×g 00:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing actionable here (as yet). I don't see anything that constitutes a brightline violation of WP:CIVILITY, WP:PA, WP:HARASS, or WP:TE from either editor. I note that this exchange consists of 17 rapid-fire, roughly sequential back-and-forth rhetorical counter-punches from the two editors: it was very early into this sequence that the points became so abstracted that they were providing no useful insight on the subject of the the thread and either contributor could have walked away much sooner if both weren't apparently fairly determined to have the last word (though, notably, Mjolnir was the first to eventually disengage). But other than some pretty clear issues with AGF (from both sides, really), I can't actually identify any behavioural policy violations worth anything more than the warning that things were headed towards disruption by the end of this little personal dispute.
    HEB, one exception: when you say "consider yourself warned, if I see this sort of thing again I won’t be able to ignore it so easily.", that is starting to get towards pointlessly inflammatory territory: it's suggestive of the idea that you see yourself in the role of someone who is exercising authority--or in any event is preparing to police someone else's conduct, and is entitled to that oversight. Outside the narrow context of an admin giving a head's up that an editor is pushing a line where said admin would have to act, I just can't imagine there's one in a thousand cases where that particular comment could actually improve a dispute or lead to a productive outcome. If someone violates a community standard in a way that you feel Wiki-ethically bound to respond to, then do so, at that point. But this putting someone on notice silliness won't accomplish anything, especially as you phrased it there. Beyond that, I don't know what more is to be done here except to suggest you both disengage: you've both had your say and then some on what was, to begin with, a pretty pedantic disagreement. SnowRise let's rap 12:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, MjolnirPants started this thread by requesting that an admin warn you to stop haranguing him. I skimmed through the thread in question, and what I saw was an increasingly hostile discussion between two editors, both of them using rhetorical devices that aren't ideal in a collegiate environment, fault on both sides, yadayada. I decided to read it more deeply to get a feel for the flow of the discussion, and I've changed my impression slightly. Please forgive the length of this, I've hatted it to save on screen space.
    Blow by blow
    • Here, a user makes a contribution to the discussion. It's quite neutrally phrased, it's not insulting anyone; people might disagree with it, it's fine.
    • Here, MP replies. I think the comment is generally fine, although the 'belies your claim...' phrasing is the first small step towards confrontational rhetoric. MP could just as easily have phrased that as 'Yeah, but the original post also said 'blah', which means that there clearly is editorial oversight' - gets the same point across and is more collegiate. Anyway, no big deal.
    • Here, HEB takes another small step towards confrontational rhetoric. In and of itself it's a neutral observation, sure, but by failing to explain why they're making that observation and what we're supposed to draw from it, it's inviting MP to ask what the point they're making is. They could have just explained their point in that edit. Anyway, again, no big deal.
    • Here, MP is asking what that point is. 'What, exactly, would you describe...' - that's a very particular way of asking a question, and it's not a friendly one. It's the way I talk to children in my class when they have done something wrong. 'What, exactly, did you hope to accomplish by pushing an entire roll of loo roll down the toilet? Mmm?' It's condescending. So yeah, that could have been done better - but while it's confrontational, it's not uncivil, we're not in problematic territory yet.
    • Here, HEB ups the ante. I never like 'you are either saying this, or you're saying that' framings, and I particularly don't like them when one of the two options presented is 'being disingenuous'. Much better for them to have said 'Look, what I'm getting at is...'. There's also the comments on MP's alleged passion for the source and the suggestion that he's not being logical, which don't help. This also personalises the discussion - HEB is talking about MP as a contributor. I think that's the first time that happens in the discussion.
    • HEB follows that thought up with this, in which they're telling MP to back off, that his hackles are up, and that HEB is all too willing to be calm and rationale. While MP has been confrontational, so too has HEB, and HEB is so far the only one to have personalised it. These comments therefore strike me as unfair, and I can see why MP would object to them.
    • This is MP's response, which is mostly fairly measured (although, there is that 'One wonders why...', which is intended to imply something without saying it outright - I always think it better either to say it, or not to say it). It looks like he's trying to remain measured though.
    • Then MP has this afterthought, which is hostility in response to what MP perceives as baiting.
    • This is HEB saying that they're not going to answer MP's earlier question, which is fine. There's also some pointless snark about 'telling you about yourself' thrown in for good measure, which is further personalising the discussion.
    • Here MP says that the answer is important, and calls out the unnecessary personal comments for what they were (without making any of his own).
    • He then points to aspersions, and asks HEB to moderate their behaviour.
    • The first sentence of this is reasonable; the rest of it is HEB is accusing MP of 'going on the attack', and of failing to assume good faith.
    • I'm not certain exactly what MP is getting at here, but I think they're responding to the earlier 'either X or you're being disingenuous' comment, and saying that they think HEB is just there to cast aspersions and he doesn't want to engage with them any further.
    • Here HEB is a bit condescending, and sees fit to warn MP.
    • MP reiterates that he doesn't want to continue the discussion, and tells HEB not to ping him again.
    So, my take on it is this: confrontational rhetoric in discussions is often unhelpful. It can lead people down the path to hostility unnecessarily. There was a point there that could have been discussed in a collegiate manner, but the way in which people were framing their arguments made that not happen, and both participants could have handled the discussion better. However, by my reading, HEB was the first one to personalise it, and continued making it more personal a number of times afterwards, whereas I see MPants making an effort not to personalise it, and to disengage rather than pursue it. I can't say that HEB is intentionally trying to provoke a response from MP, maybe that's how they usually engage in discussions, I don't know. However, here we are with the warning: HEB, stop haranguing MP. I'm not proposing an IBan or anything, but if you find yourself in conversation with him, don't personalise it, don't accuse him of 'attacking' people when he's not doing that, or tell him that he needs to back off from a discussion. Please both try to approach discussions in as friendly and open a way as possible, and try to avoid framing questions or statements in such a way as to appear confrontational. Girth Summit (blether) 13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I didn’t tell him he needed to back off from the discussion, I told him he needed to take a step back rhetorically, in hindsight I should have also taken the medicine I was prescribing. I would also note that I did disengage, Pants was the one who insisted on having the last word and they got it in both subcoversations.... Then they got the final last word by opening an ANI and posting on my talk page (note that the “don’t ping me” post is in between opening the ANI and posting the ANI notification on my talk page, its three posts in two minutes), thats not disengaging. Then they repeatedly dragged me through the mud on their talk page[242][243], what part of that is disengaging? Personally I find the comment "If people weren't riding my dick, I wouldn't be telling them to get off it.” which was directed at myself to be highly offensive, I would never touch his dick let alone ride it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit, can you confirm whether you were telling HEB they should or they shouldn't be telling MPants to back off from the discussion? I interpreted your statement to mean "if you find yourself in conversation with him, don't personalise it, don't accuse him of 'attacking' people when he's not doing that, or and don't tell him that he needs to back off from a discussion". —valereee (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, ha - words are funny things, are they not? I was indeed saying that he should not tell him that he needs to back away from a discussion, your corrected version is a better way of putting it. Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From my review of what happened, I think that Girth Summit's "blow by blow" description gets it right, and his analysis of it also matches my own. I see this as something that doesn't really rise to the level of needing admin action, and I also have to observe that MPants has been on the receiving end of an awful lot of grief lately, and that I wish it would just stop. I would hope that someone will close this thread soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is touching, I hope that one day I have a wikipedia friend who is as good and kind to me as you are to MjolnirPants. You’ve inspired me to read the earlier messages on their talk page and explore the threads they are in regards to and they do seem to have been having a really really shitty time recently. I wish I had known that before engaging with them here, I definitely would have been more patient. This is my first negative interaction with them (maybe second, we have interacted rather extensively), basically everywhere else I’ve encountered them they’ve been a fantastic editor and I would hate to see them leave either of their own volition or forced out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I really appreciate that! All the more, I think that seals the deal for me, that this thread is ready to be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HEB, maybe just treat everyone as if they may be having some major stress in their lives. Pretty much all of us have for the last year and a half, and for many, many editors, there's no end in sight. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The wikipedia stress that MjolnirPants has been under recently appears to be extraordinary, I don’t want to trivialize that by suggesting thats its ordinary given the times... It isn’t, I probably would have thrown in the towel by now or serving a long blocked if I was in their shoes (they almost certainly would be blocked right now if they weren’t an OG). If nothing else they have true grit, I admire that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, thanks for saying what you have above, I hope that the two of you will be able to make amends. Girth Summit (blether) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, thank you for being understanding. It's more rare than it should be. I too hope you both can make amends and move forward. I appreciate you acknowledging the stress he's been under and I also appreciate Valereee pointng out that many of us are under unbelievable stress both on and off Wiki. Mr. Pants is really a caring person, don't let him fool you, but he is very passionate. He is kind and understanding when given the chance to be. In regards to Tryp, we all need a friendly fish in the bowl to save us from the antics of the cat sometimes. Such wonderful people we meet here. It's not worth all of this. It's not beneficial to us to be angry and upset forever towards each other all the time. Enjoy editing! --ARoseWolf 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it's not a bowl of chowder. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Awww, but I'll throw in some of those soup and oyster crackers for ya! --ARoseWolf 19:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish royalty

    CLOSED
    Going to be bold and close this. Daniel has provided some advice about alternate venues and options for resolution. St★lwart111 03:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    User:HerbiePocket is randomly adding Category:Jewish royalty to many articles, e.g. [244]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried discussing this with them at their talk page first? Daniel (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Daniel. I have started some discussion at Talk:Jesus, otherwise I don't know how to handle it. Seems they use a definition of Jewish royalty I have never heard of before. E.g. any Jew who calls himself the Messiah is automatically royalty. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion has been open for a matter of hours, and already the editor has responded. The way to handle it is to have a discussion between yourselves there, hopefully others will come along to form a consensus, and if not, you can use one of the dispute resolution options here. My point is, this issue (in my opinion) did not need to be brought here at this very early stage. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Averroes 22

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

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

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

    You look don't understand well [2]

    You look don't read it well[3]

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

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

    You look didn't notice this comment. I didn't say that you have "only" two options, you can ignore my messages if you like, but according to Wikipedia's policy, this is not recommended. You seem to assume me very bad faith, for I have not threatened to hurt anyone if my options are not followed, and I have also vowed not to use these terms that might be misunderstood. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, a borderline case, it seems to me. On the one hand, I really don't think those diffs strike me as violations of CIV (and for what it's worth, I think I'm on the more proactive side of the scale regarding perspectives on when to act on violations of that policy). It looks very much to me as if this is a language facility issue: Averroes seems to be basically competent in English, but every other sentence there's a syntactic/morphological construction that goes a little haywire. It seems to me that the above diffs are efforts to say something along the line of "I don't think you read the source correctly" and similar statements, but lacking the ability for social nuance in English, they aren't able to frame those observations in a way that doesn't sound curt, hyper-critical, and maybe even bordering on aggressive. But for all we know, in their first language they may have made these statements perfectly civil. On the other hand, I note that the previous block for incivil behaviour apparently involved talk page content that had to be revdelled, so...
    The question of disruption on the topic is equally mixed. Averroes seems to have a fairly decent grasp of (and respect for) policy, and they also aren't pushing an extreme POV on that article (particularly considering the scope of controversy for the topic), but rather are arguing about some nuanced questions. They've been here not quite a year, so they are either a quick study or (I think more likely) a contributor to one of our sister encyclopedias, where policies may not be quite identical--a multiple account situation is another possibility, but I see no evidence of that and there has been no mention of socking or disruption. I personally feel (from this admitedly limited review of their contributions) that they are attempting to contribute in good faith and that there is evidence that they are capable of accepting criticism.
    At a minimum, Averroes needs to be reminded that it is not appropriate to restore content to an article while there is an active discussion of the acceptability of that content ongoing on the talk page--that is to say, they need to be advised to review WP:BRD. But I'm not sure more aggressive action is needed here than that. While their conduct is not perfect in every respect, considering the full context, I don't get the impression of a user who is incapable of adjustment, or even one who is especially resistant to advice. I suspect this is mostly a growing pains/language barrier problem, more than anything, and not one which impinges upon basic competency. I'm not sure there is much to do here other than to advise Averroes to take greater caution regarding WP:edit warring and perhaps spend a little more time considering the wording of their interactions such that they don't come off as incivil. SnowRise let's rap 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Well, thanks for your comment. But I would like to ask two questions: Have you seen this? And how long should I wait to undo the edits if there is no response on the talk pages, or many of points in the discussion are ignored? --Averroes 22 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a subtle and complicated question. Before I get into the nuances and how they may apply here, I'll list three relevant policies, in case you haven't read any of them: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:DR. Now, how you handle a situation where a discussion had died out without arriving at a firm consensus (and I'm not saying that is the situation here, but starting from that point for arguments sake, sine it seems to be your position) depends on a number of factors. If the consensus was clearly against you, or just leaning against you, you should probably do nothing, or at least wait a while before broaching the subject again. In situations characterized by BRD (that is, where you made an edit and it was reverted) best practice is to leave the older, stable version of the content (or absence thereof) in place, until there is some firmer consensus. In cases of marginal consensus or mixed/no consensus, you might also consider utilizing a dispute resolution process (such as WP:RfC) to gain additional perspectives from the wider community and/or try to find a middle ground among the differing perspectives. You generally shouldn't consider being the last person to comment on the issue to be an indication that you have prevailed: if consensus was against you, this will definetly be perceived as edit warring, and even if consensus was unclear, you generally cannot insist upon your version pending further discussion--no matter how convinced you are that it is the correct one--unless it was the older, stable version.
    That last point is particularly important: remember that being convinced you are right (even with regard to a policy argument relating to broad community consensus) and having consensus are not the same thing (WP:CONLEVEL). It's true that local consensus on an article talk page is not determined merely by a headcount of editors supporting one version or another. For example, if an uninvolved editor were to close an RfC on an issue, they wouldn't just count the !votes, but would also consider how the arguments harmonize with policy requirements (a higher level of community consensus). But as a proponent arguing within a dispute, you should never go ahead with applying disputed content unless the discussion has ended in some sort of concrete fashion, with either a formal close in your favour or at least an overwhelming majority endorsing your view once the discussion has petered out. Not everybody has to agree, but there is a significant threshold for declaring consensus. I hope that is helpful: you'll have to forgive me as I am writing this in a hurry as I rush out the door. If anything needs further clarity, don't hesitate to ask a question and I'll respond as soon as possible! SnowRise let's rap 05:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Ok, what should I do if a group of editors are continuing to ignore of many points I make and they using circular argumentation in the talk page, but they insists on undoing my edits for no apparent reason (like this)? --Averroes 22 (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from that edit summary, it is not clear to me whether the other editor is reverting you merely because they felt your re-introduction was premature with discussion still ongoing (that is, a procedural revert of edit warring) or if they felt this change was inappropriate under policy, given the sourcing and content, or a combination of the two.
    However, step back from that edit, I will examine your question in the abstract: that is to say, what should you do when you are convinced that other editors are wrong in their conclusions, but said editors are not willing to engage with you on the matter to your satisfaction? Well, that again depends on the circumstances. In certain contexts, you often just have to let the matter go, at least for a time, particularly if you are supporting a very minority opinion among the editors contributing perspectives to the dispute. But more often, you usually will have at least one community tool available to you for bringing in a broader community analysis. A decent summary of these options can be found at WP:DR. For the type of dispute you are in right now, one option is WP:RfC. You should always try to discuss the matter at length on the talk page first, but if discussion grinds to a halt and editors are still at a loggerheads (meaning, unable to come to an agreement or move past a particular point), RfC can bring in additional perspectives by inviting in other community members who will either break the deadlock or maybe even suggest a middle ground or alternative approach.
    But whatever process you use, you'll need to learn to recognize a lost cause and just let some things go. Don't keep pressing the issues across every space or process you can find, or you may find yourself running afoul of our WP:FORUMSHOPPING or even WP:Tendentious editing policies. If nothing else, trying every possible angle before you accept that you just aren't going to win a the day on a given argument will get you a reputation for being unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is simply the nature of the beast that you will sometimes have to accept consensus going a different way now and again, despite being thoroughly convinced you have made the right call. Even the most experienced editor who knows this project and it's policies inside out, who is contributing in areas in which they have detailed and nuanced understanding of the facts and the sources, and is a brilliant rhetorician/communicator would still have to concede some point or another here regularly. Editors who cannot internalize this fact will simply end up here on this noticeboard over and over again until the community removes them from the areas they can't collaborate in (or from the project altogether)--or else, an admin just blocks them independently. This is very much a "you win some, you lose some" sort of place, and the editors who end up having the most stamina for the duration are those who recognize that early on and do not attempt to die on every hill (that's an English metaphor about picking your battles/figuring out when is the time to let things go).
    By the way, if you do use an RfC here, be sure to read the policy carefully, especially the part about neutrally wording the question. If you need help formatting an RfC/wording the inquiry, please let me know and I will be happy to help. Mind you, as per the previous paragraph, I'm not saying it's necesarily the way to go here--you need to look at the situation, decide how much you feel this one edit needs to occur, calculate how realistic you think your chances are, based on feedback so far, be honest with yourself about whether the RfC would be more helpful than disruptive, and then make your call balancing all of those factors. But whenever you do make your first effort at RfC (or any other WP:DR process) and need any further advice on how to do it as neutrally and appropriately as possible, you can feel free to message me for advice: consider this an open offer. You can also ask for similar advice from the WP:TEAHOUSE and/or at WT:RfC. Best of luck to you, whatever you choose to do from here. And remember: for virtually everything here WP:THEREISNORUSH: it's more important to take things slow and build support and make it clear you are willing to discuss in a civil and calm fashion. Believe me, it will pay off. SnowRise let's rap 11:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: Ok, thanks for response, but you look didn't understand what I mean. That revert occurred before the discussion began on the talk page. In the summary of the previous edit, I asked the person who reverted my edit to explain to me what exactly the problem was on the talk page, and then I surprised by this revert with that strange edit summary. Sure, I'm willing to concede a point, but I want a clear reason, why should I concede it? I can't concede it just because it doesn't agree with the personal opinions of a tag team. And I want to add an information, not everyone disagrees with me, there is another editor who agrees with me [245]. --Averroes 22 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you see, you introduced the change to the standing version of the article here. That makes you the "bold" editor in terms of WP:BRD (bold -> revert -> discuss). Once someone (DrVogel) had reverted you, whether you liked their explanation or not, the WP:ONUS (burden) was on you to gain consensus before reintroducing that change. Reverting the revert, as you did, before securing that consensus, was therefore edit warring, and it was appropriate for the third party (Kevo327) to re-revert you, even with an edit summary that made no reference to the underlying content dispute. Does that make sense? This process can feel a little non-intuitive (complicated/not obvious) at first. SnowRise let's rap 12:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: This is my first revert, not this. Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!! Of course, this is don't make sense at all. You cannot solve an edit warring by another edit warring. --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is my first revert, not this"
    Correct. You introduced an edit. That edit was contested, and reverted. You should have then gone to discuss the contested edit (on the talk page, not in edit summaries) and only re-introduced it after gaining consensus for it. WP:BRD; WP:ONUS.
    "Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!!"
    Well, that's not exactly what I said though. Technically editors are advised that it's not necessarily the best move to revert an edit that is itself the first step in an edit war. But it all comes down to context, and I can tell you that it's beyond unlikely that your average editor would find fault or disruption in Kevo's revert there. But my main point was that they didn't revert you without an explanation: it's just that their reason didn't pertain to the content question, but rather a procedural one: basically "this edit is contested; you need to gain consensus before adding it again", which they expressed (perhaps suboptimally, I will grant you) as "stop edit warring". SnowRise let's rap 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Averroes 22, you mentioned a tag team. Who are you referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Averroes 22, I don't think that you have been intentionally being rude - quite confrontational, but not uncivil to the point of requiring administrative intervention. The tag teaming accusation is a problem though - just because there are multiple people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are coordinating their actions - it might just be that you are wrong. It's an accusation of an abuse of process - if you don't intend to provide evidence for it, you should strike it, because casting aspersions is actionable.
    I also think that you have a shaky grasp on what constitutes a reliable source. You have understood that self-published sources are not reliable, which is good, but you should not be describing peer-reviewed academic journals as 'self-published sources'. You gave a couple of links to the pages of Science Direct on that talk page (this and this.) Those pages set out explicitly that Science Direct accept press releases from universities and the like, and that they republish them with only a light copy edit. That is a very different thing from a peer-reviewed academic journal, which accepts research papers from academics, and sends them to other academics for comment. Those academics may reject the paper, or they may suggest areas that need to be improved prior to acceptance. They're not the same sort of thing at all: you need to accept that. Girth Summit (blether) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Science Direct??!! LOL. You seem to copy the comments by Firefangledfeathers, even his misspellings. You can see my responses on Talk:Armenian genocide. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should reply if you have a specific thing in mind, just maybe. And not waste everyones time, directing editors to certain pages. We aren't suppose to dig up your responses and assume which one you mean by "just look at this talk page LOL". Also, what's funny about asking a question? You really should elaborate next time instead of unhelpful comments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I suggest you elaborate on your "tag team" accusations, as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit and ZaniGiovanni: Hi again, if you insist, I will explain again. So do you think that the already peer-reviewed academic research will no longer be academic because a public information officer who published these academic research? Also, why are you questioning the public information officer and not the academics? What if academics aren't really academics? Or if they have prejudices in certain topics? --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors have tried to explain this point – let me see if I can clarify by wording the explanation differently. Science Daily does not publish academic research. It publishes press releases about academic research. Those are different things, in the same way that, say, a publisher's advertisment for a book is a different thing to the book itself. A publisher's advert for a book would not be a reliable source, whereas the book itself might be. Science Daily publishes, in effect, universities' advertisments for research papers. As such, its articles are not reliable sources. Wham2001 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Jgwilliams873 template usage and NOTLISTENING behaviour

    Jgwilliams873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    As previously discussed last month, Jgwilliams873 was warned to start working collaboratively and to refrain from only tagging articles at random. After a month away, they have returned tag-only editing (such as here and and here) despite other users requests, such as Sam Sailor. They are clearly WP:NOTLISTENING and not working here to collaborate. As I stated in the previous ANI: I would like to see JG start to communicate in order to understand why the tags are inappropriate and refrain or be T-Banned from adding tags to any article until they can demonstrate the competence of their usage. They have clearly not done either and they have not appeared to have even attempted to make any actual update edits themselves. Instead, they clutter perfectly reasonable articles forcing others to do the work for them or clean up after them. Yosemiter (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also courtesy ping to Johnuniq per their previous warning to the user. Yosemiter (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Jgwilliams873 as it is clear the problems would otherwise escalate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Ban proposal for Aussie Article Writer

    After looking at the history of Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs), including the various alternate accounts he's had over the years (and the related fallout at this AN/I thread [246]), and seeing how he's repeatedly been allowed to "retire" and then come back and edit with new accounts (despite blocks for BLP violations [247], votestacking [248], edit warring and violating interaction bans [249], I propose a community ban for Aussie Article Writer. ♟♙ (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmmm, but have we ever had a situation like that before, where arbitration and community full bans are applied simultaneously, and with regard to roughly the same conduct? I'm stretching to recall, but I think I can say at the least, arbcom seems to stretch itself to avoid this outcome and that's probably worth remembering. This could create some non-trivial issues if there is a disagreement between the determinations regarding Chris/AAW's return at a later date. Not that I think that's likely, but it's a possibility we must account for. I get the intuitive assumption that is implicit here: that each body would maintain it's separate ban and AAW would need to successfully appeal both to regain privileges. But again, I'm pretty sure that would be a novel way of doing things and it could be trickier than it seems at first blush. SnowRise let's rap 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Snow Rise, I'm clearly behind the times here; where was AAW given an ARBCOM site-ban? Or am I misunderstanding you utterly? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I was just taking that from ST47's commentary, to be honest. GeneralNotability is the blocking admin, I believe, and can probably provide clarity. I assumed that ST47 was saying that the block occurred as an AE matter, and therefore it qualified as an ArbCom ban of a sort, but perhaps I misread the context. I do know there was an existing IBAN that was the nexus of the behaviour that got AAW banned a couple of days ago, but I don't know in which venue the original IBAN arose or whether GN banned as a clerk at ArbCom or independently in their capacity as an admin here. SnowRise let's rap 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snow Rise, the interaction ban was from a community discussion [250] (incidentally, I was the closing admin). Hence my confusion; I hadn't yet seen that ARBCOM had decided to take it over. Having reviewed the suppressed content AAW posted, I am unsurprised at the decision. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was an independent admin action - no AE was involved here, and my understanding is that the previous IBAN was community-imposed. We're also in kind of confusing territory wrt block vs ban here - my block was to enforce an existing ban, and as far as I can tell the ArbCom block is also a block, not a ban, for whatever difference that makes. But ArbCom won't unblock without community consensus, which makes it...kind of a ban? scratches head GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tepid support. Please note my response to ST47 above for some of my concerns. I'm also not super excited about the idea of implementing a redundant ban under the circumstances of not letting the party speak up for themselves here, when it is not strictly necessary to forestall disruption. Lastly, much of the information that is pertinent to making a determination here has been revdelled now, making the bane-worthy conduct difficult to explore in complete detail, making this very much more the arena of ArbCom. All of that said, the conduct here is from all accounts pretty exceptionally alarming. And at the end of the day: AAW can always use their talk page or UTRS to request to be given limited editing privileges to make their case if that day were to arrive; ArbCom can probably just overrule us if necessary; and there is still plenty of disruptive content that is non-oversited to judge by, so...qualified support. SnowRise let's rap 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as the individual seems more bother then he's worth. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Chris, I've known you for a lot of years, during which I don't believe we've ever had an unpleasant interaction. But I think it's abundantly clear that contributing here isn't good for your health, or to that of others in your vicinity. El_C 18:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not redundant. I don't know how much I trust "the system", and this codifies the requirement the community be consulted before he's allowed back (which is noted in his block log). ♟♙ (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think it is. Double redundancy seems excessive, but whatever. Anyway, the most important thing is that "the system" loves you. El_C 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now a little redundant to ARBCOM's subsequent block takeover, and given the circumstances I'd rather this was handled privately by ARBCOM anyway; so put me down as a weak oppose, I suppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at a community level (for the avoidance of doubt) in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is unfortunate but as I have stated on BHG's talk page there's a violence in the nature of the personal attack by Aussie Article Writer. I believe this attack (deliberately violating an interaction ban in so doing) demands some sort of community ban proposal; whether the community bites down is another matter. I feel a terrible wrong has been done here which the community, not just ARBCOM, should invalidate. BHG's behavior is a separate matter which also wants resolution. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Since ARBCOM likes to unban problem people who pay minimum lip service who go on to create havoc, I think the community should step in to also make it so this person needs to covince us as well. They weren't banned for material that we can't see so there shouldn't be a problem doing this. Valeince (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they were, somewhat. The IBAN violations took place substantially in BHG's draft RfA, which has now been revdelled, along with other relevant edits, if I recall correctly from following matters a couple of days back. SnowRise let's rap 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, ARBCOM block is sufficient, and the block log notes the community will be consulted before an unblock. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It was ludicrous that they were ever allowed back in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I had only one, recent encounter with this user, in which they seemed not to know about WP:NOTFORUM and not to understand how reverting works, getting angry for not being warned they were being reverted beforehand, which I'd never even heard of before. They immediately assumed bad faith and were mildly uncivil. I assumed they were a new editor based on this behavior, but with all this info, multiple accounts and multiple offenses since 2005, it seems it was more trolling from an LTA than anything else. —El Millo (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Chris has goaded BrownHairedGirl time after time and largely is (directly/indirectly) responsible for the horrible distraction we are currently confronted with. It is surreal they have been left “to roam free” thus far. Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, just to make the community's position on this crystal clear. — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Chris's prominent constructive role in the early days of Wikipedia has long been replaced by a series of prolonged bouts of massive disruption. There has been so much of it for so long that the whole history is beyond the knowledge of any one editor, a problem exacerbated by the fact that many of those good faith, constructive Wikipedians who got embroiled in Chris's dramas have themselves thrown in the towel.
      I am unconcerned by any overlap with ArbCom. Like Valeince, I think that a double lock would be helpful. Triple lock would be even better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote Present the ARBCOM ban should be sufficient. If it were not in place, I would support this action. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let's just get this over with as soon as possible, whichever way the discussion goes. Some things are more important than editing an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Solicitation of sex on an article Talk page

    also blocked by Ymblanter 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please review this edit [251], which includes a telephone number and email address of someone, purportedly the editor. I think it should be expunged. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll bet that's not the editor's info. Revdeleted. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppressed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fenerium1923

    Fenerium1923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    New account just created, removing/altering sourced information with has to do with anything Iranian and replaces it with 'Turkish' [252] [253] [254], as is typical of the disruption in Safavid related articles. This IP which did the same earlier seems to be his [255] --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Obviously, the June 22 to July 22 semi did not produce the desired effect. Giving this one a more serious breather. El_C 21:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warshy NPA vio

    In this diff[256], Warshy clearly issued a personal attack. After given a warning[257], he remained adamant.[258]155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warshy continues his NPA streak a few minutes later[259]155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, I have not reviewed them, so obviously have taken no action. El_C 22:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is either a radical fundamentalist POV-pusher or a Sock puppet account#Strawman sockpuppet. WP:BOOMERANG. Basically, they filled Wikipedia with accusations that established users are antisemitic because they dared to WP:CITE something published in Haaretz. The IP can't stand that secular Jews criticize fundamentalist Jews. They suggested that I violate WP:NONAZIS because I call a fundamentalist a fundamentalist (as Britannica does call the Haredim fundamentalists), see [261]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    First Law of Holes155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, you filled Wikipedia with accusations that Haaretz publishes antisemitic propaganda. That is so preposterous!
    https://umaine.edu/anthropology/faculty-staff/dr-henry-l-munson-jr/ , who is an expert in fundamentalism, wrote https://www.britannica.com/topic/fundamentalism/The-Haredim , wherein Britannica clearly states the Haredim are fundamentalists.
    So your accusation boils down to: I'm antisemitic because I call a fundamentalist a fundamentalist. I call a spade a spade, which is not appropriate according to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a significant issue regarding article content, would all participants please focus on that. Clearly the IP is on a roll and arguing with them only provides encouragement. The claim against Warshy is baseless. When I have an opportunity later I might block the IP for wasting everyone's time. My purpose in posting is to urge people to not waste more time arguing with someone on a mission. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Korean dinosaur IP

    Resolved.Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since December 2019, a dynamic korean based IP on the 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range has been making persistent unexplained edits to dinosaur articles. They never leave edit summaries or respond in any way, only edit warring to revert to their preferred version. They have been previously blocked for six months on the 25th of November 2020 by Drmies, which worked while the block lasted, but they've since returned. For past discussions, see User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_18#Dinosaurs. What's the long-term solution here, another six month block? I should note that the range isn't very active aside from the vandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    notified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at the block log, I've reblocked for a year. Any admin who feels strongly that this is excessive can modify this without consulting me. Otherwise, see you in August 2022 for a recap? Girth Summit (blether) 22:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion by Informed analysis using Ontario IPs

    A handful of Toronto IPs have recently begun restoring old edits by Informed analysis, who was already known to be violating WP:MULTIPLE with Ontario IPs. The recent IPs are Special:Contributions/205.189.94.2, Special:Contributions/205.189.94.9 and Special:Contributions/205.189.94.8. Older IPs include Special:Contributions/207.107.126.137 and Special:Contributions/99.231.158.242.

    The unique editing style of this person includes changing the lead section of major rock bands to have a lot more detail about songs and albums—a lot more detail about chart rankings and sales. They were reverted many times because the reading flow suffered from the excessive detail.

    This editing pattern or fingerprint appears in these sequences:

    Can we get a rangeblock on the involved IPs? Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1038179836"