Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311

Netoholic

Prior recent/relevant discussions

• User talk:MJL#Council proposals (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Netoholic_reported_by_User:Bilorv_(Result:_24_hours)
• User talk:Netoholic#Blocked (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men

Background

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

Netoholic has (in several words) challenged my close of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men as out of process,^[1][2][3] WP:INVOLVED,^{[4][5][6][7][8]} WP:BADNAC,^[9] a form of WP:GAMING,^[10][11] edit warring,^[12][13] and the like. I have disputed all of those claims at my talk page. Despite actively discussing this matter with me, decided to revert my close again (more background on my talk page and ANEW report). They have since been blocked for edit warring.^[14] As Bilorv so succinctly put it: The person who was edit warring is the one who made six reverts, deliberately trying to game 3RR, not the people who made two reverts each, with encouragements to discuss the matter in their edit summaries.

I am submitting this closure for self-review since Neto is blocked. It's not that I don't stand by my close at this point. It's that Netoholic has flat out stated that nothing less than this proposal being up for several years would be sufficient to them.^[15] I feel that is an absurd request to make from an editor who seems to be demonstrating clear WP:IDHT.

Should I be reverted and what is to be said of the actions concerning Netoholic? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Endorse per the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Men after an AfD in which the closer wrote (in part) Consensus appears to be that this project violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN) ... Netoholic violated WP:FORUMSHOP by making a council proposal page, and there were no (other) supporters of the project despite widespread discussion about it so it's clearly not a productive area to keep discussing over and over again. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I don’t really see much of anything to close. It had three participants. Wikiprojects on the whole are dead (with a few notable exceptions such as MILHIST) and I honestly had no clue that the “WikiProject Council” even existed beyond a weird logo on talk pages that we’d never bothered to get rid of. Pointless close because a three person discussion about a loosely/not at all regulated part of Wikipedia doesn’t consensus make. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - project was clearly a duplicate or fork of WP:MEN, or else so broad in scope (things of interest to men? as in, basically everything?) as to be useless. Netoholic should focus this energy on rejuvenating WP:MEN if that's their interest. Maybe they didn't intend their project proposal to be pointy, but it became pointy anyway. Might I also suggest marking the WikiProject Council proposals process historic if it's so poorly attended? Expecting things to wait years for approval indicates a process that has outlived its usefulness. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I’d agree with this. I’m not exactly thrilled with Netoholic’s behaviour here and don’t really think the close should be “overturned” but I also don’t really see much of a point to it since that can hardly be called a discussion. If people want to create a WikiProject, let them and then sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. Most of them no one will even notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• ... sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. At the MfD of the proposal page, three editors !voted close and the closer wrote "Closing/archiving the proposal should not require MfD intervention." [16] Looks to me like consensus to close. Endorse. – Levivich 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reclose with an uninvolved closer This is a mess all around. I don't quite see how RL0919 gets keep from this discussion. So I would say that is a bad close that should be overturned and if this weren't already here and I was made aware of it I would take it to DRV. The fact that there was something to nominate (again) is POINTY behavior, which is only shown further by the edit warring that went on around that so good block there. However, MJL was clearly not an uninvolved editor in all this and as such should clearly not have been the person closing this. I don't think his close was wrong, but the reason WP:RFC calls for an uninvolved editor is precisely so that accusations of bad faith on the closer's part are harder to level. And while this isn't the forum for it I would support efforts to mark the WikiProject Council as historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse This is typical IDHT territory and Netoholic needs to be probably TBanned from these spheres, because because his arguments seem to be approaching MRA-esque stuff very rapidly. But, MJL, you were not the best-placed editor to close this. ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Barkeep49 and Winged Blades of Godric: I would agree that I may not have been the best person to close this, but that is why I made my offer to discuss this out first with Neto.^[17] I was rather shocked that they chose to edit war over it rather than actually just be cordial and polite. I'm not unreasonable, and I generally revert when asked for the right reasons.^[18] I'd like to additionally discuss the topic ban that WBG mentioned. It might be overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged: I have no opinion about whether or not this proposal should be closed, but I hope that I was clear that the result at the Miscellany for deletion (writing that out in full as a reminder that "deletion" is part of the name) discussion about the proposal was only that the proposal page should not be deleted, not that it shouldn't be closed. Closing or not closing proposals isn't the focus of MfD as a forum. If the participants on the page can't resolve it there (which it seems they can't), then a dispute resolution venue such as this one is the right place for that to be decided. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  As the person who pinged you, I think your close was clear. I just don't see how you reached a consensus of keep from that discussion especially as only a couple months before a different MfD came to a delete decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  One MfD was about an actual WikiProject and the other MfD was about a proposal for a possible WikiProject, so I don't see different results as that surprising. In the discussion I closed, out of eight participants only the nominator and one other flatly favored deletion, with a third being open to deletion as an option. Most of the rest wanted the page kept but the proposal closed. I think it is very reasonable to ask why the author of the proposal would look at that MfD and think it was appropriate to revert the subsequent closure of the project proposal, but in the MfD close itself I was trying to stick to only addressing the normal remit of MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well given the pretty strong consensus against the project's existence at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men, and the lack of any support other than the OP for creating the project in the discussion in question, we clearly don't have consensus for creating the project. Anybody who does want to create it needs to define it in such a way that it has a meaningful scope which isn't just that of WP:MEN and similar projects on gender issues. A projects focusing on the men's rights movement and related topics would clearly duplicate WP:MEN and there wasn't any articulated benefit for having a project to improve biographies of men. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm looking at Netoholic's block log. A lot of it is irrelevant ancient history, but two 24-hour blocks in the last three months suggest there is still a problem with unnecessary edit warring. The entries in the block log suggest that Netoholic was under a 1RR restriction at some point. Is now a good time to re-impose it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• IMO the problematic recent history extends beyond just the edit warring blocks:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#User:Netoholic and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Deletion TBAN
  • The WT:Notability (academics) RfCs [19] [20]
  • Created WP:WikiProject Men (deleted, now a redirect to WP:MEN), then Category:Men's history (deleted), then WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men (no consensus), and then edit warred over the close of the proposal page (subject of this thread)
  • Repeated reversions at...
    • WP:NPOVN over a notice about an WP:MR thread about Chairman (1, 2)
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (1, 2, 3)
    • Steven Crowder (1, 2, 3, 4)
    • Chairperson (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Template:Masculinism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
    • Template:Masculism sidebar (1, 2, 3)
    • Masculism (see the history in May) – Levivich 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree with this assessment -- edit warring is actually a fairly minor aspect of the whole story. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      • See also: reverts at The Wachowskis article: 1, 2, 3. Also: I was made very uncomfortable by this comment regarding an article about a murdered trans woman. Here is my reply that notes how off-base that comment was. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reclose with an uninvolved closer. This may have been the correct outcome of the discussion (given Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men). However, the close does not reflect the actual discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (3 comments - Netholic + 2 others) - there's certainly no consensus for opening the WikiProject (or, given 3 participants, for much of anything) - however the only talk of a redirect is by the closer. Furthermore, MJL is clearly involved given their numerous comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men. Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: It's pretty established I was involved despite my initial protest and grumblings to such. The redirect portion of the close was brought by Jo-Jo Eumerus's initial close of MFD:WP:MEN and then UnitedStatesian's first close of WP:COUNCIL/P/Men (the latter who've I pinged before regarding this issue but doesn't seem to want to get involved further). Either way, if whoever closes this thread wants to reclose mine, then that's fine with me.
  I'd just prefer to see this matter conclusively resolved, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reverse close. Netoholic and I do not always see eye to eye (to put it mildly), but I don't see the harm in this proposal being left open. (Disclosure: I was, briefly, a member of Netoholic's original WikiProject Men.) WanderingWanda (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Why did the proposal get closed at all? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals do not normally get "closed". It's usually pointless to start a WikiProject page when you only have three possible participants (I ran the numbers years ago; you need a lot more than three people to keep the group going for even one year), but there's no bureaucracy over there. I've wondered, in fact, whether the proposal process ought to be shut down, or replaced by hard requirements that are designed to minimize the risk of creating a soon-to-be-inactive WikiProject (e.g., "Get six active participants to sign up, not counting any newbies, or we'll delete your WikiProject page"). But pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men don't need to be closed, and since nobody is required to make a proposal to create a WikiProject page, it seems particularly strange to have a formal closure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: In this case, the relevant WikiProject page was deleted. Neto needs consensus to bring it back, but that hasn't happened here. idk if this is the best place to discuss the WikiProject Council system or not. I just know that this discussion, like all discussion pages there, need to come to a close eventually. That's just at least according to the page itself. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's perfectly normal for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men to get closed; it's closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men that's unusual. If you meant "He created it, and then we deleted it at MFD", then the message should probably say that, with a link to the MFD discussion, rather than saying that it was "not created", which (it sounds like) isn't actually true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Revert close, and TBAN Netoholic. The close by @MJL was broadly correct in substance, but MJL was involved so should have recused themselves. The close should be reverted so that someone else can close it.

That's a small detail, easily sorted.

The real big issue here is that Netoholic has a severe and log-standing WP:IDHT problem. The core of it is very very simple: WikiProjects are venues for editors to collaborate, but there is almost nobody who wants to collaborate with Netoholic on this topic. So at this time there is no case for making a WikiProject Men.

Sadly, Netoholic's response has come perilously close to full spiderman. We have had the same basic issue sprawling over into multiple venues, always with the same outcome, but Netoholic ploughs on regardless. It's time to topic ban Netoholic from anything related to gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a very reasonable suggestion. --JBL (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened

The arbitration committee have opened a case on Fram at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. This case is to be held in private, with evidence and workshop proposals to be submitted by email — see the evidence and workshop case pages for instructions. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Fram case opened

Malformed WP:AFD by WP:SPA

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Howard Finder is a malformed AFD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this might plausibly be a good faith nomination, maybe by the subject themselves or their proxy? Setting up AFDs can be hard, so unless it's blatantly some sort of attack I'd say just reformat the AFD with the proper templates and see what happens. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I'll leave the first half for discussion, but I've fixed the formatting in the meantime. If people !vote before this gets decided here I say we just leave well enough alone. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

O HAI

I was IRL busy - did I miss much? Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Big drama was missed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You could retroactively claim your absence as a dramatic resignation ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

I saw a bit of that on teh Facebooks, but I struggle to understand the full extent of it. Reading the page you link, my money is, as always, with Newyorkbrad, as reliably thoughtful and nuanced as ever. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nah, just the usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Guy: Welcome back! Just more backlogs to get to.. RIP. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive errors on Denuvo wikipage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lordtobi does not permit me to do changes on the above mentioned page. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&action=history you can see that all my changes were of good faith. You can also see my contributions, I never do any vandalism or smth like that. So please can you somehow prevent Lordtobi from doing this? Thank you.

This is a content dispute, it does not belong here. Please discuss on the article talk page or WT:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at WP:NPOVN

I started a post Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NAMBLA content on Harry Hay about NPOV concerns on Harry Hay. It’s a bit long with lots of repeated content but the proposed content section at the end has the sources included.

It was very helpful in dismissing some sources, and suggestions of better ones.

I’ve read every reliable source available and presented proposed content for inside the article—which in many ways contradicts what is in the lead and article presently—but it’s been crickets to get feedback or review for including it.

Personally I doubt any of it is weighty enough to be included in the lead; or that category pedophile advocacy is appropriate. I was hoping that would be the natural conclusion once others were able to see how little there is in reliable sources on this.

I ran across Wp:Bludgeon, and it recommend asking here for uninvolved help here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested removal of their own advanced permissions on 28 June 2019. By Beeblebrox's request to this committee, their oversight permissions are restored, effective immediately. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 10:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

User:JoshuaIsTheFalco

User has a potted history with contributions including original research, synthesis, copyvios (on Commons), the addition of factually incorrect information [21] and straight forward vandalism [22]. Created a user page recently proclaiming he doesn't give a shit; added to it today with a pa on myself & Redrose. I don't care about the pa, I've had much worse, but it's just symptomatic of someone who is degenerating to WP:NOTHERE status. Nthep (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User has now been notified of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ec with you on that. Nthep (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

JoshuaistheFalco reply: You accuse me of being disruptive and potty. You and Redrose do not allow me to contribute or edit an article without it being called out. You accuse me of original research yet a news article is valid. You then say a potted history with disruptive behaviour. How about the anonymous editor who called Pelsall a town and it is not. Also you take photos down I contribute and yet any copyrighted photos are allowed like from Burslem station. I took that down as it was copyright. I create articles but of course others are then removing my edits.

Wiki is a one rule for admin and another for non admin. Tyranny imo.

JoshuaistheFalco reply finished: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, some of JoshuaistheFalco's recent edits are blatant vandalism (here and here, for example). Peacock (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I called them out for WP:SYNTH, among other things. They will take a local authority's feasibility study or long-term transport strategy plan and use it as a source for a claim that there is an actual ongoing project to reopen a long-closed railway line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay whatever I'm not bothered anymore. I really am not. I'm outraged by the whole admin can do what they want. Those little acts of vandalism was to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me. It was you two and a local authority strategy has more confirmation and know all than that of a blogger on a news website. You hate me its clear and I really don't care. Pick on me but leave everyone else alone.

Signed JoshuaistheFalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record I haven't called you potty. I didn't raise this report because of differences of opinion I have with you about WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:IMAGELEAD. My concerns are over the recent edits to Pelsall and Brownhills in the face of sourced information and then descending into vandalism -"to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me" - isn't a justification or excuse. As for the image point, if that was you who removed the image from Burslem railway station then you're failing to recognize an image freely licenced by the copyright holder over copyright violation when images taken by others are uploaded with the uploader claiming them as their own work. Nthep (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked them 24 hours for the vandalism. No objections if any other admin wants to extend the block or indef etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel

[23]

If someone could revdel the old version, that would be peachy. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, I have tagged the with {{copyvio-revdel}}. --MrClog (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 05:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: not really necessary, it wasn't really an urgent thing, but good to know there was a template for it. Although holy hell is it obtrusive. That should be a talk page template. @Enterprisey: thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, "Although holy hell is it obtrusive. That should be a talk page template.". You are not entirely alone in that sentiment. See Template talk:Copyvio-revdel#A concern with Template:Copyvio-revdel. -- Begoon 09:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Tomb of Artaxerxes III

Hi, I created Tomb of Artaxerxes III, but User: ZxxZxxZ has been recorded instead???!!! M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, they are recorded as the creator because they created it is a redirect. You simply converted it from a redirect to an article. In general, it doesn't really matter who created an article, so don't worry too much about it. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

StudiesWorld, OK. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

opposed

I'm opposed to User:Rosguill To Integration Tomb of Artaxerxes III with Persepolis!!!! . M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with administrators? This sounds like a content dispute. If it is not a content dispute, note that you are required to notify the other party. The instructions at the top of this page tell you how to do this. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yamla, I received notification through ping so I'd say there's no need for further notification in this case. That having been said, as you noted this is a content dispute, and not even one I was planning on actively pursuing, so there's really no need for this discussion. At most, there's a case for boomerang for mild edit warring, but 3RR hasn't been violated yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm Sorry for but I did not know what to do .Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, for now, there's nothing to do since I don't feel like getting in an edit war and will wait for another new page reviewer to take a look at Tomb of Artaxerxes III and either restore the merge or approve the article. If you'd like to write out arguments for why the article should be kept, you should do so at Talk:Tomb of Artaxerxes III. However, a more productive way to increase the chances of the article being accepted would be to provide additional citations to reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject, thus demonstrating that the article meets notability guidelines and should be included in the encyclopedia.

For general instructions on how to handle content disputes, see WP:BRD. Bringing disputes to the administrators noticeboard is only for when users are violating policy or otherwise being problematically uncivil, neither of which are the case in this situation in my opinion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

More references? How about more text? M.K.m2003's "article" consisted of an infobox, a single sentence of text, 9 photographs and 1 reference. It seems to be essentially an excuse for a photo gallery. Unless it can be fleshed out into something at least the size of a sub-stub (it's pretty much a sub-sub-stub), I think the redirect is better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The redirect is much better as it places the tomb in its context. Having a separate article which barely qualifies as a stub does our readers a disservice at this time. The redirect gives readers the information they need, and we should be about our readers. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Liz reappointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Liz (talk · contribs) has been reappointed to the clerk team as a full clerk, effective immediately.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Liz reappointed full clerk

User:LordSwad

This account created in 2008 with no edits apparently exists solely for making content available in userspace that is not available in mainspace. -- GreenC 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a straightforward case for WP:MFD under WP:UP#COPIES or one of the policies directly after it (WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:FAKEARTICLE) - or even just blanking it and applying Template:Userpage blanked, as WP:FAKEARTICLE suggests when dealing with article-like user pages that haven't been edited in an extended period of time; deletion isn't strictly necessary in a case like this. I doubt anything else needs to be done given that the user in question only made two edits, both over ten years ago. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated it at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I do not know whether to be amused or saddened at what User:LordSwad (MfD discussion) tells us about established editors. It was obvious what the editor was doing to make a draft about a building close to Swadlincote, which is the post town address that turned up when I put the name and the village into Google Web. One can point this out, as well as pointing out that the page has just been edited several times; and still one editor will look at this page, edited a mere 5 hours earlier, and immediately beneath that proclaim the page stale, and two other editors will argue about a subject that is not the building close to Swadlincote that User:LordSwad in fact drafted a 2 sentence stub on. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• How about being neither amused nor saddened, but chalking it up to different people think differently? This is neither a big deal, nor is it in some way the big problems of Wikipedia writ small. It hardly merits a finger-wagging comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion query

• I have just deleted all the files listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and then called purge on it. But its "how many files in each class" showed this hereinunder. "G6: Housekeeping" showed 110 members when it actually had no members, and calling "purge" on Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion alias G6: Housekeeping did not change this. I have often noticed this fault.

List of CSD categories count

Possibly contested (8) ------------------ G1: Nonsense (0) G2: Test pages (0) G3: Vandalism (0) G3: Hoaxes (0) G4: Reposted (0) G5: Violating block/ban (4) ------------------ G6: Housekeeping (110) ------------------ G7/U1: Author request (0) G8: Dependent on non-existent (0) G8: Broken redirects (0) G10: Attack pages (0) G11: Advertising (1) ------------------ G12/F9: Copyvios (0) G13: Abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (3) ------------------ G14: Unnecessary disambiguation pages (0) A1: No context (0) A2: Foreign Wikiproject (0) A3: No content (0) A5: Transwikied (0) A7/A9: Significance not indicated (0) A10: Duplicate articles (1) ------------------ A11: Obviously invented (0) C1: Empty categories (0) F1: Redundant files (0) F2: Missing/corrupt files (0) F3: Unacceptably licensed files (0) F5: Orphaned non-free use files (0) F7: Clearly invalid fair-use files (0) F10: Useless non-media files (0) P2: Empty portals (0) R2: Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects (0) R3: Implausible redirects (0)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#Problem with CSD category counts, again and (as implied by the section name) many, many, many previous reports. —Cryptic 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this category-count issue needs to be explained in some prominent place like VPT's top header; it's been unreliable for well over a decade and will not likely be solved in the offing. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the WMF's developers aren't convinced this is an issue. Would suggest voicing your concerns at T221795. -FASTILY 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion query

• I have just deleted all the files listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and then called purge on it. But its "how many files in each class" showed this hereinunder. "G6: Housekeeping" showed 110 members when it actually had no members, and calling "purge" on Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion alias G6: Housekeeping did not change this. I have often noticed this fault.

List of CSD categories count

Possibly contested (8) ------------------ G1: Nonsense (0) G2: Test pages (0) G3: Vandalism (0) G3: Hoaxes (0) G4: Reposted (0) G5: Violating block/ban (4) ------------------ G6: Housekeeping (110) ------------------ G7/U1: Author request (0) G8: Dependent on non-existent (0) G8: Broken redirects (0) G10: Attack pages (0) G11: Advertising (1) ------------------ G12/F9: Copyvios (0) G13: Abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (3) ------------------ G14: Unnecessary disambiguation pages (0) A1: No context (0) A2: Foreign Wikiproject (0) A3: No content (0) A5: Transwikied (0) A7/A9: Significance not indicated (0) A10: Duplicate articles (1) ------------------ A11: Obviously invented (0) C1: Empty categories (0) F1: Redundant files (0) F2: Missing/corrupt files (0) F3: Unacceptably licensed files (0) F5: Orphaned non-free use files (0) F7: Clearly invalid fair-use files (0) F10: Useless non-media files (0) P2: Empty portals (0) R2: Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects (0) R3: Implausible redirects (0)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#Problem with CSD category counts, again and (as implied by the section name) many, many, many previous reports. —Cryptic 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this category-count issue needs to be explained in some prominent place like VPT's top header; it's been unreliable for well over a decade and will not likely be solved in the offing. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the WMF's developers aren't convinced this is an issue. Would suggest voicing your concerns at T221795. -FASTILY 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

New BAG nomination: Enterprisey

Hi! This is a notice that I have nominated myself for the Bot Approvals Group. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this AfD nom please?

Hi all. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this afd please, I am not sure as to where the nominator is going, or is confused re the AfD process. It appears they want a move as opposed to deletion, looking at their talkpage they opened a section at the teahouse, to which the reply looks to have been missed by the OP. Thanks Nightfury 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What an absolute mess. Here is what he wanted to do, but was advised against it: [24]. All of his contribs are regarding this article. He may even have a COI regarding the unrelated nonprofit of the same name. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Was wondering if an admin might take a look at Special:Contributions/86.182.213.38 since the IP may be involved in some undisclosed paid editing per this Teahouse discussion thread. Perhaps an admin help the IP sort through this and figure out a way to for the IP comply with WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked, since they state that they are paid but specifically refused to comply with WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you taking a look at this 331dot. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May I also say the IP address is dynamic. The user can simply change IP by simply resetting their router. A rangeblock may be warranted. Nightfury 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Wufei05

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User has repeatedly added irrelevant information to an article in an attempt to discredit a source they disagreed with. (See [25] [26] [27], along with the ongoing discussion regarding the issue.) User has also inserted inaccurate information into articles (See [28]), and has posted uncivil and hostile attacks on other users' talk pages. (See [29] [30]) -- 22:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberlink420 (talk • contribs)

Indeffed. That behavior is obscene, and has no place here. I'll note that I looked into this user's history after I placed the indef, and this is not new behavior, just infrequent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The last quarter of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 4 is struck out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What does the raven say, high upon your chamber door?  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move User:Rayeshman and subpages to User:Niyumard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, when renaming User:Rayeshman to User:Niyumard (with usurpation), I forgot to suppress redirects when moving old User:Niyumard away (to User:Niyumard (usurped)), so I would like to request enwiki admins to move User:Rayeshman (and subpages, if any) to (or under) User:Niyumard. Thanks in advance, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: would you please clarify this more? Do you want to move User:Rayeshman (which has no subpages) to User:Niyumard, or move something to User:Niyumard (usurped), or what? I dont see an account or set of pages named User:Niyumard (with usurpation). Please use exact wikilinks to make it clear on accounts with spaces in the page names. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, they meant just moving Rayeshman to Niyumard, but for that redirect page Niyumard needs to be deleted first. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done if there is any thing else to this, let us know. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add maintenance template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T229735

Please add {{R restricted}} Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure, because editing this page is restricted to administrators. Monniasza talk 10:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Monniasza: the gadget namespace is under construction and is currently locked from editing for all users, even admins. Once this is done you can requests edits on it's talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux - It is? How do you know this? Was this announced somewhere that I missed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but visit the redirect Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure and observe that it shows "View source" for admins and clicking View source shows "You do not have permission to edit pages in the Gadget namespace." Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, it's for gadgets 2.0. Check [31]. As far as I know, no progress since long back. ∯WBG^converse 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This page was last edited on 25 February 2017, at 04:19  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric - Oh, interesting... Thanks for the link. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that this is the fifth time since the namespace was introduced that an unsuccessful attempt was made to request an edit to it. (previously: User talk:MaxSem/Archives/August 2015#Gadget redirects, Talk:Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (October 2016), Gadget talk:Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (September 2017), and m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2019-04#Edits to gadget namespace (April 2019)). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Right now, the only group that can edit that namespace is WMF Staff, now please don't get all "superprotect" on us - nothing is really supposed to be in there and I'm confident that access will be added if this goes live. We could ask a staffer to delete that page I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps @Tgr (WMF):? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: I see you commented on this before - I think deletion is the best course of action here - as this page really shouldn't exist as a cross-namespace redirect. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There was strong consensus against deleting the redirect in 2017. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Should I replace {{R from move}} with {{R restricted}}, or should both be there? Or should I delete it? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgr (WMF): just add {{R restricted}} please. Do you know if there are any blockers that would prevent getting this access to stewards and perhaps interface admins so we don't have to bug staff in the future? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. I can't think of any reason why that would be a problem. I don't know much about the Gadget 3.0 plans though. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, phab:T229735 opened to allow self-service in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Hyde1979

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Hyde1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User_Hyde1979
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#User_Hyde1979 "If this doesn't draw a response, I think indef is the next step."

The response since the last block has been to continue edit-warring [32] and use misleading edit summaries as before[33]. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef. ST47 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A very big misunderstanding by 2 editors who are teaming up on me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I started to created a page for a well know brand I guess all of you guys and girls know about Xiaomi. So I was broising Xiaomi website and saw that it has many brands and all have wiki pages. Except one ROIDMI. SO I thought I should give a try to wikipeida. I started the draft. And within a day an editor came and put tag of undisclosed paid editng. Why a big company like XIaomi will pay me for creating their page. It is completely unbeliable. i just eant to edit on wikipedia and what i see here is unbelivable. So the one user was GSS who put the tag and other one was his friend YUnshui who said that their is a project on Freelancer.com realted to Xiaomi. So I opened the project but it didnt open because page didnt exist. But I didnt understand that anyone can create project on freelancer or other sites for fun and Then delete it. So it means these 2 will come to every page and give undisclosed paid editing tag. This is the funnest and childish thing I have seen. Please anyone experienced and mature person look here. No teenager reply here only 30+

You are not only violating WP:SOCK but also WP:3RR by constantly reverting my edits at Draft:ROIDMI. Can someone please take care of this SPI. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinzoo01 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uninvolved admin needed to close discussion regarding victim list in mass shooting article

There is currently an open discussion on the Virginia Beach shooting talk page about whether to include a victims list or not. Its been several weeks since the last reply. Could an uninvolved admin please close the discussion? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you listed the discussion at WP:ANRFC? That will get more attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Another editor listed it there a month ago. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the interpretation of WP:ARBPOL

Please see here and comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

USA Track and Field Outdoor Championships

Another editor renamed several pages related to the USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships (including the 2017-2019 editions). In discussion we determined to revert back to the traditional naming convention, however since the redirect is in place, as a lowly editor I am unable to delete the redirect article to replace it back with the correct name. So I guess we need admin assistance to do this. Trackinfo (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: You can place your request at WP:RM/TR, where someone with the right permissions can revert these moves. Iffy★Chat -- 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RM Backlog

WP:Requested moves has a fairly extensive backlog at the moment. WP:Move review could use some eyes too. Calidum 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RM always has a backlog (or, it has historically.) I've been trying to get back into it more recently. I'll try to take a look. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Calidum 12:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I closed 4 easy ones. There are a lot I participated in, and a lot I won't touch due to controversy, but hopefully this helps. I'll try to look again later. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Disposed of 4 more. This is not rocket science. If people like me will chip in on the easy ones, the harder ones are more likely to come to the attention of admins to work on. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Done 7 more. Someone click the "Thank" button and maybe I'll do more. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. 7 more done, making 22 today. Enough for me. There are still lots to do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the now pretty old multi-RM on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States is now listed below the Backlog as "Malformed", since it had items that overlapped another multi-RM that closed and moved some already. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it should be fixed and closed, or just closed, please. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been fixed. I was wrong about its maturity; not ready for closing just yet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

resignation of RickInBaltimore

Effective immediately, RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) has resigned from the Arbitration Committee. He has also relinquished the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee sincerely thanks Rick for his service and wishes him well.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 19:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#resignation of RickInBaltimore

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Supermodel"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs has been in contention for quite a while now. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on an article here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, discussion like that belongs to WP:BLPN or WP:VPM not here. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Maxen Embry (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What should we do to 2607:fb90::/32 (moved from VPPR)

Moved from WP:VPPR § What should we do to 2607:fb90::/32

 – Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Original post, from 2600:1702:38D0:E70:B4CD:9550:507:3ED1: Whoa, this range is affecting billions of T-Mobile users. The block is too long, what should we do? Should we shorten it or extend it? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's globally locked by the stewards and with a block log like this, I doubt anyone will agree to locally unblock. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well no wonder it has a big block log; this is a /32 rangeblock, and according to mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6, this size is typically given to an ISP or large organization. Why would we want to rangeblock something as big as an ISP? You're naturally going to get a lot of vandalism out of an ISP. With IPv4s, we don't rangeblock entire elementary schools for routine vandalism (which this looks to be): we block individual addresses. This range has been used by a long-term vandal, but according to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, this person has been investigated in real life. I don't see the need of continuing such a large rangeblock, especially since one recent block was self-contradictory: it prevented account creation despite saying "good-faith editors on this range are encouraged to get an account". Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note, we do block entire schools (and sometimes entire school districts) if there is persistent vandalism. Heck, sometimes they ask us to do it. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

And's what worse is that they can't edit their talk pages! This is the worst thing I've ever seen! 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, one year doesn't mean anything! What'll happen next year and in 2021? Are there gonna be more vandalism?! I think we should extend the global block to six months or maybe extend the block further more? 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. This is not new news, guys. It has been unblocked for a total of 4 days since April 2017. Before the most recent 3 month block, which was put on it after ~24 hours of it being unblocked, it had been blocked for ~2 years by Graham87. It was unblocked for 3 days in July, and instantly started causing disruption. I blocked it again for a year, because if you want to go back to 2016, it's been unblocked for all of ~2 weeks. The talk page revocation is because they abuse the talk page if it isn't set that way. The reason for the global block is because whenever we block it locally, they immediately go cross-wiki and start harassing people over it.
  ACC ignore is set because this is such a wide range that CU will not be useful to ACC and the majority of people requesting accounts on it will not be the LTA. All the IP users who as of 1 month ago think that this block that has been in place for 2 years is the worst thing on the planet, have never been able to edit consistently from this range, and that fact that they have access to other IP ranges now shows that if they want to edit from their T-Mobile mobile network, this block really will not impact them if they are good faith and want to create an account since they can create an account right now if they wanted to.
  I do not like range blocks of /32s and will very rarely make them, but we have a persistent cross-wiki LTA that abuses the entirety of this range and abuses user talks if TPA is enabled. This block very likely will be extended for another year by another admin come July 2020, but I set it to that length so we would have a chance to review when the time comes. If someone wants to make a special block template for this specific range I'd be fine with it to explain to any users what was going on, but if we unblock now or even shorten it, the disruption will immediately resume and we'd just have to block again with the same settings. I also suspect that whomever the IP that is complaining here is the same person behind IP that's been complaining about it for the last month, which means they have had ample opportunity to create an account and edit in good faith if they want to. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I found a template, Template:TMOblock. How about we change the reason to that? That's a good idea! 2600:1702:38D0:E70:B4CD:9550:507:3ED1 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure. I'll do that now. I just matched the last block settings which used {{rangeblock}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
      • We should also make an edit filter to prevent these kinds of blocks from happening again. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Considering that many technically savvy admins are familiar with this range, I think that’s unlikely. If as I suspect you’ve been the same person complaining about this for a month, please stop. You can easily create an account right now and never have to worry about it again. The answer to “this range is very problematic and is unlikely to be unblocked for more than a few days at a time in the foreseeable future.” is not going to change just because you keep asking. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What to do... what to do

Is it a BLP violation for people’s financial details (excruciating might I add) to be posted when they’ve file for bankruptcy? Even if the source is “reliable” it seems invasive for this website. Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Depends what the source is. If it's a news article reporting that John Smith is in debt of $50million then it's probably fine; if it's intimate financial details taken from a primary source then it's not, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. PS queries like this are best placed at WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is brought to WP:BLPN the sources and well as the content they are being used to support will need to be identified to know whether or not the sources are reliable for the content in question.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone remind me why news reports are fine? This is an encyclopedia that relies on secondary sources, not primary sources like news reports. "What have historians written about X" is what matters. "Have historians who rely on the primary sources paid attention to the amount?" is the question to ask. And until those secondary sources write about the subject, don't include the content. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, Nyttend. News reports are secondary sources, not primary. Primary source documents for financial data would be things like tax returns, bank statements, credit card statements, things like that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

AIUI, historians tend to refer to secondary sources as those removed almost-entirely from the event--i.e. some decades after the event in question. Such a definition as-used there rarely matches what we mean here, which is usually closer to the plain-English meaning of a secondary source. See also Secondary source. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please find me any professional historians who define a news report as secondary. Are contemporary news reports included in the literature review of a dissertation, or are they among the primary sources upon which the research is based? Once your theoretical approach is accepted by the American Historical Review or the Journal of American History or any journal of comparable quality in another country, Wikipedia needs to acknowledge it, but until then, it's a fringe theory. Until then, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea", and treating sources contemporary with an event as secondary for that event is distinctly not broadly supported by scholarship in this field. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipeda is not an academic publication. It is a popular encyclopedia, and it quite properly uses secondary sources as defined not by academics, but by the world in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Context, please? Sometimes the size of the bankruptcy or the impact on its victims makes it notable. Here's a thing on secondary sources: [34]. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Trillfendi, having seen your edit before the revdel, I would say that the fact of bankruptcy is definitely fair game, a general amount is probably okay (per GiantSnowman), much more specific than that (e.g. specific amounts of money owed, specific lenders involved) probably should stay off unless there is inherent notability in it. Off-the-top-of-head example: something like "$2 million of John Doe's debts were from loans used to start his company XYZCorp" might be notable (especially if XYZCorp has a page or its failure received significant WP:RS coverage), whereas "Jane Doe owed $500K in unpaid credit cards" doesn't seem like it would be notable enough to win the notability-privacy tradeoff. creffett (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

An admin who sometimes refuses to communicate

There's one admin, who performs a very large number of speedy deletions but who doesn't always respond when users come with questions following up on these deletions. I remember there were several occasions when I've asked him to restore drafts he'd deleted per G13, and these requests have always been ignored. In the current version of their talk page I see seven deletion-related queries, and three of them have been left unanswered. Is this acceptable? I did bring it up with him [35], but I might have been too brusque, I guess, so he's taken offence and asked me to stay off his talk page. Could somebody else have a look? It might be that I'm overblowing it and that he's got good reasons for not replying to me or to the others. But if not, then maybe somebody could explain to him the expectation of accountability in a way that he will find acceptable? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. They use the d-batch, which is why every single user page deletion is, e. g., U5. Incidentally, Uanfala, have you not informed them of this discussion? ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had missed the editnotice: I had half expected I'd just be told everything's fine and there'd be no need for drama, but in hindsight, of course that's the sensible thing to do: I've informed them just now. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Uanfala, I have had a look here, and I'm less than impressed with your behavior. Your initial discussion with Fastily, regarding concerns over G13 deletions, was fine, and Fastily explained to you how those deletions were actually done. But not long after that, you made this edit, explicitly noting you were deliberately disregarding the instructions to make the request elsewhere: [36]. You then proceeded to, without any evidence shown, accuse Fastily of lying in the earlier conversation, and then requesting the reinstatement of several other articles which could have just as easily been requested at WP:REFUND, which was set up for the specific purpose of requesting such undeletions. Finally, Fastily asked you to stay off their talk page (reasonable enough, after what you'd been doing), and you ignored that to make yet another accusation of bad faith. Fastily is not violating admin accountability; it is clear why the articles were deleted (they were abandoned drafts), and if you want to challenge that, you are provided a way to do so. You're reaching the point of hounding. If Fastily doesn't want to fulfill those requests personally, go ask at REFUND and stop poking Fastily just to be disruptive. I'm half inclined to see a boomerang in the air here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

When you read previous discussions such as this and this it certainly puts things into perspective, Also worth noting you've made over 28 edits to his page in a year which all consists of requesting undeletion ..... Has it not occurred to you you can simply ask at REFUND instead of bugging an admin every day of the week?,

I myself have requested draft undeletions but these have always been at REFUND as I never want to pester someone over it (and plus 9/10 it's quicker).

I'm not seeing any admin intervention needed and I'm not seeing anything wrong with Fastilys interaction with you. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant here, but of the 28 edits you link to, only five are requests for undeletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck as you are indeed corrent, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that moving forward, Uanfala will leave Fastily alone and follow instructions. One question though? Did Uanfala go on to improve said articles or will we be G13ing them in 6 months, again? My point being, what is the point of undeleting G13's if not to bring them up to article status? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, exactly once from the requests made to Fastily, specifically Type theory with records. Looks like the rest Uanfala never even touched, and on one occasion seemed to want a page undeleted simply to see what it contained. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the links above what I see is Fastily making statements that are incompatible with the observed reality, but if what other people see instead is me making baseless accusations, fine; this is not relevant here anyway. And again, I wouldn't mind it if aspects of my past behaviour is examined in greater detail. However, I really can't say I'm satisfied with the way the question of what tone I used on that occasion last year, or what I've done to the six or so drafts I've had restored since then, has been completely substituted for the issue of a potentially problematic long-term behavioural pattern of an active admin. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I approached last year's interaction with Fastily in the worst way possible. I shouldn't have made any accusations, regardless of the perceived merits of the situation. And yes, I normally ask the deleting admin if I want a page restored, even for drafts: as I understand it, REFUND isn't obligatory, it's there for convenience because undeletion of G13'ed drafts is entirely uncontroversial, not because it's a bad idea to ask the admin. And I've thought it's generally a good idea for an admin to have an idea of how many of their deleted pages get restored. Now, if people would like to examine my behaviour here, then by all means go ahead. But couldn't we at least get an opinion on the matter that I brought up in the first place? If Fastily hasn't respond to my queries because I'm apparently annoying, then fine. But that's not about me, almost half of the people who approach him with questions regarding his deletions have been ignored. Is that acceptable? If it is, then I would appreciate it if I'm told so, so that I could adjust my expectations accordingly. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I approached last year's interaction with Fastily in the worst way possible. I shouldn't have made any accusations, regardless of the perceived merits of the situation.

Oh really? If you had thought about that before hounding and accusing me of bad faith, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

I normally ask the deleting admin if I want a page restored, even for drafts: as I understand it, REFUND isn't obligatory

My edit notice points users to WP:REFUND because a) they'll receive faster service, and b) I perform many deletions, and strongly prefer that they are peer-reviewed. I am happy to service polite requests, but that meaning is clearly lost on you.

If Fastily hasn't respond to my queries because I'm apparently annoying, then fine.

"annoying" is a mischaracterization. The term you're looking for is "rude".

But that's not about me, almost half of the people who approach him with questions regarding his deletions have been ignored.

Um, half? Diffs please, or retract your statement. For the few I do ignore: arguing with paid/COI editors is almost always a waste of time. I prioritize my time to help editors that genuinely need it. -FASTILY 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This was in reference to what I wrote as the beginning of this thread: in the version of your talk page at the time, there were seven users other than myself who ask about deletions you've performed, and three of them don't appear to have received an answer. Of course I don't know the particulars: at the very least I can't see the content of the pages in question. Also, that's not a big sample at all, but as far as I remember, unanswered questions are a familiar sight on your talk page. Of course, it could be that all these users are obvious NOTHERE's, but my impression was that even then it's best to give them an explanation, even if a short one, so that they can see what they're getting wrong and go away instead of potentially making the same mistakes again). – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The three unanswered queries on your talk page are:

• [37]: the page at the time of deletion looked like this: it had been tagged for G11, and you had deleted it as U5, both were clearly mistakes. The user recreated their page shortly after, so I it might be that you haven't felt the need to take any further action (although given how understandably frustrated they were, something as simple as "Ooops, my bad!" would have gone a long way). You did eventually restore the page, a few hours ago [38].
• [39]. A user page deleted as U5. I can't see its contents.
• [40] The pages deleted were a user page and a sandbox, both as U5. I can't see the deleted revisions. The latter page was later recreated as a draft article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to override Global range block

I was suggested to make this request here

The ip range 151.48.0.0/17 was globally blocked by a steward because a user from this ip range used it to create several fake accounts and spam messages accross wikipedia

Anachronist who is a sysop changed the local settings for en.wikipedia.org to give the possibility to create accounts from this ip range

But there must be a glitch or a bug because if i try creating an account from the blocked ip range the same error message appears

'Editing from your IP address range (151.48.0.0/17) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 19:38, 13 December 2019 by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason:

Cross-wiki spam: spambot

This block began on 19:38, 13 June 2019'

I would like someone to fix this error please

It is stange that a global block can not be overridden by local settings because this is what normally happens

Anyway if the cause of the block was an abuser who created too many accounts to spam messages i wonder why it was not chosen the most logical solution that is keeping the creation of accounts blocked and letting edits from normal ip addresses unblocked but exactly the opposite

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A global block can be overridden by normal settings, but it has not been in this case. See Special:Contributions/151.48.0.0/17. The block is not locally disabled, and placing a new local block is not sufficient to do that. Neither the global block nor the local block is currently marked as Account Creation Blocked. That said, you clearly aready have an account, so why do you need to create more? We would need some justification to release the spambot block, and "I want to create more spambots" isn't very convincing. ST47 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As we noted at VPT, this is not a glitch or bug it is working correctly. Also, it does not appear you have contacted @Anachronist: as required for this discussion, I've done that for you. If Anachronist means to override the global block, they certainly can. If not, we'd need a reasonable argument for someone else to do so. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The history of this started with a query to OTRS, in which this editor could not edit as an IP address or create an account because of the global block. There was no disagreement that the block was necessary. I encouraged the person to try to create an account from an IP address outside, and that was successful. At the time I thought it unusual to block account creation for a spambot, so I set up a local block on the same IP range with IP editing still blocked but account creation not disabled. When that didn't allow for accounts to be created, it became a technical question about whether local settings override global settings, so I encouraged the editor to ask about it over at village pump. Evidently I can't override the "account creation" flag if it's blocked globally. I consider the matter closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anachronist: if you think it's appropriate you can override the global block at Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist - is that still preventing account creation here after you do it? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I was unaware of that whitelist. Thanks, I'll remember that in the future. I'm sure that will work, although now that I know the global blocking of account creation was deliberate due to the spambot being involved in actually creating accounts, I'm reluctant to whitelist the range for the account creation function. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is one thing i would like to specify

My very first request was not about account creation but about normal editing from ip

Anachronist accorded very gently the possibility to create an account from the globally blocked ip range but this did not work so i had to create an account from another ip and asked him to fix this technical issue about account creations

But i kept saying that in my opinion allowing account creation for an ip range that was used by an abuser to spam accounts was not the most correct solution which instead would be disallowing account creation and allowing editing from ip

I do concur with all of you when you say that asking to allow users to create accounts from this ip range is not reasonable and if i requested it was just because allowing account creation was the concession i had from Anachronist

Now that the full story was cleared up i would like to go back to my initial request and ask for unblocking this ip range in en.wikipedia.org only for anonymous users while keeping blocked the possibility to create accounts

In this way the abuser will still be prevented from spamming new accounts but nomal users will be free to contribute again and it will be even easier controlling their contributions and possible abuses by watching the ip range 151.48.0.0/17

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All global blocks disable account creation by default, and there is unfortunately no way for us to change that when making the block. If this is impacting multiple people here, then I would recommend whitelisting the block locally and then issuing a local block with more appropriate settings. I'll look and see if that global block is still necessary. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT backlogged

Interested editors may like noted that CAT:WSA is backlogged with ~30 users seeking adoption (including the user who filed the above report). If more experienced users and admins could add themselves to the list of potential adopters and ensure the page is updated, it'd go a long way with sharing institutional knowledge about Wikipedia and promoting editor retention. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
• Close: [41]
• Closer: Cinderella157
• Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
• Closer notified of this review: [42]

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

• A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
• I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
• (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.

I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Wikipedia's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
    (For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed 11 wikiprojects 13 national wikiprojects and noticeboards to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.

• I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
• I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
• The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences ≠ The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ... - particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".
• If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
• I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discussion in light of the votestacking.

It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change.

It's very simple:

1. Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to nearly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this ... but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
2. This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.

Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are a case of sour grapes. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely unfit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and I will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work.

The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I won't be endorsing the close, but I came here after BrownHairedGirl pinged me in a separate but related discussion mentioning Number 57, which confused me, so I followed the breadcrumbs back up the trail and came here. I have no idea how I stumbled upon that RfC, whether I was "canvassed" there, but I think it's an assumption of bad faith to assume Number 57 votestacked. I don't see any problem with notifying users of non-American English about this RfC, since it would disproportionately impact them. Those voting from non-zed using countries were not persuaded to vote in any way by Number 57, and the suggestion Number 57 changed the outcome of the discussion by notifying users tells me there wasn't going to be consensus for this anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, and I'll ping User:Number 57 - the reason this is blatant ing is because of selective and targeted notification. 57 selectively notified only those who were predictably more inclined to view the proposal unfavorably, while deliberately not notifying others who would also be impacted by the proposal, and who would clearly be more likely to view the proposal as beneficial to their work. If 57 is unwilling or unable to understand that many people would benefit from the proposal, if they are unwilling or unable to understand that it is Canvassing to selectively notify likely-allies, then I am concerned that it may be necessary to look for any past or future pattern of canvassing. We generally let individual instances of canvassing off with a warning, but I believe 57 is experienced enough to know better. I believe any pattern of canvassing would be grounds for a topic ban against publicizing any RFC anywhere, to prevent future disruption caused by similar problems understanding or applying appropriate notification vs inappropriate notification. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I still disagree, and I think you proved your point here - you're assuming "many people would benefit from the proposal," but there's clearly a large group of people who oppose, and they are the very people who are disproportionately impacted by the change. I think this is the one which I was shocked to see it was closed in favour of standardisation, since it's a big change and one that goes against our current rules. Plus, we're both biased. The three users who have chimed in who weren't involved have either said there's no consensus anyways, or the close should be overturned on purely procedural grounds, but King O'Malley lived a long time ago and I would be shocked if you got support even if arguendo all projects had been notified "equally". SportingFlyer T·C 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn - given that Australia/New Zealand seem to be particularly and vehemently opposed to 'ize' (all from Aus/NZ opposed, mostly post-canvas), I expected that an Australian would rule themselves out as a potential closer (User:Cinderella157 claims to be from Queensland). There was a glut of 'opposes' immediately after Number 57 votestacked, several listed under the members list for Wikproject Aus. Either one notifies all Wikiprojects, or none. Oculi (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Note: the closer, Cinderella157, has now been blocked for violating an ArbCom topic ban from World War II. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cinderella157. Sandstein 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Lourdes's original close per Oculi and BHG's reasoning above. Lourdes's first close was a correct assessment of consensus. The subsequent unclose-plus-canvassing/votestacking was disappointing. The second close was more or less a punt. Not sure what the best way forward is; perhaps just restore Lourdes's original close. (non-admin, voted z in RfC) – Levivich 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse per Amakuru. Sure, the closing statement could have been worded better, but I can't see how this could have been closed as anything other than no consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse as per Amakuru and Iffy. I came from the Village Pump to see what the outcome of the discussion was. I think the topic is so divisive that there is no option but to state that there is 'no consensus'. I note the accusations of vote stacking, but if this is the case, the accusations should be brought to a formal process. A further point is that if there was "vote stacking" to people opposed to the proposal, could it not be argued that the original discussion was perhaps also "selectively canvassed" to people who were biased towards the proposal? This suggests that any request for discussion was not properly signposted to the people / teams / communities that would be affected: I am not sure that I can support the original close on this basis. I also don't think it's a wise idea to set precedent as someone had suggested on the original page to ignore the objections. I again state that I think going with "no consensus" is the best idea with this topic where it will be difficult to get agreement. Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "could it not be argued that the original discussion was perhaps also "selectively canvassed" to people who were biased towards the proposal?" No, you can't. Policy No personal attacks defines personal attacks to include Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. The RFC was run at Village Pump and advertised on Central Notice. This is normally the highest and most unbiased level of advertisement we give for RFCs. If you are going to make accusations that one-or-more person(s) canvassed on the support side then you are required to present evidence of canvassing. Alsee (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Do note I am note making a personal attack at all - I am making a comment on policy. I note that it was "advertised" - however I feel the topic was not promoted widely enough, especially for something that does not seem to respect WP:ENGVAR. To close such a debate without offering a wider discussion seems against WP:ENGVAR. And the whole point of WP:ENGVAR is to make sure we stop these kinds of unnecessary debates, especially in a topic that has been re-opened twice. Could it be that this topic is not a "normal" topic and needs to be discussed more widely? On another note for the whole community, I do see Cavalryman V31's comment that no-one wanted to close the topic, and someone had to have the courage to do it - I will not get involved in the allegations of WP:CANVASSING as this needs investigative skills beyond me and is best addressed by someone else. However if we do re-open or re-close the debate who as a community should close this - it just seems from reading the comments that potentially anyone could be accused of bias on some of the criteria discussed? I do not know the answers to these questions, I just mulling them over. We should try and get some closure to this as the the original debate looks like it was started in April. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. I voted in that RfC in support of the change, but a few things in the process really don't sit well with me. First, I agree that there was a very one-sided notification post original closure. Not understanding why that can stack votes to one side is pretty astonishing. Since this isn't a "lets decide for Australia what goes in an Australia article", but a "How does en.wiki handle a category style", either you notify everyone, or no one. The other 75% of the community has the same rights and same vote weight as do the other 25%. Another issue I have it with the actual close. What the hell did all those words even say? Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony) - a more formal way than an RfC? Can this even get any more evasive? Also, if you don't care to investigate allegations of vote stacking, then maybe closing RfCs isn't for you. I expect someone that closes any discussions to check any allegation brought up, understand guidelines and not cite an essay in their close, which itself has no place even in the discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus per Amakuru. The truth is no one wanted to close this RfC and it effectively sat dormant for a month (after another had started a close but decided against exposing themselves by doing so) before Cinderella had the courage to do the job. On a side note, I find Alsee’s third argument above particularly galling, their bias against anyone who does not use American spelling is clear, declaring Cinderella incapable of making an impartial decision for spelling a word (that is completely unrelated to this RFC) in a way that they do not consider correct. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC).
• Overturn, with no prejudice against either Cinderella157 or Number 57. Cinderella claims not to have considered canvassing at all, and despite this being an important part of a closer's responsibilities, they appear to suggest that doing so effectively is not possible (bullet point #2). Their responses are also hostile to the idea of a challenge, which suggests a lack of neutrality - as seen in bullet point #3 from the same diff, which appears to claim that either Alsee's challenge or those who supported the proposal are involved in "vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions. I'm not sure that Number 57 was necessarily wrong given their stated reasoning, but the allegations still need to be accounted for. As always, reclosing could very well produce the same outcome, but the existing close does not meet the expected standards. Sunrise (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn, though I agree that there is no consensus, the RFC should have lasted longer and be closed by someone more neutral. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• More evidence of biased notification canvassing by Number 57: This edit selectively pinged several allies to the RFC. However Number57 did not include a ping to Jayron32, who also participated in the discussion[43] and who had defended the original consensus close. It looks like Number57 felt that only people who agree with them deserved to participate in the RFC. Alsee (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I assume that was probably an oversight on my part, as I also failed to ping Bermicourt (who was clearly opposed to the original close). Also, it's odd to describe Euryalus as an ally, given that their interjection did not reveal their leaning in the matter. Number 57 15:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Alsee, if this had been done another way and all of the affected categories had been presented at CfD for renaming, and all of those categories’ associated WikiProjects been notified of the proposal (standard procedure), then largely the same WikiProjects as notified by Number 57 would have been notified. I am not leveling accusations of vote stacking against the BHG for not notifying the affected WikiProjects, but I do believe it was remiss not to have, as it was largely categories overseen by them that were affected. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC).

• Absolutely not true, @Cavalryman V31. That's most kindly described as a highly creative and imaginative account of my actions, but more accurately as a severe misrepresentation.

The fact is that the range of affected categories is global. It includes all non-English-speaking-countries, so the idea that this proposal is somehow targeted at one particular set of countries is simply false. On the contrary, one of my main reasons for making the nomination in the first place is the number of sterile CFD discussions about which format to use for some country X which isn't even English-speaking. (If I recall correctly, the two discussions which prompted me yo finally open an RFC which I had been considering for years were discussions relating to the Netherlands, and to Qatar).

If, as Cavalryman posits, all of the affected categories had been presented at CfD for renaming, and all related Wikiprojects had been notified, the result would have been that probably every single Wikiproject would have been notified, regardless of its topics or location. That's because the range of categories involved is so vast, and most national WikiProjects have interests in topics beyond their own boundaries.

So the claim that it was somehow remiss not to notify a particular set of countries is utterly false. A global proposal needs global notification ... so instead of spamming a message to 1000 WikiProjects, I placed the proposal at most central location, and notified it on WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I apologise that you feel my comments are a severe misrepresentation, that was far from my intent when making them and I believe your intentions are very much well meaning. The fact is it is known some countries do use “ise”, yet your RfC was to standardise to “ize” for all (“ise” was not offered as an option). I acknowledge the inconsistencies with non-English speaking countries, but this RfC was always going to be controversial for a number of Commonwealth countries and that is why I believe their WikiProjects should have been notified. It is my opinion that the only really compelling argument I have seen for standardisation is Assessing it [the quantity of CfDs] would require a lot of editor time, but editor time is increasingly scarce, this places back of house editor actions over page appearance for readers. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC).

If, by 'page appearance for readers', you are referring to categories at the bottom of the page, there is no chance of any sort of uniformity. Tim Cahill's categories are a complete mix, as he plied his trade globally, and the global Category:Sports organizations established in 1911 contains Australian entities amongst others. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cavalryman V31, you continue to miss the two core simple points:

1. this proposal could be be controversial or acclaimed or whatever in nearly every country.
2. per WP:CANVASS Notifications should be non-partisan both in content and in selected audience

So notifying only WikiProjects of countries likely to oppose the change is every bit as partisan as notifying those likely to support it.

The solution is simple: notify all, or notify none. I didn't think this was a sufficiently controversial issue to justify cross-posting to ~220 country-specific WikiProjects, and that doing so would look like spamming; so I used WP:CENT.

In hindsight, it was more controversial that I initially thought. But while that might arguably justify notifying all countries, it doesn't justify votestacking by notifying only people expected to be on one side of the argument.

As your closing comment about the substance, I have yet to see any trace of any evidence that readers actual object to the spelling. And its not simply a matter of editor time: one of the persistent problems of the current inconsistency is that it leads to miscategorisaton. Articles and categories categorised are repeatedly categorised in redlinked categories because editors have no way of knowing in advance which spelling is used for which type of org category, and no way of knowing whether the redlink indicates a mis-spelling or a non-existent category. Those miscategorised articles and categories don't appear in parent categories, and that missing categorisation is what really hurts readers, not one letter which they may consider unfamiliar.

I also strongly urge you to reconsider the notion that the burden on editors is not a priority. The ratio of articles to active editors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade, from 430:1 in 2007 to 1650:1 in December 2018. Policies designed around assumptions of infinite editor time should have been ruthlessly discarded when the number of active editors began to fall off a decade ago. Clinging to those notions is a very effective way of reducing Wikipedia's chances of surviving the 2020s, because they divert so much editor time into inconsequentials that they leave less time for the stuff which actually matters, namely keeping article updated, and monitoring those articles for vandalism, POV-pushing etc.

The objections to this sort of simplification miss that big picture. The demand for idealistic perfection in something that doesn't actually matter isn't a free option: it comes at the hidden price of scarce editorial time diverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Response by closer: the following is a response by the closer (specifically and generally) since the previous response.

• Sunrise, it is inaccurate to state [I did not] considered canvassing at all, when I did, but not in the way some would prefer. Per your diff, I stated: I did not attempt to make a determination about the "substance" of the allegations. To paraphrase, I did not attempt to make a determination as to whether the notifications by Number 57 constituted misconduct.
• To whether the allegations (if substantiated) could be effectively addressed (per Sunrise):

• It is quite correct to make notifications to projects regarding a discussion of interest to the project. The allegation goes to the "selectivity" with which these notifications were made.
• The comments made here on how to address the allegation are quite arbitrary - they either wind-back to the earlier close or would discount opposing comments. In part, there appears the assumption that any opposing editor has come to the RfC as a result of the notifications. This is a generalisation and an assumption that falls to Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
• Neutral notifications made to any project are intrinsically correct. Disenfranchising a comment from editors that received such a notification assumes "bad faith" on the part of that editor. Discounting comments in such a way would (in my conclusion) severely compromise a close and would give reasonable and valid reason for it to be overturned. Consequently, I considered such a course inappropriate.

• To the comments by Alsee (and those that follow in this vein) that I am biased by my spelling preference:

• It is a red herring fallacy to assert that a person with a spelling preference for "ise" cannot close an RfC advocating "ize". The counter-arguement (equally fellatious) is that an "ize" speller is also inherently biased. Such logic would leave the close to someone who has never written English or knows nothing of spelling? There is no way for any closer to be immune from the suggestion of bias where the basis for such an allegation is that they do actually spell such words consistently.
• As well as being a red-herring arguement, it is also an Ad hominem arguement, which is inherently a personal attack, rarely an appropriate arguement to make and low in the heirarchy of disagreement,[44] since it does not address the central or most pertinent points.

• Implicit to Alsee's clam of bias is that any editor using "ise" is inherently biased (and those that use "ize" are not). I observed: The comments made have the appearance to me of polemic ad hominem. "Vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions does not foster collaboration and respect.[45] The quote is taken from and linked to WP:POLEMIC.
• Alsee has claimed that my use of "ise" in "winteris[z]ed" is borderline-fringe and far out of sync ... with the rest of the planet. There are many misuses of statistics of which, I believe, this falls to overgeneralisation, possibly data dredging or simply a case of apples and oranges. It ignores the frequency of usage of the particular word in the two main English domains and how this can skew an observation such as that made by Alsee. All this statistic proves is that I am fairly consistent in my spelling.
• My response to Alsee (though in not so many words) was to indicate that their comments did not (IMO) represent a particularly good arguement. It is inaccurate to construe from this that I am hostile to the idea of a challenge, which suggests a lack of neutrality. It is another ad hominem arguement with a conclusion based on an inaccurate premise.

I apologise for the length of this response but it appears necessary to provide this level of detail. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn I am Australian; I opposed standardisation. I was not canvassed: I think I found the discussion on CENT, although that was after it had been reopened. While I think the close was "correct" – there was clearly no consensus reached – I think it needs to be closed by someone with more neutrality, given that Australians became the locus of the discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn The point that particularly concerns me is that the close is not an accurate summarization of the discussion at all. I also do not understand why CANVASSING guidelines can be misconstrued and then essentially annulled in an RfC close, something that is bound to follow Wikipedia policies. Even, if I were to assume good faith, it would only take me as far as misunderstanding guidelines as they stand and not that, no canvassing actually occurred. I'm even more worried that if a new editor were to canvass in this manner, it would reflect horribly upon them but in this particular case, we will beat around the bush via "it only impacted this subset of editors, so I informed them", if that isn't canvassing, I don't know what is. I am not aware of Lourdes' close so I cannot comment on it, but this close should definitely be overturned, for lack of any support through the ensuing discussion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus per Amakuru, it could have been better explained, but there is no clear consensus and a lot of the above is sour grapes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey, if you really want to apply pejorative terms such as sour grapes to those who object to blatant votestacking, then please make haste to change your username from the highly inappropriate Peacemaker67 to something more apt, such as User:Gaslighter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's alright, BHG, if Peacemaker67 decides that invalidating other people's viewpoints with "sour grapes" (similar to N57) is the best way to prove their point, so be it. Amakuru atleast made their point as someone is supposed to, without feeling the need to invalidate their opinions as well, so kudos to them for doing so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse cloze - I'm going out on an IAR limb here, but I don't think there's any way that a discussion which boiled down to "let's prefer [North] American spelling over all other varieties throughout this enormously important and visible function of the project" could possibly have reached an acceptable consensus. I understand the rationale but I think it was a bad idea from the start, because no matter what it ends up being exclusionary to some significant portion of editors. I see the original close as flawed: this is a monumental change, and should have had much more support than it did to have been declared "passed" at that point. I also don't think Number57's posting of what appeared to be a neutral discussion notice at only WikiProjects for nations which would be expected to oppose the proposal was at all in good faith. But in the end, consensus is likely impossible to obtain here. Might I suggest that if standardiçation is an urgent concern, why not make an effort to be inclusive and agree on a word other than organiɂation? I don't know what that would be and maybe that would require rethinking category trees somewhat, but here's a list to get started.

If on the other hand some editors insist that this must be decided in favour of Team Ess or Team Zed, then I suggest a panel of multinational uninvolved experienced closers be convened to reevaluate all of the discussions up to this point, being sure to select at minimum one editor from Britain, one from the United States, one from Canada, one from Australia and/or New Zealand (I'm not sure how distinct the language variants are there), and one from India/Pakistan, so as to avoid inherent bias. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reopen My personal position would be to support the results of the close (don't standardize). However, I also understand the problem with selective notification. In this case the problem is you have obviously interested projects that would presumably voice opinions in one direction. You don't have obvious projects in the other camp. This is a case of the obviously interested focused group vs the nebulous masses. I personally think it would be best to agree to a few more notification locations, reopen and see where things go. I don't believe it will change the final result but BHG's concerns have merit. Let's not discount them. Springee (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Per WP:VOTESTACK, Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view. I can't see how notifying "the most affected editors" doesn't squarely fall into this category: they were admittedly notified entirely because they are associated with countries that use precisely the language the RFC proposed to deprecate. Even if we take at face value that "other Wikiprojects aren't affected", what would have been the harm in notifying them? If they are truly as disinterested as claimed, either no one would show up (due to this supposed lack of interest) or the few that did would cast a neutral, unbiased !vote. I don't see the problem here. We very well may have ended up a no-consensus anyway, but all we have now is an invalid result, and our only recourse is to reopen with a neutral notification on all wikiprojects.
  For the record, I did !vote in the RFC for "ize", but if the RFC ultimately closes "no consensus" or even "oppose", I'm perfectly happy with it assuming we correct this irregularity. CThomas³ (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• I take it then no-one wants to close this review? I suspect we have got to a stage like the original proposal which @Cinderella157: closed because no-one else wanted to do it - mainly as it would lead to further debate and discussion as no-one would be happy. Not sure what the next step is? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Closing this close review

@Alsee, Cinderella157, Number 57, BrownHairedGirl, and Lourdes: Pinging the initiator of this thread, the closer under review, an interested editor, the proposal's author, and the previous closer; respectively I would like to review the above discussion. Is there any objection among you five for me closing this AN thread as a NAC? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, no objection. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL, I would prefer that it was closed by an editor with a lot more experience, ideally by an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: This is really not an appropriate discussion to be closed by a non-admin. It’s contentious, complex, and in need of experience. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl and Triptothecottage: I figured as much. Glad I asked ahead of time! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further comment

I have just been looking at Wikipedia:Category names#Naming conventions, under General conventions it states: Standard article naming conventions apply; in particular, do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title. Following the link, at Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English, it links for Further information to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - ie there is a link of guidance existing which ties the naming of categories to MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:COMMONALITY, MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. It also states:

If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English ... Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa ...

In short(ish):

• The existing guidance already addresses the issue of the RfC in a way consistent with other guidance used to resolve such issues elsewhere.
• The premise of the OP is that: there is no clear convention here; no single principle (or even agreed set of principles) defining which spelling to use. This would appear to be incorrect. The principles of ENGVAR etc do apply.
• The proposition of the RfC would be at odds with the existing guidance at Wikipedia:Category names (and the link of guidance that follows) for the case of "organisations" per the RfC proposition.
• The extended discussion by the OP gives the impression that the problem exists because ENGVAR etc do not explicitly apply. They do explicitly apply but their application is not overtly stated - even though the specific guidance at Wikipedia:Category names is a close paraphrase of those principles.
• No other editors appear to have identified the existence of explicit guidance. Consequently, there appears to be an inadvertent misdirection. The whole process appears, therefore, to have been compromised through a lack of precision: from comments provided, my close and even the close here. There was insufficient information for the processes to be "informed".
• For my part, had I been more aware of this earlier, I would have probably posted to this effect and not closed, noting that such a comment might be considered a supervote. In other circumstances, this might not be the case (rather, being a reference to broader community consensus) but WP:VPP is the forum for making such changes.

How does this change things Scottywong? In light of the above, it would appear far from appropriate to relist the RfC without significant amendment to the OP. As an aside, it is inaccurate to state that: didn't attempt to take the allegations of votestacking into consideration. I did take them into consideration but not in the way that some (ie the OP of the review here) desired. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if your closing comments in the RfC looked similar to what you posted above, the closure wouldn't have been challenged. But, your closure included none of the details that you mention above, in fact your closure only minimally implied that you had even read and comprehended the comments in the RfC. It included bizarre comments like "The most compelling arguements [sic] are to embrace our differences in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony)." If you had taken the accusations of votestacking into consideration, then your close should have included details as to what you found, what effect the notifications did or didn't have on the RfC, etc. My problem with your closure is that it didn't clearly explain any of your reasoning, and didn't clearly summarize the result of the RfC. If you're going to close RfC, you have to put a minimal effort into doing it completely (especially for non-admin closures of contentious discussions), or else your closures will be challenged. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 18:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong, the primary question is to: In light of the above, it would appear far from appropriate to relist the RfC without significant amendment to the OP. I have posed this to you since your advice, in closing the review, is to rerun the RfC. I am suggesting that you may wish to reconsider or modify your advice given this further information. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That advice still stands, primarily because the discussion was fatally tainted by canvassing, so it deserves to have a fair shot if someone wants to rerun it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 10:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong, the matter also deserves, if it is returned to, to be accurately represented. Without qualifying your advice, there is a risk that a re-run will suffer from the same misdirection. Do you disagree with the analysis above or do you think that my posting the analysis is sufficient to obviate continuing the misdirection? I think this is important since you have stated: it [is] more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Scottywong, in regard to your comment Perhaps if your closing comments in the RfC looked similar to what you posted above, the closure wouldn't have been challenged, I want to note that it would have resulted in an even speedier challenge. To quote Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome:

If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.... If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus.

If someone wishes to engage in creative advocacy and novel synthesis weaving through three guideline pages to craft a tenuous theory which they acknowledge was not advocated by any debate participant and which clearly was never contemplated by guideline authors and which clearly is not a commonly recognized interpretation, then they are supposed to post in the RFC. They're not supposed to step over the discussion to post their personal arguments and personal theories in a close-box. Cinderella's creative advocacy and novel theories just further establish that they had no business closing the RFC. Alsee (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I took the step of notifying this thread to the discussion at VPP just as I took the step of notifying that the close had been contested here. My question here to Scottywong goes specifically to their advice to rerun the RfC and not to the close. These are not "personal arguments and personal theories" being posted in a close-box. As stated above, had I been aware of the afore earlier, I would probably have acted differently - as indeed you say I should , however; your point is mismade. Your assertion that my OP to this sub-thread formed my opinion in closing the RfC is incorrect. To say something clearly was never contemplated by guideline authors, is an unsubstantiated opinion which assumes insight into the thoughts of those authors, which we cannot have unless there is a record of their intentions. What we do have, are the words at Wikipedia:Category names#Naming conventions, which are a close paraphrase of ENGVAR. Further, an editorial turn-of-phase (creative advocacy, novel syntesis, weaving, craft a tenuous) are all subjective opinion and are rhetoric rather than reasoned, objective arguement. As to your quote of Scottywong, I cannot speak to their meaning or intent. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. Now I am a completely changed person. I won't do anything which may harm the community. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• @SS49: Will you return to clerking at XfD? That is the question and one which you...slightly skirt around? in your request. ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129:, sorry I missed that. I won't return to clerking at XfD. In my opinion relisting and closing at AfD should be limited to administrators. ~SS49~ {talk} 16:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It's "only" been four months as opposed to my preferred six, but the unequivocal renunciation of the behaviour that led to the ban leaves no room for envelope pushing or other games. Although, arguably, if one is effectively topic banning oneself from a theatre of activity, some might argue that there's no point in lifting it; however, I can't disagree with someone wanting to remove a stain from their character if we allow them to, which we do. Also noting that my previous concern was that the penny had not dropped—it seems now to have—and that WP:ROPE applied—it still does. @SS49: I think you should probably realise—not a threat, but a fact—that should there be any further troublesome clerking anywhere, this is likely to be revisited and not with a topic ban. How do you feel about that? ——SerialNumber54129 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I won't do anything which may harm the community. If I do any intentional mistake, I will accept anything imposed by the community. ~SS49~ {talk} 16:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Are you hoping to have this TBAN lifted because you don't want it on your record or because it's stopping you from doing work you'd like to do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously first option. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

    I'm Ok supporting then, especially in light of the acknowledgement SS49 has made below to Nick. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose for all the reasons from the previous discussion but also because I see no benefit to the community if this is lifted. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support, on the basis that anything other than !voting in an AfD will result in an indefinite block. That would be no non-admin closures, no re-listings, no sorting, nothing other than a regular comment. Nick (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can support this, we take the ban off the books with the explicit understanding that we will hold SS49 to their word that they will not return to clerking. Sounds reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So what purpose is there in lifting the topic ban? I still see absolutely no reason why they should be trusted with this or what value it adds if they are still giving us "their word" (which ftr, was absolutely meaningless last time) if their only intent is to continue to abide by the existing ban anyway. Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Given that one of the first things the editor did after being topic banned from "sorting, relisting and closing discussions at AfD" was...more delsorts [46], and that they've delsorted AfDs multiple times since then [47] [48] [49], I find the promises not to do those things a bit odd. Like Praxidicae, I see no benefit to the encyclopedia from lifting the ban early (or, in my opinion, at all). Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That was in the AfDs nominated by me. While nominating articles for deletion we have to fill the box. From now I won't sort even AfDs created by me. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • [50] was not, and it happened right after the topic ban was placed. Simply put, on multiple occasions where you could have adhered to the topic ban rather than doing what you wanted in Twinkle, you repeatedly chose the latter. Bakazaka (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't know the difference between ban and block so I did that just to find out the difference. Apologies . ~SS49~ {talk} 22:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Was SS49 warned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned for that, and did he violate it again despite such action? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Did SS49 keep the promises they made in the previous ANI discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Answered above. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
            • User:Bakazaka there was that single transgression hours afterwards - but they also self reported it, apologized, and did not, as far as I can see, repeat the transgression. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
              • You linked to SS49 saying I recently nominated an article for deletion and sorted the deletion discussion. Sorry for the mistake. Thought sorting is not an issue. Note that they subsequently did the same thing multiple times (linked above), including only 3 hours after the apologystriking because I got a timestamp wrong, there are still two subsequent incidents, despite TonyBallioni clarifying that anything other than !voting in AfD was prohibited, and despite apologizing for it as a "mistake". Not sure which part of this is unclear. Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
                • I don't see two subsequent transgressions - unless you (User:Bakazaka) are referring to them creating an AFD in June, and another in July (that were both uncontroversial). Nor do I see a prohibition on creating AFDs. I see no behaviour issues related to the topic ban since the day of the topic ban. Nfitz (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)@Bakazaka: My question was serious. I wanted to know, since you've done the legwork, whether there was discipline for that specific violation and whether there were subsequent violations. While I believe that SS49's topic ban should be lifted at this point, I'm also open to having my mind changed.
              At this time, I'm thinking that a single violation so close in time to the topic ban itself—which is generally a time of confusion and frustration for an editor—just as easily indicates a mistake as it does deliberately and knowingly flaunting the topic ban. People often screw up just after they're topic banned, and people often lash out just after they're topic banned. In neither case is it out of malice or a willingness to break the rules for rulebreaking's sake.
              I also credit the absence of harm from this one infraction—it being delsorting rather than the relist/NAC actions that originally got him in trouble—in addition to the fact that nobody seems to have noticed it until now as mitigating factors in my mind.
              I take your attempted inference to be that the violation indicates malice, or perhaps incompetence and inability to follow rules—you don't say exactly what you're inferring, so it's left somewhat up to me to guess. Neither inference rings true to me based on what you've pointed out. If there were a pattern of misconduct after the ban—whether repeated violations after warnings, or causing disruption in other areas not covered by the ban, that was sustained for a sufficient period after the ban was enacted—I could be convinced to oppose lifting the ban. But I'm not seeing a pattern, I'm seeing a single incident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
              • So, for example, if SS49 clarified with an admin that delsorting was not permitted under the ban, even for their own nominations, apologized for that "mistake", then did it again anyway, would that be convincing? Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
                • You know what, I took a second look and you're 100% right, there's no exception for self-created AfDs in terms of the delsort ban. I'm changing my !vote below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Bakazaka, That was done just to complete the process. While AFDing a box appears which is required to be filled. If you say it is better not to complete, I won't do it again. I thought the box should be filled completely. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • There was no prohibition from creating AFDs - and including sorting is listed as a step in AFD creation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. I'm not sure why we'd want to encourage people not to make the normal notications. And I only see that they've only created two AFDs since March (which were both uncontroversially upheld as delete). I can understand the desire to have the user avoid closing and relisting. But what's the concern with sorting User:Bakazaka - it's rarely controversial. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • The concerns about sorting were discussed in detail in the previous ANI discussion, which is why sorting was explicitly included in the topic ban under discussion here. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
        • There was a bit in the ANI (a couple of complaints over a month before the ANI discussion) - unless I missed something. One was just about formatting (some extra spaces), and the other was a request to only use sub-categories rather than the super-category, which was immediately agreed to, and not repeated. This didn't seem to be a lingering problem, even at the time of the ANI discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable request, articulated reasonably. (see below) I do not support the “don’t do delsorting after this or you’ll get blocked” condition since it’s just another way of saying “topic ban.” Either we lift the restriction or we don’t. There’s no middle ground. That said, if SS49 were to immediately go and start clerking at AfD after this is lifted, contrary to his assurances here that he has no such interest, then we could reasonably infer that he had lied to get out of his TBAN, and reimposing it or blocking him would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per discussion with Bakazaka above. The original ban had no exceptions for delsorting when starting an AfD. Delsorting is optional when starting an AfD, and as far as I can tell Twinkle won't throw an error if you don't put anything in the delsort box (and it says "delsort" so there's no confusion there). And SS49's ban explicitly says that delsorting is covered. So, frankly, I'm not impressed with SS49's "oops", "if you say so", and "I won't do it again" responses to these issues. And let's be realistic: Even if Twinkle did require you to fill the delsort box when starting an AfD, this is not a new problem. The limitations of automated and semi-automated tools are never an excuse for violating policy or sanction. If SS49 thought it was required to fill the delsort box to make Twinkle work, he should have been starting the AfDs manually, like we all used to do years ago. All the instructions are still there at WP:AFD. And so, "Twinkle made me do it" is no excuse.
    With that in mind, all four of the diffs Bakazaka points out are relevant, and all four are delsorts after the ban was in force. The first was mere hours after the ban, and the most recent was less than a month ago. Earlier I defended SS49 on the basis of "no pattern" and that the one diff that was a clear, obvious violation was no pattern. Having realized my presumption that "own AfD" delsorts weren't covered by the ban was incorrect, it is now clear that there is a pattern that has continued without a clear end. Two would have made a pattern. Four makes a clear pattern.
    On the other hand, those were uncaught (presumably because they weren't disruptive). Moreover, the main way SS49 was originally disrupting was through relists and NACs. A reading of the thread that enacted the ban makes it feel like delsorting was just "lumped in" as part of "AfD clerking" tasks rather than a particular area of disruption. As such, this feels somewhat de minimis.
    But then we have all the clear statements to SS49 that delsorting was not allowed. There's the discussion at TonyBallioni's user talk and GoldenRing's statement in closing the ban discussion. And yet in spite of that, SS49 didn't understand or appreciate that doing any delsorting was a violation? It might be one thing if there was a policy-based argument coupled with a mea culpa, but what SS49 has done here has essentially been to plead ignorance. I'm sorry but in light of the issue raised in the original ban discussion—that there was a clear competence problem—I think this action needs to be tabled at least until the six month mark.
    I don't think there's a need to impose further sanctions as a result of the discovered violations, however. This is based on my observation that they are essentially de minimis. Let's just close this and get back to our normal activities. While I don't think SS49 would go and immediately break his promise not to violate the conditions of lifting the ban, that's not the problem we need to be careful of: It's little disruptions that go unnoticed for a long time. That, and my objection to "unbanning with conditions matching the original ban scope" (which is tantamount to making this an undocumented editing restriction) means I must oppose this request. Sorry, SS49. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. The intent of the ban was pretty clearly to prohibit AfD clerking. I really don't see it as being intended to prevent them from properly submitting AfDs. It seems like this should be common sense. We don't engage in mindless bureaucratic nitpicking, we care about the spirit of the law. I find Bakazaka's strenuous objections to be a bit bizarre, tbh. I mean, there was one violation, which was self-reported with assurances that it wouldn't happen again, and it hasn't. Trying to frame correctly-filed nominations as violations is dubious. I'm not particularly convinced that SS49 is the best editor, or that they're deserving of the advanced permissions they hold, or that they're competent. But I can not hold the AfD noms against them. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to delsort to properly submit an AfD though. We're not talking about the AfD category code that's part of the whole thing, we're talking about doing delsorts. It's not mandatory, as far as I can tell Twinkle doesn't require it, and even if it did the rules about automated tools makes that no excuse. There are four violations, not just one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's listed as an inherent procedural aspect of making an AfD though. It does not say "mandatory" or "optional" either way, but it is an inherent part of deletion process as written. It's not convincing that self-deletion sorting is the problem that the TBAN was intended to address, which was pretty obviously self-appointed clerking, to which sorting was an aside, not the primary issue. I get where you're coming from, and I don't think you're being unreasonable. I'm just meh about it, which admittedly reflects my view on this user's presence overall. I can't decide whether they're headed towards an RfA or towards an indef block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Swarm that deletion sorting was not the sort of behavior that caused the ban, however can understand those who say that its breaking argues against lifting this ban. If the consensus is to keep the ban I would hope that the closer would do so allowing an exception deletion sorting for SS49's AfD nominations going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support The request seems reasonable. There was one clear transgression about sorting, within hours of the topic ban, which was self-reported with an apology. The debate seems to be about three AFD listings (I'd only seen the June and July ones previously, but there was a third in March that I'd missed). As there was no prohibition of AFD submissions, and the delsorting that occurs automatically as part of that seems a bit grey, I don't see any need to use this to keep the ban - which starts to appear to be punitive to me, rather than preventive. The primary issues in the original discussion were closing and relisting AFDs - the sorting issues raised were very very minor (one was a formatting issue, and the other was related to subcategories), that were sorted out weeks earlier. There's a very clear commitment to avoid closing or relisting AFDs. It won't harm the project to give some rope here. Nfitz (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support I don't see what will change from four to six months in this case, and we've always got WP:ROPE if it goes pear-shaped. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There's zero benefit to lifting a ban when the user who is subject to the ban says they will respect it even if it is lifted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Your username in the list of editing restrictions never encourages you. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I get the motivation to go for a withdrawal of the ban, but when the conditions are identical to the ban itself, we just have the equivalent of someone saying “I don’t like my name on the list, can we just do this off the books?” That’s not how Wikipedia works, and the call for that sort of underscores a concerning lack of clue, which I believe is a symptom of what triggered the original ban discussion. Like as SN54129 pointed out, it has only been four months. The standard offer (which pretty well forms the core of our relief from sanctions practices) calls for six months. To me, you need to make the case for an exception. In light of the violations revealed above—even if they’re technical, even if they’re uncaught, even if they’re not disruptive—I don’t think you can make the case for an exception anymore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Everybody deserves a second chance, and this user has agreed to reform. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Agreed, improving editors is what Wikipedia is all about! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support user !voting only; not doing the other stuff.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim Unless I'm mistaken, they're not prohibited from that. Praxidicae (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support I am not sure if I'm allowed to !vote here, or even edit. But, I just wanted to say-- I came to know the user only after the ban had come into effect, and didn't know of it until I saw this discussion. The user has never struck me as someone out to do anything other than contribute to the encyclopedia, and they haven't shown any behaviour that looked even marginally questionable to me. I am frankly shocked at how they seem to have approached communication and action, in the run up to the ban. I don't think there's anything that harmful in what they've done against the conditions of the ban, more than mere technicality; which I am willing to accept were due to ignorance rather than malice. As such, I want to see this ban lifted, if only to see how they behave afterwards. I think it ought to be enough to put some condition akin to "one admin can take such and such action against you at their personal discretion if you repeat your disruptive behaviour after this ban is lifted", to lift the ban, to show that the community has the user's best interests at heart as well as the Project's. Agree that it's more punitive than preventative at this point. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mendaliv and others and because the user just now demanded that TonyBallioni lift the topic ban. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a diff for that User:Softlavender? I was looking, but all I see was them asking it be lifted (with a please), but not a demand - so I'm assuming that there's something else I'm not seeing? Nfitz (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

He asked TonyBallioni to "close the discussion and remove the Topic ban", basically determining the consensus of his own request thread, which has/had no clear consensus. The fact that he would even dictate the result is extremely troublesome, hence my oppose. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This User:Softlavender? He said "Please close". It looks like a simple polite request to me. I don't see how it's either demanding or dictating. Nor do I see the danger here, given the only thing that they seem to have done to cause scrutiny since March is submit handful of two AFDs, which wasn't precluded in the topic ban. Was there something else I missed? Nfitz (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC) edit - only two AFDs that I see since March, not a handful. Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Discipline is meant to stop the negative behavior and it seems like there is a lesson learned by SS49. Discipline should be progressive and corrective, not punitive and destructive.

Per WP:BLOCK guidelines

1. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.
2. Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect.
3. The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment.

I did not see the editor demand TB close, seemed more like he politely urged. Lightburst (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The user is not blocked, and is not requesting the removal of a block. Softlavender (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender Yes topic ban, my mistake. Nice to get a block refresher anyway. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

As this has been open for ~7 days now. I don't know who put the original topic ban in place, but if an univolved admin could please review? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It was GoldenRing who logged the original community decision. Courtesy ping! ——SerialNumber54129 12:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Golly, was it? There you go. I don't think you need my input here, though. GoldenRing (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've rescued this from the archive as it was not closed yet. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No admin is interested to close this discussion. I am surprised. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It was archived at least once without a close, meaning there was no consensus. It should've been left in the archive. There's no consensus to lift the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to lift IBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since September 2018, I have been subject to an IBAN (see WP:EDRC) re Jytdog (talk · contribs). See ANI.

Since December, Jytdog has been indeffed by Arbcom, see User_talk:Jytdog#Block.

As it is over six months since both of these events, for which the IBAN has been moot anyway, I now request its repeal.

For clarity, this has arisen today as a result of an RfA. I believe that I am entitled to express an opinion at this RfA, per normal practice. However because of this IBAN, SchroCat has expressed the opinion that I am not: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Johnuniq#Oppose. Despite neither Johnuniq nor SchroCat being part of that IBAN. Accordingly I would like to have it lifted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Which I should probably have done when I first posted this, @Ivanvector: and @Bishonen: as the admins who enacted the IBAN (guidance for appealing such should probably have a reminder for that). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have not expressed anything of the sort. I asked you to provide diffs to your !vote to back up what is a personal attack without the use of diffs. In your first comment, you have expressed your personal opinion, without even bothering with diffs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal of IBAN as superfluous. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support to avoid WP:BLOAT at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I understand it's possible that indefinitely blocked users could be unblocked and thus we should know previous personal sanctions, but some spring cleaning could be done. For instance, Racepacket has been indeffed since 2012 and LauraHale has vanished, so surely the interaction ban could be archived elsewhere. --Pudeo (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support- although the request itself is peevish, and puts words into SchroCat's mouth that they never said, it's obvious that restricting someone from interacting with an indef banned editor is pointless. It's like being barred from a nightclub that burned down years ago. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - More than 6 months and seems appealable to me, —PaleoNeonate – 12:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Indef" is not infinite, Jytdog may be unblocked, and the IBan will be just as necessary when that happens. Otherwise, the rationale for lifting the Iban is spurious, at best. He's voted at RfA (his usual "oppose"), that's enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks: So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.

So please explain, given that Jytdog is both indeffed by Arbcom, and resigned by his own action about as strongly as he can, he "may be unblocked" in the future?

As to RfA, then what does, "(his usual "oppose")" mean, other that to cast aspersions? I avoid RfA and almost never take part in it. I don't remember when I last did. I have, most unusually, voted at four RfAs in the last week, and they were 3/4 supports.

The request itself is hardly "peevish". I voted oppose and SchroCat's uninvited reply to was to dismiss that twice as a personal attack: "Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs?", "the less said about the outright personal attack the better." And yet, with this IBAN in place I am prevented from giving any such reply or explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: "His usual oppose" - I may have been confusing you with another editor, and since the RfA counters I usually go to both seem to be down, I have no evidence to support my claim, so I'm striking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of a different Andrew D. Reyk _YO! 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're precisely right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose SHould Jytdog return, we would still need this. In Jytdog's absence, there is no way to assess if it no longer needed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Please note, this is preventive and not punitive as Andy has not left the past in the past. He carries it in his back pocket. It is not unfair as it is based only on Andy's inability to leave the past behind.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Also, per points raised by Hijiri 88. and others added04:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Dlohcierekim's argument is unfair. It means the negative actions of another editor permanently deny another editor the chance to eliminate a ban against them. I believe this IBAN is functionally unneeded, and generally is reasonable to improve as it is causing collateral effects without serving its primary purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as moot. In the unlikely event that a) Jytdog returns and b) resumes the same behavior, we can reevaluate. -FASTILY 22:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as moot per Fastily above. Miniapolis 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support; we're often fine removing sitebans after six months if the editor hasn't misbehaved since the ban and has presented a good rationale. We shouldn't be stricter with a lesser restriction. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Jytdog has been gone for well over six months and this logged IBAN serves no purpose, except to irritate Andy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support this has been in place for nine months and Jytdog has been gone for six, and it hasn't served a purpose for that time. If, somehow, Jytdog returned, the situation could be re-assessed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear, I disagree with this as a general way of dealing with IBans and absent editors. IBans include limitations on what the sanctioned editors can say about each other for a reason, generally because they have been saying nasty things, and thereby causing disruption. Then, when one editor leaves, for whatever reason, and cannot defend themselves from the criticism or insults of their partner in the IBan, we allow that other editor to say whatever they want about them?
  "Indef" is not "infinite", and many, many editors have returned from indef bans and retirements. This is far from an unusual occurrence, especially with long-time editors, who can't get rid of the itch to edit, and work hard to find some way back. When they do, if the IBan has been dissolved, we've left things open for a continuation of the same problem, and potentially have to live through the same disruption in order to get to another IBan. Far, far, easier to leave the IBan in place in case it's needed. That, I believe, should be the general way to deal with that asymmetrical situation, not to hand a license to one of the IBanned editors to slag off their opponent with impunity whenever they want to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• See my comment above. WP:STANDARD requests are often granted for sitebans after six months. Without any evidence of wrongdoing being presented here, why would we keep this lesser ban after ten months? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand how it works, I simply don't agree that it's the best way to run things, per my comment above.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Which comment would that be? The one you made up? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I generally don't copy my noticeboard and talk page comments from outside sources, so, to be precise, all of them are "made up" right out of my mind -- but I know that you are sarcastically referring to my saying "his usual oppose" about your vote on Johnuniq's RfA, which I've already explained - which I know that you already know, but still felt the need to make a sarcastic remark about. That, I think, speaks volumes about why you're subject to an IBan, and also why lifting it would be a mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• You were happy to make a pejorative accusation against another editor, without any attempt to check that it was true, and when that was challenged you were forced to strike it. Yet despite that, you later made reference to it "per my comment above" as if it still stood. My expectations are low enough, but I would appreciate some basic honesty here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, if you read my comment above again, you'll see that I did make an effort to support my statement by going to the RfA counters listed on my "Code" page, but both were apparently down, so I couldn't get any data. Therefore, I went with what I thought I remembered, which turned out to be inaccurate, and which I struck out as soon as it was pointed out to me. I think that's pretty reasonable behavior on my part, but obviously you disagree. Your continued harping on this relatively insignificant matter is unfortunately indicative of why the IBan exists in the first place, and why lifting the IBan is not a good idea. You appear to be out for blood from anyone who looks crossed-eyed at you. See WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:AGF . Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK. ——SerialNumber54129 03:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BMK and Dloh. Sorry, but I totally reject the SO approach. The six month SO has, AFAIK, never applied to IBANs, because grudges and interpersonal conflicts do not just cease to exist after six months. It seems highly unlikely that we will never see Jytdog again, and/or that it will be reasonably productive to allow Andy to interact with an indeffed Jytdog, who can't defend himself. If the sanction is moot only because one user is not currently around, that's not a convincing reason to lift it. Andy makes no attempt whatsoever to address the root of the problem, and wants the ban overturned on the technicality that the other user is no longer around. That's not reassuring. The current status quo is absolutely harmless. The alternative of proclaiming the IBAN moot and then unrestricting Andy from taking back up his issues with Jyt, but without any way for Jyt to defend himself is hardly a better scenario. No convincing case has been made that the reasons for the IBAN no longer exist, and the technicality that Jyt is no longer an active editor is not convincing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So there's no SO on IBANs, but we have to keep the IBAN just in case an SO does get applied to Jytdog's indef block (and irevocable resignation) from the whole site? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

SO's were always intended to be about indef blocks and site bans, the extension to IBans is what's new and under discussion here, so there's no reason that they wouldn't be used for their original purpose. And whatever gave you -- a very long term editor -- the idea that resignations were "irrevocable"? The password to the Jytdog account was scrambled, so -- if they were unblocked -- they couldn't come back with that account name, but they could come back with any other available account name, and the IBan between the two of you would (if not voided) still be in effect, since bans are to the person and not to the account. SO's have nothing whatsoever to do with resignations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK and Swarm. The SO does not apply to IBANs and the tone of Andy's recent comments at RfA indicate that this problem has not gone away. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dlohcierekim, BMK and Swarm. -- Begoon 08:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Basically, I think Andy has demonstrated that lifting the IBAN would be a poor idea. Needs to let it go, drop the stick, disengage, focus on something positive.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support People should not be held in perpetual bond of IBAN with indefinitely blocked users. Should Jytdog return, the IBAN can be reinstated, but for now, it's not needed at all. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not being allowed to talk about another editor who's not around anyway is not much of a "perpetual bond", really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dlohcierekim, BMK and Swarm. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per preventative not punitive, etc. Like others, the present purpose of this apparently indefinite restriction alludes me. No objection to revisiting should there ever be an "interaction" in some unknown future and it is needed, but as of now, it serves no legitimate purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please define, precisely, what is "punitive" about an IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• The other editor is indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons. An IBan between the two is preventing absolutely nothing, since there's no interactions that can occur (other than blatantly egregious things like vandalising his user talk page, but that's an irrelevant hypothetical). Thus, this IBan, as of now, is doing nothing to increase the civility of Wikipedia, and is instead solely a black mark on Andy's record (which makes it punitive). In the (unlikely) case of Jytdog being unblocked, then it can be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be reinstated. But there's really no reason to keep a long-dusty editing restriction on the record for no other reason other than "he might come back someday". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @A lad insane: That is not true. I have linked to a situation in my oppose above to a situation where Andy was restrained from comment by this IBAN. Indeed, his whole reason for bringing this here is that the IBAN was restraining him from saying something. Judging by the tone of what he did say, it's a jolly good thing the IBAN is in place, because it has restrained him from saying something he oughtn't to have said. Even in Jytdog's absence, the IBAN remains necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. The only thing that RfA diff demonstrates is the interaction ban is suppose to remain to punish the User for "tone" on something that has only in the most round about fashion anything to do with interaction, even the person whose statement he quoted and critiqued, Johnuniq, says this IBAN is "superfluous" and votes to remove it, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• So what did I say that's so terrible? There is no IBAN in place against me and Johnuniq. You might not like it, but I'm permitted to oppose his RfA. Now (like so many RfAs) that's a general impression formed over years of occasional encounters. Yet the one concrete example I can give (and rightly, I was aked for diffs) was of Johnuniq defending Jytdog for comments which I still, and unashamedly, see as unacceptable anywhere on WP (You do realise that most of what I posted was a quote, yes?). And yet I can't discuss that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support (assuming there are no expired restrictions to be taken into account), as the other user is no longer editing for reasons unrelated to the interaction ban; there is no evidence that the behaviour has been repeated recently; and six months, same as the standard offer, should be enough unless there is a pattern that has led to, or is leading to, multiple editing restrictions with the same or other topics or users. Peter James (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Support The purpose of an IBAN, as I understand it, is to reduce hostility on WP by limiting interactions between editors. An IBAN between editors of whom one is not editing seems to be punitive and ineffective. Support is contingent on generally leaving Jytdog alone (no talk page, no vandalism, no undoing all of his edits). A warning in his file with a note to admins that he should be leaving Jytdog information alone should be sufficient. Merely mentioning Jytdog at this point (especially when asked) should not be grounds for a block. Ergo, the IBAN should be conditionally lifted. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Support is contingent on generally leaving Jytdog alone (no talk page, no vandalism, no undoing all of his edits). A warning in his file with a note to admins that he should be leaving Jytdog information alone" That is exactly the behavior that the IBan stops, so why replace it with another kind of sanction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's what it does now. When it was put in place, it stopped the two of them from interacting. It's past its purpose, and most of what you mentioned would be considered disruptive even minus the sanction. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Given Andy Dingley's 's comments here and on the RfA, and in the light of Hijiri88's comment below, I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that the IBan is "past its purpose". It may seem that it should be on a conceptual level, but I think, rather, that the facts on the ground indicate that it's still holding back a fair amount of potential misbehavior from a pretty angry person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with Peter James, among others. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - (enacting admin comment) the purpose of the sanction was to shield Jytdog's editing from Andy's overzealous scrutiny. Since Jytdog has retired and is also Arb-banned, they cannot edit and thus the original purpose is moot. The sanction serves no purpose now except to beat Andy down over past transgressions, as many comments above of the form "Andy can't do this because of the sanction" (and not for any other reason) are amply demonstrating. If the editor behind the retired Jytdog account feels that they are being harassed in real life by Andy Dingley (of which I see no evidence) they should contact the Arbitration Committee or roll the dice with T&S; there's nothing for us to do here about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The IBAN is no longer necessary. Also per administrator Ivanvector's rationale Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Jytdog was blocked by ArbCom because they had agreed to accept a case over some incident(s) involving him, he declared his retirement, and ArbCom decided that if he was retiring they should block him pending an unretirement and formal opening of the case they had accepted. None of this had anything whatsoever to do with Andy, whose tendentious editing that led to the IBAN does not appear to have changed at all. And, most importantly, the IBAN currently serves to prevent disruption such as Andy invoking the boogeyman Jytdog's name to attack and harass other editors (whom he apparently views as "Jytdog-enablers") such as Johnuniq and myself: lifting the IBAN would just invite more disruption, and if anything I would think further sanctions to prevent this disruption are called for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC))

Also, in response to the So please explain, given that Jytdog is both indeffed by Arbcom, and resigned by his own action about as strongly as he can, he "may be unblocked" in the future? above, I should point out that no, Jytdog is indeffed by ArbCom as enforcement of his resignation, pending a return and an automatic opening of an ArbCom case. Essentially, Jytdog is subject to voluntary retirement and a suspended ArbCom investigation of his behaviour -- if this IBAN appeal had come before Jytdog's retirement but after the ArbCom case request was filed, we wouldn't be saying the ban was redundant because Jytdog was under investigation by ArbCom, so why is it suddenly redundant because he is both under investigation by ArbCom and retired? What good does appealing this ban do if it's redundant? I see a tendentious editor who harassed Jytdog and everyone associated with him, wanting the ability to continue to do so now that Jytdog is no longer here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You will, of course, be able to supply the diff for where I described Johnuniq as a "Jytdog-enabler". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

he was so ready to excuse the "dogshit" comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Nice edit to your previous comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it is a nice edit. It's also nice that I explicitly noted that I had made that edit. The only that wasn't nice was that I didn't apologize for misremembering that "Jytdog-enabler" was (apparently) not a direct quote from you. I read your comments together with Pudeo's, and apparently didn't notice that those exact words didn't come from you. That being said, had I said Andy Dingley apparently sees me, Johnuniq, Bishonen, etc. as "Jytdog-enablers" (not a direct quote) and has convinced himself that Jytdog's ban somehow vindicated his own behaviour. This is the exact same behaviour that led to C. W. Gilmore's block -- I can't see why we would reward it in this case. that would have been a pretty accurate summary. Now that my original comment has been fixed to say as much, I think we are done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. This is an RfA. It is about Johnuniq, not Jytdog. I have not discussed Jytdog, at least as far as is possible. I have never described Johnuniq as a "Jytdog-enabler": Jytdog was perfectly capable of acting as he did, all on his own. My point, and why I raised it at that RfA, is that when Johnuniq was presented with the context of Jytdog's comments (and why are you still so keen to excuse his description of "dogshit editors"? How on earth were they ever acceptable?) his reaction to them was to excuse them as "occasionally over-enthusiastic". Now this is nothing to do with Jytdog, but that's not an attitude I want in any new admins, hence my opposition to him.

Now Jytdog has departed. I have no interest in him, I have no interest in any gravedancing. But further down the line, this IBAN has made appropriate and permissible interaction in an RfA difficult if not impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

this IBAN has made appropriate and permissible interaction in an RfA difficult if not impossible Yes -- because your actions in that RFA constitute both violations of this IBAN and grave-dancing. It is grave-dancing to pretend Jytdog was blocked for reasons other than those officially stated, as you have been doing (i) on the RFA, by implying his block somehow vindicated your own behaviour and tainted those who had "defended" him in his previous interactions with you (that's precisely why you said you opposed the adminship; you're not the only one, but you're the only one who was violating an active editing restriction by doing so -- the others were engaging in dickish grave-dancing, but not violating an IBAN), and (ii) here, by claiming that his self-imposed retirement and ArbCom block are somehow separate and not co-dependent, and that he couldn't request an unblock any time he wanted by saying he wanted to unretire was prepared to go through Arbitration. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK, Dlohcierekim and others. This is not mooted by Jytdog's block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails to acknowledge wrongdoing and what got the IBan enacted in the first place. This is a politically motivated removal request so Andy can get back at someone who supported the IBan. Andy should not be mentioning Jytdog's name, grave-dancing, or in any other way violating the IBan. See also the points made above by BMK, Dlohcierekim, Swarm, Golden Ring, Hijiri88, and Mendaliv. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per many of the above rationales, particularly Mendaliv, Softlavender and BMK. I wasn't going to !vote here, but given the rather combative approach it seems that anything that stops the subject being raised and rehashed is a good idea. Jytdog may well come back at some point, and rather leave the door open for further grief, it's probably safer to leave this in place. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Mendaliv, SchroCat, BMK et alii. Just because Jytdog is out now (blocked or not) doesn't mean he won't return someday. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tots & little ones matter! and BLPDELETE review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tots & little ones matter! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, I have deleted Operation Voicer as an extraordinary and preliminary measure under WP:BLPDELETE and per that policy am seeking review here. I'm not really clear what is best to do here. The article was about a real pedophile ring, but contained extensive profile on the individuals involved, none of whom appear to be individually notable. I discovered this when Tots & little ones matter! was creating redirects for all of the individuals involved.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. While I think having an article on the subject is likely appropriate, the way the article was written highlighted individual convicted criminals who were not otherwise notable in a way that we would not ordinarily allow, and on a subject that unfortunately people are using Wikipedia to accuse people of more frequently.

I'm also concerned that Tots & little ones matter! appears to be an SPA focused on creating articles on British pedophilia scandals. While some of these are undoubtedly notable, I am very concerned that they are giving undue weight to the sections on the individuals. This was something I discovered after I made the initial BLPDELETE deletion, and since there were multiple articles, I did not want to act without further consulting the community. I'm bringing this here for review and am fine with any outcome. I will also be alerting Tots & little ones matter! to BLP DS, but that doesn't preclude the community from taking action if it sees fit. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Robin Hollyson who repeatedly raped a 3-month-old baby and naturally received widespread news coverage because of this exceptionally shocking crime, he is no longer alive, so BLP is unlikely to be relevant to Robin Hollyson. The same applies to Neville Husband and Leslie Johnson.Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tots & little ones matter!, BLP also applies to recently deceased individuals. Content on Wikipedia about such people can still greatly impact the person's direct family. --MrClog (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Robin Hollyson died in January 2016. Is 3½ years ago still recent? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for raising this here. I've been watching this too. I revdeleted some extremely detailed edit summaries, and asked the user to stop making them. He did stop doing that, although he didn't respond to my note. I remain concerned about the level of detail in the articles, the user name, and the singular focus. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to my posting here that Tots did not respond to my note in March about his edit summaries, he has just written on his talk: "You did not ask for a reply. Please stop misleading other administrators by creating the impression you did." SarahSV ^(talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, are you asking me to change my username?Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the combination of the user name, the focus of your edits, and the level of detail you go into, including details that most people would find hard to read, never mind write about. The article Tony deleted is a good example. Do you have any suggestions as to how you could change your approach? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, It is my understanding that wikipedia is UNCENSORED, meaning:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Your concern is solely about "content that some readers consider objectionable". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No. The concern is that you're going into WP:UNDUE detail about living individuals who we would not ordinarily consider notable. They don't have to be notable to be mentioned in an article, but you shouldn't be writing mini-stubs on their crimes and then creating redirects on their names to the section of the article and adding categories to them. I the creation of the redirects was what concerned me enough to delete that one article pending review, as you were effectively getting around review of new articles that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Tony, WP:UNDUE deals mainly with opinions and points of view, which are not relevant to your concern. The amount detail I wrote about individuals always depended on the amount of detail in reliable sources. Deleting an article because of redirects was an extreme reaction on your part.

Couldn't you have raised an AN topic just about the redirects to individuals, and then depending on other admin's views, maybe deleted the redirects to individuals and left me a note about it? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the articles milk all the sources for details, including tabloid journalism in local newspapers and websites (note WP:BLPSOURCES: "material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"). The articles could be rewritten to include only material written by the court reporters from high-quality national newspapers and BBC. The redirected names of living persons should be deleted. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, you are conflating regional newspapers with tabloids, which I almost never use. The two types of sources are quite different. Regional newspapers in a country as large as the UK often serve as many readers and the same purpose as national full-sized newspapers do in smaller countries. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

But we don't ordinarily include detailed descriptions of criminals covered in regional newspapers. Wikipedia has significantly larger readership than regional newspapers, and as vile as these people's crimes are they are still living people and extensive coverage of them on Wikipedia could actually put them in danger if they ever get out of prison (or while in prison...)

We don't try to white wash, but we also don't write articles on every criminal who gets coverage in even a major regional paper. See WP:CRIMINAL. You are basically circumventing our policies on criminal notability by writing enough content for an article covering the worst parts of their lives, and then creating redirects to the subsections. SlimVirgin and I are trying to work with you here, and explain things to you, but you really do need to change your approach, because otherwise you are likely to be facing sanctions surrounding biographies of living people, either through consensus here or through the discretionary sanctions I alerted you to at the same time as opening this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Two points: First, the concerns about WP:UNDUE and even WP:BLP are mostly content issues and probably shouldn't normally be handled by this board. Second, BLPDELETE doesn't appear to call for a review here particularly, but at DRV if someone complains. Being unable to view the contents of the article, I can't opine as to the propriety of summary deletion here (as opposed to the routine WP:AFD process), but I trust TonyBallioni's judgment here, as reinforced by SlimVirgin, both of whom are experienced administrators. Therefore, I endorse the deletion. There may be something a bit cutting edge in terms of policy happening here, but when it comes to genuine BLP issues, there's nothing wrong with erring on the side of deletion. Taking into account the salient points raised here by my learned colleagues, there may be grounds to discuss new guidelines or policies governing our coverage of sex crimes, whether or not the perpetrators are living persons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah. The policy is a bit vague: allowing unilateral deletions with discussion afterwards, which to me sounds like AN, though it also mentions DRV elsewhere. When I discovered there were potential problems with other articles created by Tots & little ones matter!/the username/the SPA bit, I thought here made the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Tots, you wrote above: "you are conflating regional newspapers with tabloids". The BLP policy cautions against relying on "tabloid journalism", and some of the regional reporting you're using is very definitely that. Wikipedia should follow the high-quality secondary sources. In this case, that will mostly mean the BBC, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, and their Sunday equivalents, plus academic sources and government reports. I wouldn't rule out filling in gaps with regional media, but you've used regional papers and websites to offer a huge amount of detail. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Mendaliv, you may review the Operation Voicer article here. Please try to identify a specific BLP violation before endorsing deletion.

Tony's reference to WP:CRIMINAL is taking issue solely with redirects to named individuals. I did not believe the redirects were circumventing anything, because Kabeer Hassan already has such a redirect, and administrators took no action. Having read WP:CRIMINAL and considered how redirects might be circumventing it, I would actually delete the redirects myself now if I could. However, I do not have administrator privileges, so I obviously cannot. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tots & little ones matter!: You can request deletion of things you've created yourself by tagging them with {{db-g7}} (if you're the page creator and there have been no other editors). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tony, your concern "extensive coverage of them on Wikipedia could actually put them in danger if they ever get out of prison" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's BLP policy. The policy exists to protect individuals against libellous falsehoods and to prevent articles from filling up with pointless trivial gossip. There was nothing trivial or false about the crimes I was writing about. Children are safer when there is greater public awareness of the threats they face. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Uh, no. The BLP policy very much is intended to both protect the name and the physical safety of individuals. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. It is appropriate to simply list the individuals involved in your articles, and maybe include slightly more details at an appropriate weight, but the more we have this discussion, the more concerned I am that you are going to continue with what you apparently see as a mission here. While that may be noble, you certainly won't find me defending the actions these people did, the way you are doing it is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you need to change. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some examples of articles not created by Tots & little ones matter!:

• Huddersfield grooming gang
• Telford child sexual exploitation scandal
• Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
• Oxford child sex abuse ring
• Halifax child sex abuse ring
• Newcastle sex abuse ring
• Banbury child sex abuse ring
• Derby child sex abuse ring
• Rochdale child sex abuse ring

I don't know how they compare to the ones created by Tots, but I am quite sure that the same standards should be applied to all. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's another:

• United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TonyBallioni mentioned it above, but the username "Tots & little ones matter!" strongly suggests that the user is here to right great wrongs. Based on the user's repeatedly-stated interest in creating "public awareness" of certain people and certain topics, they've pretty clearly on a WP:SOAPBOX. It's not quite to the point of WP:NOTHERE, since they are generally contributing neutral facts, but every so often there's opinion creeping in - usually a choice quote from police/judges/what have you about how terrible the events were or how important it is to report that sort of thing which is otherwise irrelevant to the article's content. Also, some of the article titles are going into lurid detail ("Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring," for example, while technically accurate, is a bit much). I guess my point is that while I can't point to a blatant rule violation, I'm really iffy on this user's actions. Also, after having gone through this editor's contributions, I'm going to go throw up or something. creffett (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Creffett and TonyBallioni: I have moved the Norwich article to the more neutrally-titled Norwich sexual abuse ring for the second time. @Tots & little ones matter!:, please do not unilaterally move it again. ——SerialNumber54129 09:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're "iffy" about quoting police on the seriousness of a crime and how it merits reporting? To you, the notion that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is "opinion creeping in". (Wow!) WP:NPOV actually allows the inclusion of points of view, if that's what you think those quotes are, so long as any alternative views in reliable sources are given due weight, of which there are none in the example you gave. The quotes are entirely permitted under NPOV. The idea that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is self-evident and not exactly contentious. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You're "iffy" about quoting police on the seriousness of a crime and how it merits reporting? That is not what Creffett said. To you, the notion that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is "opinion creeping in". That is also not what Creffett said. Creffett has pointed out, accurately in my opinion, that your username and conduct indicate someone that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but is instead seeking to right great wrongs and raise awareness of child sex abuse. While raising awareness of these horrific crimes is indeed a noble pursuit, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to raise awareness of anything. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is one of the things Creffett wrote: "every so often there's opinion creeping in - usually a choice quote from police/judges/what have you about how terrible the events were or how important it is to report that sort of thing". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, "opinion" was the wrong word (perspective-pushing, maybe?), but you're misquoting me. Nobody is debating whether child sexual abuse is a crime, the issue at hand is the use of Wikipedia's voice to give opinions on the content of an article. Wikipedia's role is to report facts, not to give opinions on the article's topic. By adding those selected quotes, you're making the article less about facts and more about your issue of choice. If you want to tell people how terrible (insert topic) is, try the 11 o'clock news. creffett (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To summarise, the main concerns of TonyBallioni and SlimVirgin are:

• TonyBallioni wrote: "See WP:CRIMINAL. You are basically circumventing our policies on criminal notability by writing enough content for an article covering the worst parts of their lives, and then creating redirects to the subsections ... you really do need to change your approach."

• I have already deleted the redirects. I have shown that I understand this concern and taken it on board. Deleting the Operation Voicer article because of redirects was disproportionate.

• SlimVirgin wrote: "One of the problems is that the articles milk all the sources for details, including tabloid journalism in local newspapers and websites (note WP:BLPSOURCES".

• This concern relates largely to sourcing from regional newspapers. SlimVirgin was involved in writing the BLP policy and may have privately held a much broader idea of what constitutes a tabloid than most of us. SlimVirgin's apparent view that regional newspapers are to be considered tabloids in WP:BLPSOURCES was not communicated adequately on the policy's article and doesn't appear to have been agreed with the community. I cannot have been expected to read SlimVirgin's mind when choosing my sources. I would be open to choosing BLP sources differently, especially if I see evidence that SlimVirgin's very broad idea of what constitutes a tabloid has community support or is stated on a Wikipedia policy page.

• SlimVirgin also asked: "Do you have any suggestions as to how you could change your approach?"

• I could use a more limited range of sources in future when writing BLP content and be more inclined to exclude certain sources. I could review articles that I have written and look for and remove what could perhaps be considered inadequately sourced BLP material. I would like greater clarity on this, perhaps a definition, explanation or list of sources that the Wikipedia community agrees are unsuitable for BLP content.
• I could use a different username.
• As stated above, I have already deleted the redirects to named individuals. I will not create any more.

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The safest thing is to stick to high-quality national media and not go into so much detail. The article that was deleted, Operation Voicer, relied 16 times on a Daily Mirror article, once on the Daily Record, once on BreakingNews.ie, and numerous times on local media. It's written in a tabloid style with one-sentence paragraphs, unnecessary quotes, and a subsection for each of the convicted with the men's names as headings. It's unclear from the article how many children were involved; the Daily Telegraph reported that seven men assaulted three children. The article would have to be written and sourced differently to be BLP-compliant, and would have to demonstrate why the topic is notable enough. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly does the BLP policy deal with article style? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Bitter Oil has helpfully stated that "the same standards should be applied" to my articles that are being applied to others such as Banbury child sex abuse ring and Newcastle sex abuse ring. The Banbury article contains six sources, three of which are local. Bitter Oil is clearly of the view that this is enough to demonstrate notability and is perfectly fine. It is only SarahSV who seems to believe otherwise. Wikipedia's BLP policy says nothing about local sources, and they are used in every article Bitter Oil mentioned, so this is clearly acceptable. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, you wrote that you objected to "details that most people would find hard to read, never mind write about". This is undeniably a gripe you have about finding the subject matter upsetting. You appear to be bending and stretching BLP policy as a means of removing what WP:UNCENSORED describes as "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so". WP:UNCENSORED emphatically states "Wikipedia is not censored" and that doing so "is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Tots & little ones matter!, I know you think you are doing right, but please think about taking a break for a day or so before you comment, as your temper seems to be getting a little stretched here and you are coming across as a bit aggressive (that's just the impression I get, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Sarah and Tony are trying to help you here, and to ensure that the encyclopaedia maintains neutral and within decent standards (avoiding righting great wrongs, the privacy and safety of all those involved and avoiding publishing excessive detail, etc). Both of them are seasoned and experienced editors and both have written content about emotive subjects, but have done so with sensitivity and precision. I know it's difficult, but please try to work with them to bring the articles into line with the standards we have here. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Tots & little ones matter!, don't take my comment as endorsement. I think all of these types of articles are magnets for problems. Having said that, yours are no worse. TonyBallioni should not have deleted Operation Voicer. Bitter Oil (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• We have a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for this, note. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• A few thoughts.
  • This is probably not the best venue for this, but we're here now. I do suppose this could be procedurally moved over to WP:DRV but it sounds like we're now discussing both the article as well as the creator's editing, so that swings it back towards discussion here.
  • I agree with the deletion, if only to remove large chunks of very specific information about otherwise non-notable individuals (I think the phrase above was "mini-stubs"). It's all sourced, but it's still inappropriate levels of detail and content.
  • The second point being said, I see no issue with recreation or restoration iff the perpetrators get no more than a listing (or maybe a sentence) of mention.

Regarding the creator's overall editing habits, I have not had a chance to look into it, but I would agree based on what others have said that they should probably be cautious going forward with what some people view is an agenda. Username isn't in great taste but I don't see any immediate violations that would require a name change. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Here’s another lurid and overdone article: Kidwelly satanic child rape cult. I just moved the title to Kidwelly sex cult because that is how the case is described by sources. I also think the intensely detailed information about the perpetrators and their crimes should be trimmed by about 80%. Would I or others be justified in doing major trims on this and similar articles, citing this AN discussion as justification? I am not proposing a whitewash or any minimization of their crimes, but I think the crimes should be summarized as is done with most criminal cases - rather than giving blow-by-blow descriptions of every act as well as minute details (tattoos, missing teeth, names of their dogs) about the personal lives of the perpetrators. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree; I'd suggest that the tabulated information under sentences be kept, as that contains the pertinent information—name, age, charge and sentence, etc.—and the mini-bios go ASAP. Not only do they read rather disturbingly—salacious, almost—but per WP:NOT, we needn't have that level of detail in an article. ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The use of the same syndicated article, sourced to a different newspaper carrying the same article on each occasion, to give the appearance that it's more heavily referenced than it is, should go for a start. There's no possible way anyone reading the articles could fail to notice that (e.g.) [51], [52] and [53] are all the same article in a different font (and all from local newspapers in areas not remotely near Kidwelly), which sets off my WP:ABF right there. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Well, after reading the Snopes [54] article that talks about fake news site that specializes in voyeuristic clickbait in the guise of discussing pedo crimes: A User with the clickbaity name might want to ensure that others do not see his or her writing in that wink, wink, (Ugh) vein, even if 'TOTALLY the TRUTH', and invite others to edit it extensively. We are not here to promote anything in the guise of 'all the lurid details' and yes, BLP has a section on restraint in WP:BLPSTYLE among others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • This isn't just a red herring, this is disinformation. Tots etc didn't use that source. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • You may have misunderstood Alanscottwalker. Tots' MO seems creepily similar. Miniapolis 23:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (mother of three, grandmother of seven )
      • You totally misunderstood. I never said they used a source. It was an analogy to poor and worse writing, that Wikipedia does not want. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • MelanieN, I agree about the need for rewrites and a decision as to whether these cases are all notable. Also agree with Iridescent about the repetitive sourcing. There is a focus on salacious detail in articles, titles (e.g. BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures, deleted as a copyvio, and Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring, which became a redirect, now deleted by Iridescent), and in the edit summaries I revdeleted in March. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin and MelanieN:, to be honest, I'd personally be willing to delete under WP:BLPDELETE if there is agreement to it here. Tots is clearly an agenda driven right great wrongs SPA, and there have been numerous issues identified in their writing about living people in what is perhaps the most sensitive BLP issue there is. There are questions about which of these are notable, and sorting through that in combination with a rewrite on every page Tots has created would take substantial work on the part of experienced editors and admins and even then stuff may be missed. The best solution to me seems that they need to rewrite any notable incidents from scratch with rigourous application to the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • What happened to "focus on the edits, not the editor"? I don't like these kind of articles anymore than you do, but they should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with other articles. By editing them to fix any issues. I dropped that very incomplete list of similar, pre-existing sex abuse articles here to make a point. Tots' editing and sourcing is no worse than the articles we already have. Possibly better. Take Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example. It has 10 redirects to it, including one for each of the four men who were convicted. Tots didn't create that article or even edit it. Why don't you ask them to read the policies about neutrality again, change their username and move on? Bitter Oil (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, actually, their articles are worse. They have significantly worse sourcing, significantly more detail about the perpetrators, and were also what was what I stumbled upon. Their behaviour is what we are reviewing here, not every other pedophilia article (which likely do have issues as well.) The concern is that there is one user who has made it their sole mission on Wikipedia to "tell the stories" of abused children, and in doing so is creating articles that need to be completely rewritten to comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't ignore that because the rest of the topic area has issues. We fix the problem we're presented with when we're presented with it, and then move on to the next ones when we can. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Should it matter if their mission is to tell the stories of abused children if they do it in a way that conforms to our policies? There are editors here who have made it their mission to document every episode of the Simpsons. Maybe I missed it in all the hubbub, but I haven't seen a specific example of an edit made by Tots which is a BLP issue. Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? If Tots' username is a problem, why hasn't anyone asked them to change it? If their sourcing is an issue (and it is) let's deal with it. This seems to be a lynching because people are uncomfortable with the subject matter. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Yes, as they are not complying with policy, as has been agreed to by everyone but you. Unless there is an objection from another administrator or editor in good standing, I will be deleting under BLPDELETE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
              • Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? Actually they have. That entire section with all the excessive detail about the perpetrators has been removed. So have the ridiculous reference listings that showed the exact same article published in five or six different papers. That was done because it is under discussion here. But basically no-one wants to go to the effort of searching out all these overstuffed, lurid articles and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards until we know if they are going to be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
                • Both of those excisions were made after my comment. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• I notified the DRV community of this WP:BLPDELETE review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 28#Operation Voicer. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Just a note: I wouldn't put too much weight on Bitter Oil's opinions. The primary purpose of the account (created in April) appears to be to post on Talk:Jimbo Wales (25/102 edits), and their articlespace experience, at least using this account name, is minimal (46 edits in 2 1/2 months). There's very little indication in the edits of this account to show that they are familiar with Wikipedia's standards. [55], [56] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have three questions about Operation Voicer:
  1. Was Operation Voicer created by the editor who is the subject of this discussion?
  2. Did the article violate WP:BLP prior to the editor's contributions to the article?
  3. Would the rest of the article still violate WP:BLP if the sections or paragraphs that "highlighted individual convicted criminals who were not otherwise notable in a way that we would not ordinarily allow" were removed?
  Cunard (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cunard, 1) Yes. 2) They were the only substantial contributor. 3) The main issue was the de facto stubs, but IMO the sourcing questions and issues with mission driven style editing were concerning enough and difficult enough to unpack that the BLP policies allowance for summary deletion and then discussion was warranted. That is to say, in my view the article would have had to be substantially rewritten in order to comply with BLP given the sourcing concerns and issues concerning weight and style. Deletion and recreation if found to be notable to me seemed the best option, and deletion followed by review as allowed by the BLP policy given the rapid creation of new redirects to the mini-articles seemed like the safest course of action. I’m obviously the deleting admin, but MelanieN can give her opinion on it, as she’s been looking at these issues and also has admin goggles. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the explanation. Since no other editors' contributions were deleted, that resolves my concerns about other editors' work being deleted. If the deleted article had the same problems as Kidwelly sex cult before it was significantly trimmed, then deletion is likely fine. Since this editor's contributions to this topic area have been flagged as problematic and to be cautious in ensuring BLP is not violated, I support leaving the article deleted without prejudice against allowing recreation of a new article. Any new article must be sourced to only high quality reliable sources and must comply with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.

      I support MelanieN's approach for these articles: "I also think the intensely detailed information about the perpetrators and their crimes should be trimmed by about 80%. Would I or others be justified in doing major trims on this and similar articles, citing this AN discussion as justification?" Trimming and rewriting is preferable to deletion, but I am also fine with deletion if trimming and rewriting is too much work and "the article would have had to be substantially rewritten in order to comply with BLP given the sourcing concerns and issues concerning weight and style" (quoting from TonyBallioni).

      Cunard (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

      • One could probably do the equivalent of this to the deleted article for similar effect. Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• As requested, I'm putting on my X-ray vision goggles for the deleted article Operation Voicer: Tots created it in June and was the only person who edited it. “Operation Voicer” was a the name of a countrywide 2014 police investigation into child sexual offenses which resulted in ten convictions. The article contained more than 38,000 bytes (!), the bulk of it subsections the size of a small article, detailing everything known about the ten perpetrators. There was what Sarah described as “a focus on salacious details”. It had 27 references, mostly small local papers, but also including the BBC (five separate references) and the Telegraph (two references). Bottom line, this was a significant story in its own right, and it could probably have been rescued - by stripping out the lurid language, the extensive quotes damning the crimes and criminals, and the mini-biographies, while retaining the origin and course of the investigation and the tabular summary of the crimes and sentences. In other words it was an even more lurid version of the Kidwelly article (which still needs work). IMO our way of dealing with such articles is a choice: either delete the article pending a rewrite, or assign somebody (any volunteers?) to go through every article written by Tots, reviewing it and trimming it until it meets Wikpedia standards. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban under WP:NEWBLPBAN for "sexual abuse of minors" proposed

I think there's consensus below (and I don't think this will cause anyone's !vote to look like it was supporting something they didn't actually support), so I'm WP:BOLDly changing the topic of the TBAN to "sexual abuse of minors." creffett (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that the editing by Tots & little ones matter! is problematic for the reasons explained by TonyBallioni and others. I would support a topic ban or block under WP:NEWBLPBAN. The articles will then presumably need manual cleanup. Sandstein 08:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• I would support such a ban immediately after the next time Tots edits in the same fashion. At this point, I suggest giving them some WP:ROPE and let's see what happens now that they've been put through the ringer by this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. This user clearly has an agenda they're trying to push. As they say on their user page, To so many forgotten kids who need to be heard, I want to tell your story. We're an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. My take on most of their comments here is that it's not so much, Educate me about wikipedia's purpose, but, Tell me the minimum I need do to avoid getting my stuff deleted. We don't want to get into a POV-whack-a-mole competition. I also observe that the very first edits this user did was to create a user page with some userboxes. That's usually a hint that this isn't their first wikipedia account. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, and I agree with RoySmith's shrewd remark that "it's not so much, Educate me about wikipedia's purpose, but, Tell me the minimum I need do to avoid getting my stuff deleted". That means their editing is going to continue wasting Wikipedia's most precious resource, which is the time and patience of constructive editors. (There she goes again, like a broken record, but it's the truth!) I also agree that this is surely a sock. Apart from the userbox thing, note their knowledge of Wikipedia, including its history ("SlimVirgin was involved in writing the BLP policy"), quite remarkable for a seven-month-old account. I would not object to a NOTHERE block. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC).

Please see here: "I've written several articles that have featured or good-article status, and I've helped to write three of Wikipedia's content policies—Biographies of living persons, No original research and Verifiability—and several guidelines, including Conflict of interest". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note - the user was given a DS notification on July 26 at 23:26 (UTC) and have since then not edited any BLP related articles (only this noticeboard it seems). I do not think the awareness criteria are met. Am I missing something? --MrClog (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The community can impose a BLP ban regardless of the awareness criteria. This isn’t a NEWBLPBAN. It’s just a BLPBAN as a community sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've struck the reference to WP:NEWBLPBAN above (and in the header, which is not by me). Sandstein 14:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein: It may be a good idea to put something like: "Topic ban regarding sexual abuse of minors" at the top, just to make sure people know we're not talking about a topic ban from BLP pages, but regarding "sexual abuse of minors". --MrClog (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question: if not NEWBLPBAN, could you please make clear what you have in mind for the topic covered by the TBAN? I'd be inclined to make the topic of the TBAN "sexual abuse of minors, broadly construed," but want to make sure we're all on the same page. creffett (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks. I agree that "sexual abuse of minors" is an appropriate scope. "Broadly construed" is superfluous, because WP:TBAN indicates how wide topic bans are. Sandstein 14:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Cool. I added "broadly construed" just because I've seen that language come up before in similar contexts of "what can and can't someone do," thanks for the clarification. 14:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  Whoops, just saw TonyBallioni's comment above about a community-sanctioned BLPBAN. I'm concerned that a BLPBAN is too narrow, since the editor in question has shown interest in cases where the subjects have been deceased for several years. creffett (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Exactly as stated by creffett. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• It's possible a topic ban at this point may be too drastic - vs. an attempt to educate them on what is and is not acceptable here. They are only just now finding out what our problem is with their approach, so a topic ban is in effect punishment for things they did before anyone told them not to. Maybe they could be educated or instructed, to modify their existing articles and any pending new ones to meet our standards, giving them some rope as suggested above. On the other hand, their reactions to this discussion have not been encouraging. They have been narrowly defensive, insisting that there is nothing wrong with their approach and arguing against censorship, so it may be that they are not educable on this issue. They made a comment somewhere about "deplatforming", which suggested to me that they are very familiar with being banned from websites. Count me as neutral/conflicted about a topic ban. If there is one it should not be against BLP material; it should be specifically about things related to child sexual abuse. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Although I said above that their response to this discussion has been discouraging, I should note that they DID request deletion of all those redirects with the names of the perpetrators. Maybe they are capable of learning our limits and staying within them. On the other hand, if they don't, I would favor not a TBAN but rather an indef block for NOTHERE. I am putting them on notice right now that I would institute such a block myself if I find them continuing to push sensationalism and BLP violations after all these warnings. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in WP:ROPE myself. The post above regarding their being issued a DS alert and then refraining from editing BLPs suggests they are capable of responding to perceived criticism (even if in that case with unwarranted abstention). If, however, they're just testing our perimeter boundaries, then, having already received this warning, they'd clearly be NOTHERE and treated accordingly.

Incidentally, just my opinion, but the on the remark about deplatforming: that was hardly our finest hour, since they were immediately responded to—on their own talk page—by being told that Frankly, that's bollocks and you know it is. At which point they were an editor of two months' tenure. I'm saying, I suppose, that while I don't hold out much hope for either their motivation for being here or their long-term response to this discussion, I do think we could probably have approached the issue slightly more adjacently. ——SerialNumber54129 15:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban update. I see a fair amount of redink in their recent edits, which is a sign that they can listen and to some extent learn (considering how quickly a learning curve has been forced upon them). Hopefully, with further education as to what we consider to be reiable sources, and somewhat on the assumption that their use of other accounts was due to ignorance rather than an intent to deceive, I think the issue(s) is well on its way to resolving itself. It's good that they proactively want to change their username, and their shouldn't be any technical problem with doing them so. I note that they've been actively cleaning up after themselves, and, if it hasn't been to extent we would like, that's just part of the curve. And while it woudl be good if they broadenedtheir area of interest—if only because they would interact with more editors and more quickly get a feel for the place than quarrying away in a rather niche market—I don't think this is a particularly bad bit of work in terms of sourcing and NPOV. ——SerialNumber54129 10:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Considering the nature of the edits we're discussing here, prevention is better than ROPE. Wikipedia rightly has rules about being tolerant of mistakes from newer editors and trying to be welcoming, but we shouldn't follow those rules over a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@S Marshall: We're not. I note that WP:PREVENTIONNOTROPE is still a redlink; that's for a reason. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - I don't have much hope in it being abided by but ROPE and all that, There's plenty of articles all of which don't relate to .... that sort of topic. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, whether from BLPs or sexual abuse in general. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward very weak Oppose: I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, the user is wikilawyering, being an SPA, here to right great wrongs, and generally looks like they're NOTHERE. On the other hand, the user has disengaged from their topic editing for a day now, so that's a good start, and I'm wondering if they could become a productive editor in that (very difficult) topic area. As-is, I might be okay with them staying in the topic area on a probation of sorts - they a) are told, very clearly, what is and is not acceptable, b) have someone monitoring or mentoring them, and (optionally) c) consider a username change to something less POV-pushy. If they step out of line again, then I'm all for enacting an immediate TBAN, and if other editors think they've had enough rope already I won't oppose this TBAN, but I wanted to offer an alternative. creffett (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simply looking at the content edits by this contributor, I do not see how their behavior raises to the level of topic ban. For example, someone has removed a lot of content included by the user here, but the content was well sourced and clearly on the subject of the page. That was not a BLP violation, and arguably a content that at least partially could be included on the page, after some discussion. Yes, that was a good renaming of the page and definitely too many detail. However, having that many sourced details is not an outright violation of anything, and personally, I do not think that having so many details is any more problematic than having WP pages about individual buildings, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is disturbing that an article about a police operation into convicted pedophiles has been unilaterally censored and that the creator is being proposed to be blocked from creating or editing further such articles. The content was all directly sourced and the claim of BLP concerns is a nonsense - we have no duty to protect convicted pedophiles from having their crimes written about in detail. This is poor conduct from Tony and Sarah. Restore the article and close this section. Fences&Windows 23:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fences and windows, what is the poor conduct exactly? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You have both used your tools to unilaterally censor verified content, without prior community discussion. Policy does not support you acting to harangue this editor. Fences&Windows 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Tony deleted the article "as an initial step" per WP:BLPDELETE, because there was no earlier version to which he could have reverted: "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." I revdeleted several inappropriate edit summaries. Neither of those acts requires "prior community discussion". No one is haranguing anyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The BLP policy explicitly allows deletion and then discussion in these cases, which is what I did here, and as a whole, the community seems to agree that the pages either need to be rewritten or deleted. The coverage is excessive and undue, violating WP:BLPSTYLE, on what is quite probably the single most sensitive BLP matter we face. Deletion as a first step followed by discussion and review is hardly "poor conduct", it is what the BLP policy would have us do for something this sensitive. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Just as an indication of the mindset Tony was dealing with here: the author had created dozens of redirects, to this article and other, for the otherwise-non-notable perpetrators. And those redirects were not titled with just the name, "John Doe"; they were all titled John Doe (paedophile). Those are all deleted now, but that gives you an idea of the extreme advocacy approach that was being taken here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I just checked pages created by "Tots" and can see that several of them were deleted. Unfortunately, they are unavailable and I therefore can not comment about them. If they were about convicted pedophiles, one could just rename them and nominate for AfD, as they probably were sourced. For remaining pages, I do not see any reason for "speedy". One can nominate them for AfD, but I am sure they would be kept. Do not see any BLP violations in the page Kidwelly sex cult, just a poor initial naming of the page and excessive content. Yes, the page could be improved to comply better with WP:BLPSTYLE. I do not see anything special about these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• MelanieN, you significantly exaggerated the number of redirects I created to sections on abusers. You claimed "the author had created dozens of redirects, to this article and other, for the otherwise-non-notable perpetrators. And those redirects were not titled with just the name, "John Doe"; they were all titled John Doe (paedophile)". Actually, I created around five or six redirects to perpetrators, certainly less than ten. These were to ringleaders such as Michael Emerton. You misrepresented the numbers involved, and you presented this significant exaggeration as "an indication of the mindset Tony was dealing with". Other members may have been misled by you and may have based their judgements of me on your numeric distortions. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, either BLP or sexual abuse I was holding off on this, but I'll spell it out: Tots in an agenda driven editor who is editing in the single most sensitive BLP topic area: child sexual abuse. They have shown thus far they are unable to edit there correctly. We simply do not create articles on every criminal unless their crime is especially notable, which none of these subjects were. Tots found a clever way around that: they create articles within articles and then created redirects to them, effectively circumventing policy. They've since had G7'd the redirects, but their behaviour in this thread is disturbing to say the least: they are WikiLawyering about the BLP policy, and making it clear that they are here for a public advocacy position: saying that exposing the crimes of individuals makes society safer. That is both not the purpose of Wikipedia and not someone we want editing in this subject matter.
  To the comments that don't see pedophilia as having unique BLP concerns even above other crimes I will say this: even convicted murderers are treated better in prisons and in society than pedophiles: no one likes them, including me. Their crimes are horrendous, and they are justly sent to prison for them. Creation of excessively detailed content about non-notable people who have committed crimes of this nature on the world's 5th largest website poses a real risk to their safety and even their possibility of building a life after potential release.
  We absolutely shouldn't white wash their crimes. We should list them simply in the articles and report the details of the criminal proceedings accurately. We should not, however, allow someone who is intent on creating excessively detailed pieces to tell the stories of horrific tragedies to have the chance to do so and to wikilawyer about it. That is a recipe for disaster. If they show they can edit productively in other areas, they can appeal this ban then, but there is simply to much risk to allow them to continue editing in these areas now. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tots made only 300+ edits. So, unless there is an evidence to the opposite, we should assume this is a new user. Did they receive an appropriate warning with explanations? Did they completely ignore the warnings? I agree that we should not create excessive notability/promotion for non-notable people - no matter if they are criminals or not. This is simply per our "five pillars". What can happen with them in prison is not our business and not an argument. As a practical matter, the user has received a DS BLP warning a day ago. If any problems persist, she/he can be topic banned by any individual administrator or reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• "unless their crime is especially notable". Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. If you think a crime or criminal is not notable (despite detailed national press coverage spanning several years), go to AfD. You should not be making decisions like this without discussion. Fences&Windows 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  Except for WP:A7...which if you don't know is "No indication of importance" Primefac (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• ...and the BLP policy explicitly allows for deletion first, followed by discussion when there are severe BLP concerns, which is what happened here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban This editor is clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than write neutral encyclopedic content, and this is leading to serious BLP violations. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - there has been a lot of scrutiny of the editor's editing here, and as yet they have made no further mainspace edits, and seem to be willing to engage and listen. It may be that this intervention is sufficient. I would prefer to assume good faith (and failing that, ROPE). Fish+Karate 11:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fish and Karate. Tots... has not edited in article space since before this thread was opened other than to (a) add categories to some existing redirects and then (b) nominate redirects they created for G7 speedy deletion (all have now been deleted). The categories added were completely appropriate. For now at least they appear to have taken onboard the comments in this thread and so there is no need at this time for a topic ban. If that changes then this can be switfly reconsidered, especially since they are now aware of discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly because this editor had just 300+ before this AN report was filed, and I see not major effort on their talk page to steer them "in the right direction", before this report was filed.

• Also, I think that User:Tots & little ones matter! should seriously consider a name change; their present name make the hair stand up on the heads of most Wikipedians, I fear. (Tots & little ones matter!: check out Wikipedia:Changing username)
• Another thing is that part of the Template:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom is horribly biased. Look at the "Localised grooming" section: everyone of the articles mentioned there involves people from immigrant communities. Every.Single.One. So, "Localised grooming" is never made by (ethnic) British people???? Googeling some of the names that "Tots & little ones matter!" noted ("Robin Hollyson" "Neville Husband" and "Leslie Johnson") tells a very different story, with plenty of WP:RS to back it up. (This, while "Robin Hollyson" has exactly 0 hits on Wikipedia.)
• Conclusion: I think "Tots & little ones matter!" can bring a valuable perspective to this subject, granted that more experienced editors take time to guide her/him through this very sensitive area. (Hint to "Tots & little ones matter!": take a hard look at the articles which are linked under the "Localised grooming" section in Template:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom: there you can see what is acceptable information wrt not violating WP:BLP rules), Huldra (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

One might think that there was an editor who had made it their mission to document every case of sexual abuse by immigrant communities. They just didn't announce it on their user page. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Pages created by Tots were not about "abuse by immigrant communities". Pages noted by Huldra above, such as Aylesbury child sex abuse ring, were created by other users (e.g. User:CurrentUK), and yes, they should be fixed. If the goal by a user X were to document every notable case of a crime (and assuming that the user is following all policies), that would be just fine. Same about a user who would like to document every notable biological species, etc. There is no difference. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes is quite right: Tots did not create any articles about "abuse by immigrant communities"; those articles had been created before Tots joined here. As I tried to say: Tots created articles about "abuse by local ethnic British communities", and that has been an area which for some reason has been totally unreported on Wikipedia, at least judging by the "Localised grooming" section in Template:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. (And no; I find it rather hard to believe that only immigrant communities commit such "local grooming" in Britain.....) Huldra (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was not clear. It was not about Tots. It was about editors who have created a bias in our coverage by focusing on one particular area (grooming by immigrant communities in England) and ignoring other cases. If Tots is sanctioned for their edits, the the edits of any editor particularly active in that area should also be examined. Looking at those articles, it appears that Shakehandsman fits the bill. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to publicly apologize to User:Shakehandsman. I must have gotten myself confused while looking at the redirects Shakehandsman created. The articles about "sex gangs" of Asian immigrants to England were created by User:Vanished user lt94ma34le12, an entirely different, not at all related, completely separate account. In fact, Shakehandsman was on a long wikibreak during almost the entirety of Vanished user lt94ma34le12's editing career and could not have been involved. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per all above. ∯WBG^converse 12:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per all above. Editors should not be able to dictate a user's area of interest/expertise if editors are sticking to Wikipedia rules or attempting to do so. Perhaps there's an issue with a failure to stick to reliable sources etc, but the solution is to give guidance and to give someone who is quite an inexperienced editor ample opportunity to improve the quality of their editing (something that already appears to be happening).Shakehandsman (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Checkuser comment: Please see my post below. Risker (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Paedophile redirects issue

The redirects created by Tots such as Bruce Child (paedophile) have been deleted rather than renamed. I think from the discussion above it is clear that article titles which label someone as a paedophile are not acceptable. Here's a short list of existing redirects:

• Alan Webster (paedophile)
• Carl Beech (paedophile)
• Angela Allen (paedophile)
• Swirly faced paedophile
• Vico (pedophile)

I have to say I am not sure about the last two since they are not the person's real name. The Carl Beech (paedophile) may be worth looking into more closely since it points to one of Tots' articles. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. IMO these should all be speedy deleted, but they don't fit any of the standard CSD criteria and per the rules should be RFD'ed instead. I guess since they have been around this long another week won't hurt. BTW the Carl Beech redirect was not created by Tots. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have RfD'ed them all. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of these seem to be heading for deletion rather than renaming to something more acceptable. This is unusual because we already have a large number of redirects based on the names of convicted persons in child sexual abuse cases. Should we be looking at those redirects as well? Bitter Oil (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

New accounts created by Tots & little ones matter!

I was asked to check an account that has newly entered the fray indirectly, and discovered that Tots & little ones matter! has created two new accounts. I note that Tots had made a request to change username and one of the accounts is the new username requested, which was promptly used to contact a user on their user talk with reference to the discussion above. The other account has not yet edited. Both have been indefinitely blocked per usual practice. I am going to leave it to the community to decide if further action needs to be taken with respect to Tots. Risker (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, looking through the contributions and Risker's block log, I thought this was a legitimate use of alternate accounts, but She didn't go forward with the name change, and then posted on a user who would likely be sympathetic to the Tot's account and canvassed them to the discussion without disclosing they were the editor being discussed for sanctioning. That is pretty clear intent to deceive. Additionally, we have the creation of a second sleeper account with no clear relationship to the master. While this account hadn't edited, the addition of another account on top of the canvass sock doesn't look good, and is in my view, a violation of WP:ILLEGIT. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Tony, you failed to indicate in your comment below that it was you who initially linked to the policy section WP:ILLEGIT in your earlier comment above. That's how I knew about it when I provided my explanation. You even presented my ability to read the policy you cited, to realise that it included a legitimate reason for changing an account name, and to refute your allegation, as a blocking justification, when it so obviously is not. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The Lioness account is definitely canvassing, but I suspect the second account is/was going to be used to test an issue at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple - you'll see that the original user had a couple of issues with the username change request bot, I'm thinking they were trying to see whether it was the ampersand causing the problems. creffpublic, a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment You are correct, creffpublic. When I logged in for the first time in days, I found many new messages telling me to change my username, including new advice about the Changing username procedure. Under intense pressure, and having just learned of this procedure, I decided to change it immediately.

When I tried to follow the recommended Changing username procedure, I was unable to do so because the robot clerk wrongly blocked my username change, for this incorrect reason:

Robot clerk note: The request was made by [[User:Tots & little ones matter!|]], not Tots & little ones matter!; please login as Tots & little ones matter! to request a name change.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 01:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

From the source of the message, I hypothesised it could be failing because the robot clerk couldn't handle the ampersand (&) character in my username. The robot seemed to be treating my ampersand (&) character as "&".

The request was made by [[User:Tots & little ones matter!|]], not [[User:Tots & little ones matter!|Tots & little ones matter!]]; please login as Tots & little ones matter!

Checking this hypothesis was the sole purpose of my Ampersand & experiment alleged "sleeper" account. The only way I could find out whether my belief about the ampersand character was correct was by requesting for it to be changed to a different username, also containing an ampersand (&) character. I was planning to leave a note explaining this with the request, and then potentially a second note to the human clerk, asking for the ampersand (&) issue to be fixed. I was preparing a detailed description of the issue when my Ampersand & experiment account was blocked.

My only reason for my communicating with Shakehandsman was because while I was logged in, the following message appeared about them:

Sorry if my comment was not clear. It was not about Tots. It was about editors who have created a bias in our coverage by focusing on one particular area (grooming by immigrant communities in England) and ignoring other cases. If Tots is sanctioned for their edits, the the edits of any editor particularly active in that area should also be examined. Looking at those articles, it appears that Shakehandsman fits the bill. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The top of the edit page for this admin noticeboard bears the message "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." While views may differ about whether a discussion about this user had technically started yet, it nevertheless seemed appropriate to provide this user with the following notification:

Hi Shakehandsman,

In an administrator's discussion about banning a user, this was written about you:

If Tots is sanctioned for their edits, the the edits of any editor particularly active in that area should also be examined. Looking at those articles, it appears that Shakehandsman fits the bill.

As a member of the Wikipedia community, you are entitled and encouraged to share your views in this discussion.

I legitimately believed this was too urgent to wait to for someone to resolve my technical difficulties with changing my username. My existing username was causing me enormous problems and I never wanted to use it again.

The proposal for blocking me seems to have been based on the following sentence in WP:ILLEGIT:

Based on the comment above by TonyBallioni referring to WP:ILLEGIT, I would surmise the proposal for blocking me was based on the following sentence in that policy:

While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

One such legitimate circumstance is:

• Username violations: If you are blocked for having an inappropriate username, and that is the sole reason for the block, you are permitted to create a new account with an appropriate username.

Although technically I wasn't blocked for an inappropriate username, it was nevertheless a major factor in the proposed topic ban against me. This falls within the likely intention of this legitimate use.

To summarise, I faced technical difficulties that other users do not face while I was under intense pressure to change my username. I tried to understand what was going on because I wanted it fixed ASAP. Then I noticed that a user may need to be immediately informed about what could soon become an extremely serious discussion about them. This required quick action. I did not have the luxury of waiting for someone to resolve the technical difficulties with my new username and I was unwilling to use my old one ever again. These are undeniably exceptional circumstances. It was a good faith effort to do no more than what I legitimately believed was expected of me and the right thing to do. It was very different from a routine breach or from bad faith deception.

Changing my username the normal way was, for exceptional reasons that were totally outside my control, impossible. Blocking me because of how I reacted would mean permanently banning a user for:

• Reasonably, in good faith, trying to help with fixing a software defect in Wikipedia that was extremely problematic.
• Quickly notifying a user about something serious affecting them that they could legitimately consider a genuine emergency and probably ought to have been told about.
• On the mere technicality of my inappropriate username resulting in warnings rather than a block.

I am forced to sign with a username I don't want: Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Risker, question: did your CU come up with any other indications of socking/past accounts? A few people have suggested that this isn't this user's first account, so I'm curious if you saw anything to support that. creffett (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a wall of text up above. I'm not buying the product - the "easy" way would have been to submit the username using the little box on the page, rather than going to the simple change page - but it does not surprise me that the bot would have problems with the name. (It's not the ampersand, it's the exclamation point at the end. It's a known issue, and it's why human beings need to do the work rather than bots.) If Tots is serious about changing account names, I'd suggest reaching out to a global renamer who has admin permissions on this project; there are a few of them.

More specifically answering Creffett's question, checkuser data only goes back 3 months, and the Tots account is much older than that. There are pretty clear signs it's not a first account, but the original account could have been retired months or even years before, and there would be no CU connection. The range on which this account edits is very busy with many registered accounts and IP edits, but there were no other likely socks in the range. Risker (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of global renamers? I have been advised on my talk page to wait until all of these discussions are closed before considering changing my username. After that, depending on the outcome, it may be appropriate for me to contact them. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Risker, I'm unsure which "little box" you meant when you wrote "the "easy" way would have been to submit the username using the little box on the page". To change my username, I started here, and I tried to use the simple page because I thought clicking on the word simple would be easiest. The only little box I can see there is the one I actually did use – the blue button I clicked on which says "Click here to request a username change". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Risker has since written on my Talk page: "I was mistaken in thinking that there was an interface that allowed you to directly request a username change right from the Wikipedia:Changing username page; I think it had been there in the past and I simply forgot that it's been updated." Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Risker, thanks for the reply and the sock check. Wasn't aware of the 3 month limitation on the data, that's good to know. creffett (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Noting here that I've provided further information to Tots directly on their talk page, so as not to further clutter up this discussion. Risker (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

I was pretty "meh" about the TBan: either we gained a editor who, having undergone a renaissance, as it were, became a productive editor in a difficult area; or, being unable to bear not editing the only thing they clearly want to, would breach it soon enough and we'd be here anyway.

But Risker's findings, in my view, make that now an otiose discussion. This is no longer about the users competence, their name or their intentions, but about their trustworthiness. Which they have just lost. They not only have all the issues for which they were about to be topic banned, but they are willing to deceive the community in order to continue to be allowed to do so. No thanks: S.O. if they can persuade the community that they can edit productively in six months and with no further socking. ——SerialNumber54129 07:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. ——SerialNumber54129 07:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Creating an account under a desired new user name is the kind of minor error that all editors, and especially new ones make. I can't see any good reason for creating the second new account. As serious concerns have been expressed about this editor's conduct and there is every indication that they are a SPA, this suggests that they are trying to evade scrutiny to continuing their problematic editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Indef block is insufficient for such behavior. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban which just means that they have to appeal the indef to AN. Sorry, but the failure to disclose that they were the account under discussion is both an obvious canvass violation and a clear use of deception. The sleeper account makes this worse. That combined with the other issues makes this a pretty clear choice, in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Tots has explained their second and third accounts in the time since this proposal was made (and after all but Tony made their position known). @Serial Number 54129, Nick-D, Softlavender, and TonyBallioni: if this does not change your opinion of the matter, please indicate as such. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, my position is the same. A user who canvasses another user they believe would be sympathetic to them to a ban discussion without indicating that they are in fact the user under discussion is acting deceptively. The point of policy is not that using more than one account in inherently bad, it is that deception by creating the impression that there are multiple people is not okay. The question is whether or not they were trying to deceive here, and I think it is fairly clear that the lack of disclosure was intended.
    Tots is clearly not a new account to begin with (I think Bish mentioned this above), and they WikiLawyer better than anyone I've seen in a while. That someone can post a 7,000 byte explanation of their actions linking to policy sections and not know that posting under a new name and not saying it is you while canvassing someone is deceptive is beyond belief for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Linking to policy sections? Have you forgotten that you posted the link to WP:ILLEGIT. Then I studied the section and copied and pasted your link into my comment. You have an astonishingly selective memory.Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Tots & little ones matter!, please don't engage in personal attacks (your whole response was pretty aggressive, but You have an astonishingly selective memory was completely uncalled for, and several of your comments to TonyBallioni have similarly been problematic). Your confrontational attitude isn't doing you any favors with the people who are arguing that you could be a productive editor. If you keep it up you'll probably earn a block for the personal attacks. creffett (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My position remains the same. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Likewise. There are just too many problems with this person's engagement with Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Notice: A “community block” is a siteban. See WP:CBAN: Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Just so. ——SerialNumber54129 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the mistakes this new user has made are worthy of an indefinite cban either individual or in combination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A new user does not create a user page as their first edit, use descriptive edit summaries and understand how our sourcing templates work, know that you can wikilink in edit summaries, or create perfectly formatted new articles without a single issue with the wikitext. The odds of them actually being a new user are exceptionally low to begin with. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't fault your analysis, but I also don't think that it's significant whether or not the user is actually new. It could be a user who had an account a long time ago and opted for a clean start, or a former IP editor, or even someone who just likes reading policies (I myself am an example of the first and third). Just because they are familiar with some policies doesn't mean they know all of them, I'm still learning new rules all the time even after ~4 months of activity. That's why I'm willing to write off the alternate account issues and canvassing as a genuine misunderstanding. Also, even if they were a veteran editor, their explanation so far is sufficient that I think I would would oppose a siteban. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • creffett, just pointing out that even if the justification for this was a clean start, they would be in violation of the clean start policy by immediately returning to the most sensitive editing topic we have. This account is a second account, and when I created it the clean start policy hadn't been created yet and the sock policy looked like this. I'm very sympathetic to people creating second accounts for valid reasons, but my point here is that we the main reason for opposing is "they're new, they didn't know." Well, they're obviously not new, and they have an extensive understanding of policy that could rival many admins.
        The simple question is this: why would they request someone to comment on a ban of an account they intended to abandon if they actually intended to abandon it? It makes no sense, and the newbie mistakes look almost purposeful so they could make an excuse on the off chance they were discovered. The story they are telling just doesn't add up. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Tony, you have been pushing this allegation of me coming here with "an extensive understanding of policy that could rival many admins" for some time now. You have been misleading the community, by for instance, failing to indicate in this comment that it was you who initially linked to the policy section WP:ILLEGIT in this comment, which is how I became aware of it. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I was referencing the totality of your editing history, not just the comments above, such as the time you referenced WP:LIMITED an obscure ALLCAPS in a supplement to the copyright policy within two weeks of creating an account: [57] as well as the other diffs I showed above. That's not misleading people, that's pointing out that your actions are very unlikely to be those of a new user. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
            • You failed to mention that I was told on my Talk page two days beforehand "You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy". I certainly wanted to. On that page, the close paraphrasing link is under the Advice heading in the box on the right, which I believe is where I found it. I definitely wanted to read some advice. I know the section "When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing" caught my attention because I was struggling with this very problem. That is where I found WP:LIMITED. In the days before, I had been playing around a bit with copying and pasting text from the source of articles and Previewing the result. Copying and pasting link items is easy because there is very little to it. It wasn't the steep learning curve you are making it out to be. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

        TonyBallioni: thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of the contentious topics part of that policy (like I said...learning new things all the time!). The newbie mistakes don't seem intentional to me (and intentionally making mistakes like that just to provide a newbie defense, while certainly possible, seems like a stretch to me). Not saying you're wrong, just making clear how things look to me. creffett (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I feel like AGF has gone out the window here. While I am suspicious of the wikilawyering, everything this user has done seems like it is within the bounds of reasonable new user misunderstandings and mistakes. A siteban is disproportionate, especially considering that the user explained the multi-account situation and provided a believable explanation for their actions. As I suggested before, I want to see probation and mentoring, not a banhammer. creffett (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Creffett - I think we're rushing headlong into a siteban and getting things out of proportion. This is an editor who has done some valuable content work and I think the confusion over the username change is a plausible explanation for the new accounts.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think there was no indication the user was trying to deceive. No edits were made from "Ampersand & experiment" (please note the name: an "experiment"), and she openly posted a request to change username, exactly as recommended. Some comments are problematic, but is not a valid reason for indeff in my opinion. There is no consensus even for a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Maybe I'm just gullible but I buy the username issue I genuinely do .... however I don't buy the deceptive account nor do I buy that they're a new user - Given the problmeatic editing, the problematic redirects and the deception IMHO they should be sitebanned. –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I declined to support the topic ban until Tots continued to edit in the same manner as before, but these new revelations just pushed al my AGF out the door. Obviously an editor with a previous account, obviously an SPA here to right great wrongs, obviously willing to circumvent rules to get what they want - a very bad combination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose pr Creffett, ok, so call me naive, but where on earth did WP:AGF go? Also, User:Risker: I feel a bit guilty for steering Tots to the Wikipedia:Changing username page, without detailing to them "how" to proceed.

  And the argument against Tots are ...confusing, to say the least. (At least to me!) On one hand they are accused of not being not here to build an encyclopedia, instead being here "on a mission". On the other hand, some claim they are not a "new editor", while at the very same time not indicating who they were before. Anyone being a Zealot in such a sensitive area would surely easily be recognised? This just doesn't add up to me,

  (Also, registering with a username which any Wikipedian who has been around a while would know with 100% certainty would raise eyebrows.....that does not indicate an "experienced Wikipedian" to me.) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment; Tots publicly asked to change their username to MamaLion / MamaLioness, and was denied on a technicality. Then they went ahead in any case and created User:MamaLioness, which was promptly blocked as a sock. If Tots had actually meant to deceive the community, then they deserve an award for "The most clueless sock master of the decade". The alternative is of course that they just screwed up, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  It seems that they came here with a misunderstanding of how to write a Wikipedia article/what Wikipedia wants from articles, but that's the sign of a new editor not of a sockmaster. Everything in this thread is consistent with a user who wants to learn and so reads the advice they're given and the policies, etc. linked from them. Yes they still want to add material in this topic area to Wikipedia but they want do it work with (not against) Wikipedia to do it, yet they are simultaneously charged with knowing too much of the rules and too little of the rules. When they encounter something that is obviously an error their first reaction isn't to give up but to try and understand what the problem is so they can rectify it or work around it. This is exactly the sort of thing that developers want in bug reports - not just a "this broke something" but "I attempted to do X, I expected Y but got Z. Further experimentation showed that the core issue is M and then sequence to reproduce is A, B, C. " Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• I will note that they have just now done a trim on the article Norwich sexual abuse ring, taking out a lot of the detail about the perpetrators, biographical information etc. They did a good job on that part. However, they left in some lurid descriptions of the sexual abuse, which I have now trimmed. Maybe they can get the message that articles on this subject will be OK if they do not include mini-articles about the perpetrators or salacious details about their crimes. If so, IMO they may be salvageable as an editor here. It will still need someone to check their work. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have studied your edit to Norwich sexual abuse ring and this is exactly the sort of useful example of what to leave out that I could have done with a long time ago. Before the discussion about my articles on this AN page, no one ever said there was any issue with summaries describing the crimes. Neither had I come across any policy against this. I did try to look into censorship and age classification and during my searches I found WP:CENSORSHIP, which did not suggest there would be any issue with such summaries. However, it is very apparent in this discussion that there is a clear consensus against including such shocking, triggering or "lurid" details. From now on, I will leave them out. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I also trimmed Berkhamsted paedophile network. It has no more subsections about individuals and it has names of crimes rather than summaries.Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support and not just meh-ish. There are too many problems here, and the user page, "I want to tell your story", spells NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore. I did that page six months ago and I had not being paying attention to it until now. I have already being trying to change my username from Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly improving and trying to listen to others' concerns. ∯WBG^converse 10:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose At this point it seems unclear to me what some of the people in this thread actually want from the user, other than them to be blocked. Obviously they have an area they are deeply interested in, and clearly they jumped the gun when they began editing. But since then all they've done is listen to criticism, attempt to learn the rules, and fumble with our incredibly arcane conflict and username resolution processes. The fact that the clearly obvious test username was portrayed as some sort of deep covert plot to establish a sleeper account is a pretty big sign that y'all need to take a step back here, because you're in hammer looking for nails territory. Parabolist (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• I was close to supporting this, but I'm gonna say Oppose per recent comments, particularly from Winged Blades of Godric. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

The commentary appears to be winding down, so I'd appreciate a neutral editor/admin to look at closing this. I'm involved in the debate and therefore clearly not neutral, but here's my read on the major questions:

• The TBAN proposal fell by the wayside after a CBAN was proposed (as far as I can tell, the !votes stopped after Risker's CU comment which in turn led to the CBAN proposal), so that should either be dropped or reopened following closure of the CBAN.
• The proposed CBAN appears to be no-consensus; while one side or the other may have a small majority in terms of raw number of !votes (I haven't actually run the numbers, but my quick eyeball of !vote count is "roughly equal) I don't think that there is enough of a margin to call it a consensus.
• I believe there is consensus that T&LOM needs to change the level of detail they're including in articles and stop using Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Additionally, I think there would be consensus to ban if the editor does not improve their behavior (based on several comments about WP:ROPE).
• As for the actual reason this thread started (TonyBallioni's original deletion), as far as I can tell the consensus was that the original deletion followed by review was reasonable, but I'm not sure what the consensus is on restoring the article.

^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As the editor being discussed, I have read the comments very carefully and found conflicting views by others (not me) on most issues. I am doubtful of Creffpublic's conclusion declaring a "consensus to ban if the editor does not improve". Some editors unconditionally opposed a topic ban (saying nothing about ROPE) and some opposed the article's deletion. The ROPE comments seem to be exclusively in the topic ban discussion and nowhere else. I would advise anyone thinking of reading every oppose vote looking for conditionality to allow themselves plenty of time to read through it all. It is a very long and complex discussion. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on closing this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guidance requested for what should be included in this type of article

I am in need of consensus about how much detail about the actual abuse should be included in these articles about child sexual abuse. At the article Norwich sexual abuse ring, Tots! trimmed the excess material about the perpetrators, because this discussion warned them about BLP issues regarding the perps. But they left in all the detail in the section “abuse”. I felt the section had way too much detail about the acts, so I trimmed that section from nine sentences to three: [58] User:My very best wishes didn’t agree with my trimming; see the article’s talk page. MVBW pointed out that the material is sourced, and said that level of detail is necessary and that there is "nothing sensational or salacious about it." I argued that just because something is sourced doesn’t mean we have to include it, and that “salacious details about how to abuse children” don’t belong in an encyclopedia. I'm coming here for opinions about how to handle this kind of information. The two versions of the section can be compared in the diff above. I think a consensus here is needed so that Tot! can know what is expected of them - since one of the main complaints against them has been the type of content they are putting in these articles. They are looking for guidance what they have to do to make articles that are acceptable to Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not object to trimming by MelanieN. I just think this contend could/should be worded differently. Regardless, this is a content issue to be decided on article talk pages or by posting an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

the key necessity is to give good links to more detailed information that people can follow if they wish to. Pur articles are intended to be summaries. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Should certain facts (X,Y,Z) about a criminal case be included on the page? That depends on the coverage in RS about the case, i.e. this should be decided per WP:NPOV on article talk page. The included details will be very different for different cases. There is nothing to discuss here really. If I wanted to change something, I would suggest specific changes on the article talk page. But I did not. This is simply not a subject of my interest. My very best wishes (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement about how to word the material; it about what kind of material to include. It is an attempt to give guidance to Tots! about what kind of content is and is not acceptable in an article. I read the discussion above as saying that one of the problems we have with Tots! is the inclusion of sensational and salacious detail; is that an issue or is it not? If this discussion does not belong here, I would ask for input on the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I started new thread about it [59]. "Salacious" is a personal judgement (nothing in this story about torturing and destroying the children seems salacious to me) and not a policy-based argument. "Sensational" is actually an indication of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I will change my username after this discussion is fully closed. I have created a new trimmed Operation Voicer draft. Has this draft been reasonably improved? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Given no objections here during almost a day, I checked the new version of the page, corrected it slightly and recreated, just to save some time. It has no any obvious BLP violations I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Log redaction for the titles of the problem redirects?

I've just closed some of the WP:RFD discussions on the redirects discussed above as "delete" and when looking at the redirects I wondered if owing to the BLP concerns a Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction would be appropriate to remove the problematic titles. I don't dabble in non-copyright revision deletions often so I am not sure about whether this is something we do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the redirects closed in that discussion were created by someone else. I had seen them in categories I was adding to, so I did not realise there could be any problem with me creating similar redirects. The small number of redirects I created, I deleted very soon after creating them, so mine were never discussed there. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but since these redirects were discussed in this thread, I figured this would be the right place to ask (I don't use IRC or mailing lists). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Mosques in Iran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Template:Mosques in Iran is English in alphabet has a problem.I request to be Ordering. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, please stop. This page doesn't handle issues of this nature. Use the article's (or the Template's) talk page, and explain exactly what is wrong so people can understand. Or fix it yourself, if you are able to and if you are sure of your fix. Issues like this do not belong on the Administrators' noticeboard and you need to stop bringing these issues here. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Managers do not use robots? User:Yamla M.k.m2003 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. --Yamla (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Yamla M.k.m2003 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the articles he is creatig, see his talk page. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller I am a user of the history area and I cannot provide any more؟؟ https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/m.k.m2003 M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban from article creation

This user's talk page has a significant number of unaddressed concerns about inappropriate article creations. Not a single one I looked at even attempted to address WP:NOTE. I believe this user is acting in good faith, but I also believe they have a hard time communicating in English and I believe they fundamentally do not understand what is required in order to create a new article. I therefore propose: M.k.m2003 is topic banned from article creation (broadly construed, including drafts, for any subject matter) indefinitely. This topic ban can be appealed in six months. --Yamla (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from article creation Doug Weller talk 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from article creation CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, unfortuanetly. Yes, he seems to not understand English very well, and yes, he has an account over at the farzi Wikipedia where he communicates quite well [60]

That said, he's been blocked on commons for using multiple accounts, and he was spoken to by more than one user in farzi over there [61]. Hate to see someone blocked, but , it looks like it's justified. Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CIR, noting My very best wishes' notability caveat below. Miniapolis 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. These historical Mosques are arguably more notable than something like Camp Springs House or Bryantsville United Methodist Church. Unless there is a policy or consensus somewhere about pages describing individual buildings, I do not think such topic ban would be justifiable. As about the template, yes, it does not seem very helpful and could be a subject of AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that I'm not claiming the mosques themselves are insufficiently notable, only that the articles about the mosques fail to establish notability. --Yamla (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

True. A lot of these pages are essentially unsourced and are only linked to a strange file. The creator must fix it. If they refuse or fail to do it, I think a short-term topic ban could be in order. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think some time should be given to the contributor to fix it. I am not sure this is an obvious case of WP:CIR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The first warning of these concerns was on June 3, 2019. There have been approximately 30 warnings. I don't think time is going to fix the problem here, but the user is certainly free to request the TBAN be lifted, if it is imposed, or to argue here that it doesn't need to be imposed. --Yamla (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Those were not warnings about problematic behavior, but suggestions to improve pages they created. I checked several such pages and found that the user did follow these suggestions, and improved referencing (see Atashgah castle, etc.). Unfortunately, I do not know Arabic and Farsi and can not assess reliability of these sources. I should WP:AGF, but ... A lot of references are made to Encyclopaedia of the Iranian Architectural History, which is an online database on Farsi. The linking probably qualifies as link spam (compressed Excel files of uncertain content). Some references look like ones by tourist agencies (an advertisement). Yet others are probably fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons give. But I have a particular concern that the editor in question just won't understand the TBAN, so we are creating an indirect indef. That may be unavoidable, but some very short, sweet, language if'when the block is introduced should be given. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi I recently provided some Sources for Iranian mosques, is it okay? .Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• A suggestion. I would suggest a more narrowly defined topic ban, i.e. the user should be able to submit drafts for reviewing by other users. That would not make any harm. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I do politely suggest if the draft articles generally fail the process, we may end up back here. But hey, it's a decent compromise with a much clearer path forward. --Yamla (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Based on their responses on my talk page [62], the user is not really "WP:CIR". The key is providing the referencing and substantial sourced information about the Mosques, such as their history and why they are notable. Failing that, a page should not be created. But we can not exclude non-English language sources and should generally WP:AGF here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes I have a little trouble in English and apologize for making mistakes. M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If so, can you try to improve pages that you have created already? What they usually need is a sourced text (even a very brief one) that explains the history of the Mosque and why it is notable/interesting. Given their rich history, this should not be a problem. Yeh, this is shame. I checked Google translation from the Iranian wikiversion, and it does provide some info. You must find someone proficient in English to fix it, but this will not be me, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It's about talk me or the stuff I'm the creator

My very best wishes: This is the kind of argument you make no sense at all, do you want to punish me or do you want me to do better?

I want you to do better, but you must prove that you can improve content and sourcing of pages that you already created. This is not at all obvious. If you can not do it, these pages can be deleted and I would have to agree with people who are citing WP:CIR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel request

An IP added a series of accusations against a name individual into Nightforce Optics back in May ([63]). Another IP removed most of it today, which is saw when patrolling recent changes. I have removed the remainder. I wonder if it should be revdel'd? (Note: more on the talk page; I have tagged that for deletion as there was nothing else there.) Dorsetonian (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Revdeled Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dorsetonian: Just so you know, it's somewhat preferable to contact one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, rather than to post here; AN gets a lot of traffic, so you may end up drawing attention to something that should be hidden. Not a particularly big deal, but something to keep in mind for next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

Support

AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, SilkTork, Worm That Turned

Recused

Joe Roe

Inactive

Callanecc

For the Arbitration Committee, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

"That escalated quickly" ——SerialNumber54129 10:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for the content of a deleted page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would a kind admin please send the content of (the deleted) Draft:Peter Hantz to the email or wikipedia msg of user:Peter.hantz (or to me if his account is not known, as I've been contacted through OTRS)? Thank you for your help! --grin ✎ 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strang user

As Ali Nejati was arrested in Iran, Fredrick eagles created an account and started to edit and created articles related to Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane Mill Labor Syndicate and now he is not active! Is not against "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" or running the PROPAGANDA. I think that it is needed to report this contribution. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Fredrick eagles hasn't edited since early February, while Ali Nejati was arrested in 2016, so what's new? The redacted edits sure don't help. El_C 09:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for the mistake.on 18 November 2018, Esmail Bakhshi was arrested along with 18 other workers, following a 14-day rally by the workers of the Haft Tappeh Sugarcane factory. Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi, and Sepideh Gholian are connected to Haft Tappeh Sugar Cane Mill Labor Syndicate. My mean that when there were some protests about Haft Tappeh, a user start to create and edit Haft Tappeh related articles then be de-active. I guess it is not usual.Thanks for attention!Saff V. (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Okay, but I'm still not sure what sort of administrative intervention you were hoping for here. El_C 10:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I just report, It is an administrative decision but is it possible to block the IP belongs to this user?Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is now stale. There's no immediate issues for us to deal with. Re-report if it proves otherwise. El_C 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Winkelvi: request return to editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Winkelvi — JFG ^talk 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Would like for the community to consider an overturn of my site ban. Since I know many have watchlisted this talk page, would appreciate comments (from legitimate accounts) re: the request from any and all so inclined. This includes editors I may have previously requested to not post in this userspace. Sincerely, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is backwards. If you want to ask that your ban be lifted, you need to explain why it should be, i.e., what's changed since it was imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. My error.

Well, to start with, I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive to the continued development of articles in the encyclopedia. I believe I am a good editor, have a lot to offer in the way of attention to detail, a good instinct for copyediting, and am a decent wordsmith with a good eye for what needs to be "Wikified". I'm also good at adding meaningful photos to articles, having added to and edited hundreds of images for Wikipedia purposes via Commons over the last half-dozen years (give or take). That's the good.

The bad: In my past editing, too much attention paid to the actions of others, which clouded my judgment and created bad relations between me and other editors as well as a bad reputation. Being unfocused on my real purpose for being here (improving Wikipedia) allowed me to make grave errors (which ultimately became my demise with the community ban) that hurt everyone in my path. Moreover, such behavior was detrimental to doing the things in Wikipedia I'm good at (article editing, adding content, improving the encyclopedia). Which ended up being a burden on pretty much everyone - even those who didn't realize it, because by becoming the focus of too many AN, AN/I, and 3RR discussions, I was taking admins and editors away from doing what we are all supposed to be focused on: improving Wikipedia content.

What's changed: My entire attitude toward editing, what I want to edit, what I want to be involved with. My attitude is this:

1 - Just edit/add content/create articles.

2 - Stay away from personality conflicts and avoid dissention/irritating other editors at all cost.

3 - Don't get bogged down or distracted by Wikipedia politics. Unless you're an admin or a 'crat, it really doesn't matter to small-fry such as myself. Editing is the thing, not the other stuff.

What I intend to edit: happy, meaningful stuff. Celebrity articles (happy stuff), destination articles (happy stuff), history articles (meaningful), military-related articles (meaningful), music articles (meaningful and happy). There are likely other "happy/meaningful" article categories I haven't mentioned here, not trying to limit myself by not mentioning them.

What I'm no longer interested in: Current politics. It's just so divisive and creates ugliness all around. I have no stomach for it any longer. It's a trigger for people. Triggering = stress. For everyone in the vicinity. Just not interested in going there any longer.

From what I can tell, that covers it. If anyone feels I've left something out that I need to address, let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who has witnessed the drama surrounding Winkelvi in prior years, I welcome his candid approach to articulating what went wrong, and would support his return to editing. I would further advise Winkelvi, if he is allowed back, not to restrict himself to arbitrary topics, but to apply his renewed non-conflictual approach to any topic he feels like contributing to in the future. The small print: I seem to remember Winkelvi being male, and thus I addressed him this way, but if I have made the wrong assumption, I apologize. FWIW I'm male. — JFG ^talk 00:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive"

Support We don't care. Reassure us that the negatives will have gone away. That's the bit we care about.

Otherwise I'd support an unblock, per WP:ROPE. I'd also point out that your indef block actually links to a dispute at a "happy stuff" celebrity article. It was an editorial dispute, not a content area dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can see you don't care why I want to return - fair enough. I made that statement because I want the community to know the only reason I want to return, that there's no desire or plan for disruption, vendettas, revenge, anything like that. Which, if memory serves, ends up being something editors express worry over when lifting a community ban is considered. In other words, I stated my reason for wanting to return first in order to allay anyone's worry that I might be harboring a grudge and have some secret plan to settle scores, play games, or cause havoc of any kind. I've seen returning editors do that - I think we all have at one time or another. As far as you wanting to make sure the negatives have gone away, I believe I did address the negatives. If you need something more specific, please let me know what that specific is. As far as the indef, please take a look at the block log where it clearly states the indef was due to an interaction ban, not an editorial dispute: "03:25, November 1, 2018 Ritchie333 talk contribs blocked Winkelvi talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violation of interaction ban : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=715333046 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=866635941)" -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

By "editorial dispute" I mean a dispute with an editor, and a particular editor, over the expression of material in an article. i.e. an article that's not in a political or contentious area. So even within "happy stuff", there's still that risk.

I have no wish to weaponise ROPE. But it's a safeguard for the rest of us that if you return to editing, and this were unfortunately to editing in a past and problematic style, then the block could be restored before there was too much disruption caused. It would be up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - good editor, no reason to think he won't fulfill his pledge. The "Rope" bit gives me pause because of its potential to be weaponized. Just lift the block and let's move on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• This editor should not be allowed to edit again. Besides being completely incapable of applying Wikipedia policy on issues in American politics and showing an inability to distinguish fact from fiction (it's still glued in my mind how Winkelvi refused to accept the basic uncontested-outside-of-rightwing-la-la-land fact that Trump had implemented a family separation policy, countless RS were thrown at him/her which stated it and explained, and MelanieN actually bothered to painstakingly explain it to Winkelvi step-by-step[64], and none of it without any success), the editor stalked those who he brushed up against in American politics editing and sought to sabotage pages unrelated to American politics that those editors edited as part of a harassment campaign. The editor made suggestions his/her editing behavior would improve after getting blocked and warned by admins[65], yet was immediately back to his/her bad ways.[66] So, not only was the editing horrendous (I can only comment on this user's edits in American politics) but there were serious behavioral problems. Judging by the history, if allowed to edit again and despite the promises of good behavior, the editor will undoubtedly get riled up about something on Sean Hannity's show, try to correct the fake news media content on Wikipedia, and hound editors when he/she inevitably ends up in the fringe minority on every content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  How about tuning down the vitriol and giving peace a chance? — JFG ^talk 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Well that's a concern, certainly (and I know even less about US politics, so I haven't been watching this). Do you think that there's a credible path here where Winkelvi manages to: 1. avoid disputes with editors and 2. avoid US politics beyond the bounds of their knowledge, where we could all be happy?

  Per ROPE, as noted, I'm not too worried about an angry dispute with a single editor: we would be able to limit the effects of such a dispute rapidly and with enough containment that cleanup is manageable. But competence on a subject is more of a problem: WP doesn't measure this or regard it highly, so a subject-naive editor can erode a large number of articles in a very gradual manner and there's no way to stop them. It's very hard to sanction an editor if all their edits simply make everything a little bit worse (in my own fields, nearer to engineering, there are a couple of names which make my heart sink whenever I see them, but there's nothing I can do about it). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  My years of experience in Wikipedia have shown me it's not unusual that editors working strictly with political articles will, when faced with opposition to content and wording dispute from the other side of their own political and ideological mindset, frequently pull the competency card (along with others). That's a claim pretty much standard in political arguments, in Wikipedia as well as real life, social media, and so on. The editor above who is calling into question my competency in editing would be hard-pressed to find editors outside of political editing to call that into question. I always strove for neutrality in political articles, and that was frequently the dispute SS and I tangled in - also not unusual for the American political divide. One sees neutrality the other sees bias. Even if what he is saying were accurate, I've noted in my original statement that my intent is to steer clear of political articles and I gave exact reasons why: it stirs up dissent and division. Hope this clears up the question of my competency in editing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  My general impression was you mostly argued against posting of current, oftentimes trival latest news clips in an effort to keep political articles from turning into coatracks. Since most of the Ampol articles on current issues/persons are about as fun as scrubbing baked birdshit off the roof of a car, I'd simply edit elsewhere..at least for a while.--MONGO (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, as such content, in my opinion, lent itself to bias for the reader since it frequently encourages confirmation bias. Anymore, I just don't care to be involved in such tussles. Which still seem to be the focus of political article talk pages. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  If you feel you want this to go out for an official discussion, ping Awilley to move it to AN.--MONGO (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support unban I've worked with Winkelvi on articles outside the arena of American Politics and found him to be a fair better than average contributor. I would encourage Winklevi to unwatch all American Politics articles and spend his time wisely on more enjoyable areas.--MONGO (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Winkelvi has shown an understanding of the problems. If we are wrong in reversing the block I'm sure the edits will be reversed and the block will be reinstated. If we are correct then Wikipedia will benefit from having another editor. The risk-benefit trade off seems to lean heavily toward unblock. Springee (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I could also support this, but the supports and opposes here won't have any effect since a wider community process is needed to overturne a community-imposed ban. Maybe this can be copied to AN? ~Awilley (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but only with an AmPol topic ban in place. That could be reviewed and removed at a later date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC) New !vote below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, I must be a cynical meanie and Oppose. The message that we should be sending is that editors are expected to have these changes of heart before consuming hundreds of editor-hours spanning more than several years. Winkelvi had more than ample opportunity to do that. If he needed time away from editing to find his new path – if he has in fact found one – it was his responsibility to take that time off. As far as I'm concerned this is just a continuation of WV's self-centered efforts to play the system as long as the system will allow itself to be played, demanding unlimited "fair" treatment from the project that he spent years treating so unfairly.
  WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse even if unconsciously, and we do not have a separate set of expectations for editors who have Asperger's. Put differently, an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right. I don't care if an editor declares Asperger's on their user page, but I do object when they ask for special "understanding". If we're allowing that, I have "challenges" of my own that I would like the community to take into account when assessing my behavior. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this goes. Everybody has an excuse.
  Mark my words – if this unblock passes, by this time next year we'll think we've been transported to 2015. And we'll start the same arduous uphill climb again, wasting yet more editor-hours in a succession of contentious ANI debates, perhaps achieving the next indef a few years after that. Would that indef be the last one? I honestly doubt it, en-wiki being the Land of Many Last Chances.
  I would be far more receptive to a Standard Offer appeal if the path to indef hadn't been so long, disruptive, and time-consuming. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm confused. The indef was for an interaction ban violation. How is it that a community ban can go beyond the reason for the indef? I'm also incredibly disappointed that something considered a disability is being brought into this discussion and is being used as a reason to keep someone from editing Wikipedia: "an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right." Although I realize Wikipedia is its own entity and doesn't have to abide by the US Constitution, according to the Supreme Court as well as the ADA, those with disabilities actually are protected by the Constitution. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure whether we could expect you to continue using that as an excuse. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe my intent I wasn't clear enough in my response? I wasn't trying to use my condition as an excuse for anything, but was merely attempting to clear up a misconception you seem to have about Asperger's: that it's an actual disability, and those with it have Constitutional rights because it's a disability according to the American Disabilities Act (the Civil Rights Act, too) as well as the US Supreme Court. Frankly, if you hadn't added it to this discussion I wouldn't have brought my Asperger's up at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  None of that has anything to do with Wikipedia editing. If you don't intend that to be considered in assessments of your behavior, you should remove it from your user page and never mention your condition in discussions about your behavior in any venue or situation. Just like the thousands of other Asperger's sufferers who edit Wikipedia. Keep the userbox if you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that most userboxes editors display regarding their personal life activities/interests/groups to which they belong have nothing to do with Wikipedia editing. What I'm not sure about is why you're now using my Asperger's and the Asperger's userbox on my user page against me, as if it's a bad thing and the condition makes Asperger's/ASD editors pariahs and undesirable as Wikipedia editors. At least that's how I'm interpreting your comments -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Again, I wouldn't have even mentioned it if you hadn't brought it up. It has nothing to do with this unblock/unban request. I don't remember if I brought it up during the discussion about the block when it was all occurring nine months ago, but I don't think I did (correct me if I'm wrong about that, too). Another point of clarification for when you speak of those on the autism spectrum in the future: people with ASD/Asperger's aren't "sufferers" as a result of the condition/disability. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong, you're twisting my words, and now I'm reminded of your long history of doing just that. I'm not going to debate this endlessly with you; my !vote stands, and, barring a dramatic reversal of the trend, my !vote will remain on the losing side. Rejoice. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm fine being wrong in my understanding of what you're trying to say. But I'm not intentionally twisting your words, I'm only giving my understanding/interpretation of what you've said. Frankly, I'm glad I'm wrong about this. But maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I would have taken your meaning as less than helpful if you understood how many times I've had my Asperger's used against me as a weapon in numerous discussions as well as really ugly personal attacks that have come from anon IPs who have claimed I use my ASD as an excuse. Because of all that, I'm pretty easily upset when someone makes that claim (whether they be an account-holding editor or an anon IP) because it's simply not true. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  As to the Asperger's comment, then I too was concerned that Winkelvi used that over and over as an excuse in the past. This is Wikipedia. As yet, Asperger's isn't a requirement for editors here, but it's certainly a very common condition. There are many, many Wikipedians with Asperger's who yet manage to not have to haul it out as an excuse every few edits. Clearly it's no barrier to being able to edit in an acceptable way. So I don't think there should be any leeway on that account: no-one else gets, or expects, it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wanted to comment that a number of years back, Winkelvi and I had a bad argument regarding wording in the article 2014 Oso mudslide..it was bad enough I sought admin actions against him. But this subsided...we found common ground and I have seen his other work and find it as, I already mentioned above, well above par for the course. Many years before that an editor dragged me to arbcom and ended up getting themselves site banned...they even created the bulk of the material about MONGO over at EncyclopdiaDramatica. This editor later worked at Commons where they were not banned, became an admin there then petitioned here to get unbanned and even later became an admin here. I was asked whether I objected and I know with confidence had I done so they would not have been able to get the admin toolbelt. However, I simply stayed out of it. I think the inability of others to let go of past issues reflects more on them than it does on Winkelvi...especially considering I highly doubt he's going to be venturing back into areas he previously found troublesome for him.--MONGO (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• This conversation really ought to be taking place at AN. Personally, I would lean toward opposing at AN because of the argumentative behavior right here directed at Mandruss. If consensus is to unblock, I will advocate for a formal topic ban on post 1932 US politics. I would also want a readable signature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Cullen, my comments in response to Mandruss were driven by my misunderstanding of what he was saying. We seem to have that now worked out -- and that's a good thing. Something that can only happen through discussion. I don't see argumentativeness, I see discussion and an attempt to understand. On the other hand, when I see what seems to be someone making an unfair and inaccurate commentary about my character and motivations (whether past or present), I don't think it's wrong to defend oneself against what is seen (at the time) as character assassination. As I mentioned above to Mandruss, if you had been subjected to as many inappropriate comments and personal attacks about my Asperger's as I have over the years (like I also said above, lobbed by editors as well as anon IP vandals), maybe you could understand why once again seeing someone claim I use Aspergers as an excuse is not just triggering but hurtful. His comments were - and I am quoting him directly - "WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse". Of course I'm going to respond to that kind of thing. Is it reasonable to expect someone to not defend oneself under such circumstances? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Looked like he was merely trying to reach a better understanding. Mandruss is hardly being charitable and it lools to me to be deliberately provocative to elicit a negative response, which I think Winklevi weathered amicably to be honest. I'm not impressed with vindictive baiting and goading of defendents.--MONGO (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, two administrators have told you that this should be moved to AN (count me as a third). This idea of a pre-vote is not a good one. As for Mandruss, they could have called you a flaming asshole, and your response should be the same: ignore them. If you're going to let yourself be "goaded", you're going to have problems. Your sensitivity and response to these issues historically has not proved to be productive for you and often counterproductive for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23, both of your points are well taken. Of course, ignoring the goading I can take charge of and actually do on my own. Moving this to AN is something I cannot. Since Awilley brought it up first, I guess he's the one I should request make that happen. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

   Moved. Good luck! — JFG ^talk 18:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Use of his alleged physical condition as an excuse was corrosive, and he fails to understand that even now. Framing of request, references to "happy' articles, where in fact much needless drama occurs, argues against an unban. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Now that this discussion is at the correct venue, I will formalize my opposition. This very conversation displays the very same type of argumentative behavior that has led to countless confrontations and endless wasting of other editor's time in the past. If consensus emerges to unblock, I recommend a topic ban on post 1932 US politics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what was already said to you at my talk page, what was copied and pasted here, but is now lost apart from your second oppose !vote: Cullen, my comments in response to Mandruss were driven by my misunderstanding of what he was saying. We seem to have that now worked out -- and that's a good thing. Something that can only happen through discussion. I don't see argumentativeness, I see discussion and an attempt to understand. On the other hand, when I see what seems to be someone making an unfair and inaccurate commentary about my character and motivations (whether past or present), I don't think it's wrong to defend oneself against what is seen (at the time) as character assassination. As I mentioned above to Mandruss, if you had been subjected to as many inappropriate comments and personal attacks about my Asperger's as I have over the years (like I also said above, lobbed by editors as well as anon IP vandals), maybe you could understand why once again seeing someone claim I use Aspergers as an excuse is not just triggering but hurtful. His comments were - and I am quoting him directly - "WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse". Of course I'm going to respond to that kind of thing. Is it reasonable to expect someone to not defend oneself under such circumstances?" -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I only stated my formal, bolded opposition once, at AN, the proper venue. Your behavior today simply strengthens my conclusion that Wikipedia is not the right place for you. As for an AP topic ban, that would apply to every president since Herbert Hoover. I hope that you are able to find another hobby and less tumult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose my standard for every unblock request is the same: do the benefits of unblocking outweigh the known risk of disruption. I unfortunately cannot see any circumstances, no matter how good the appeal, where the answer to that for Winkelvi will be "yes". They are here in good faith, sure, but they are one of the single biggest time sinks in the history of the English Wikipedia. The block log speaks for itself. I am all for second chances, but not 10th(?) chances. While I do appreciate some parts of the unblock request, the risk of disruption is simply too high. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Hesitant and conditional support. Sorry in advance for the TL;DR, but I have several points. Winkelvi, you say several times above that the indefinite block was for violation of an interaction ban, and you refer to the block log:

• "As far as the indef, please take a look at the block log where it clearly states the indef was due to an interaction ban, not an editorial dispute: "03:25, November 1, 2018 Ritchie333 talk contribs blocked Winkelvi talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violation of interaction ban : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=715333046 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=866635941)""

Yes, that's the last entry in the block log, November 3, 2018. But you don't mention the other AN discussion, here two days later, called "Winkelvi — proposal for a site ban", which closed with a siteban decision, described to you here on your page by User:Awilley. The siteban you're appealing is not equivalent to the last block in your block log. You're sitebanned by the community, not merely blocked for an interaction ban infraction. Just clarifying.

Further, I'll remind you and others of my own proposal, pretty much exactly a year ago, for an unofficial, voluntary undertaking by you to behave better in some particular respects,[67] to which you responded with a comparison of yourself, as the victim of me and my intolerance, with the victims of the Jim Crow laws.[68] Note, this outré response wasn't for any kind of sanction, but merely for a good-faith — but apparently intolerable — suggestion from me. In view of things like that, and of the two AN threads that led to this community ban,[69][70] I will only (and even then with some hesitation) support an unblock on condition of an indefinite TBAN from post-1932 American politics, where Winkelvi's editing has been by far the most problematic. A real, broadly construed, strictly enforced TBAN. Not a pious hope that he'll behave better in the area, or that he'll remain uninterested in it (as he has told us that he now is), or an encouragement to him to unwatch American politics articles. An actual TBAN. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC).

"Further, I'll remind you and others of my own proposal, pretty much exactly a year ago, for an unofficial, voluntary undertaking by you to behave better in some particular respects,[121] to which you responded with a comparison of yourself, as the victim of me and my intolerance, with the victims of the Jim Crow laws." Anyone know why? Because (surprise, surprise!) I'm not white. As a matter of fact, I've been experiencing racism since before most of you were likely born. Watching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted and actually being one to march with MLK gave people like me hope. I've never mentioned race in relation to myself before in Wikipedia because it didn't seem pertinent. But because I know what discrimination feels like, intimately so, and still experience it in face-to-face interactions, when I see folks in places online -- people who are likely not white -- get huffy with anyone they think is not white. I laugh. A lot. Want to talk Jim Crow? I know what it was about. In a way you never will. My discrimination radar is quite well tuned, my outrage is legitimate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I will only (and even then with some hesitation) support an unblock on condition of an indefinite TBAN from post-1932 American politics, where Winkelvi's editing has been by far the most problematic. A real, broadly construed, strictly enforced TBAN. Not a pious hope that he'll behave better in the area, or that he'll remain uninterested in it (as he has told us that he now is), or an encouragement to him to unwatch American politics articles. An actual TBAN. Would such a ban keep me from editing articles on US presidents who served prior to 1993? If so, I don't know how I feel about that. I have a strong interest in US Presidents and was hoping that if I were unblocked, I would be able to edit pre-1993 presidential bio articles. If specifically just politics: no problem. As I already stated more than once, I have no interest in continuing to edit AmPol articles in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wink? –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Winkelvi has offered no convincing argument that their editing will be any different should they be unbanned. Their argument amonts to "I want to edit again." Their behavior in this very discussion shows why and how they consume vast amounts of other editor's time, which would, I believe, continue to be the case if they were unbanned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• conditional Support if you/they agree to avoid the political articles. per Ms Bish. — Ched :  ?  — 19:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC) withdrawn per Drmies and Jim Crow issues — Ched :  ?  — 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose, at least for now. For one, the IBAN violation wasn't a single innocuous edit, it was many edits spread out over the course of hours. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - For me, the discussion really boils down to one point: is the editor a net gain or net negative for WP? In this case, I believe Winkelvi to be a net negative. An enormous amount of hours have been spent trying to correct Winkelvi's behavior, which doesn't seem to change even after 13 (am I reading the block log right?) blocks. A second chance, a third chance, make sense. But 13? Hours and hours of editors' time has been poured into this user and there's nothing to show for it, other than the sentiment of "I want to edit again." --Kbabej (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  [71]--MONGO (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't see myself ever supporting the unban request of someone who thinks the appropriate response to disputes with an editor is to follow and harass the editor (see Special:PermaLink/854509806#Warning and other comments on that talk page, and the IBAN vio and previous violations that got him indeffed). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, or at the very least a restricted unban with a permanent AP32 TBAN, per Bishonen. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Between the block log and going through the history of the talk page as well as previous ANI discussion, Winkelvi had numerous opportunities over the years to change their behavior and chose not to. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Winkelvi's problems are not limited to one particular topic area. His most recent block, for example, was for violating an IBAN that stemmed from a long-standing dispute concerning Meghan Trainor. Calidum 20:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen and others. You don't sell rope to someone already hanging from the gallows-- they've had all they needed. X 13! If unblocked, would need a permanent AP32 TBAN. Prior IBAN(s) in place. Would need to agree to 1RR. And could we please have a readable signature if they were unblocked?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  adding per Mark Ironie to rationale.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Aspergers? Really? I have Aspergers and don't get me started on the stereotyping and feeding the notion That Aspies are somehow 2nd class retards who cannot hold our emotions in check or engage in inappropriate behavior. I just went through this on ANI. Not interested in hearing it as an excuse.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  In fairness, WV has not cited his condition as part of this appeal, and he is correct that the subject was first raised by me. So it would be unfair to say that he has used it as an excuse during this appeal. That's worth clarifying at least once. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Thanks. Please see the foregoing angry outburst as directed at you for demeaning all Aspies.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  If you're serious, it would demean Aspies to give them special treatment, which is exactly what I argued against. So I'm not sure where you're coming from with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  "Prior IBAN(s) in place. Would need to agree to 1RR. Prior IBAN, no problem. 1RR? Why? At the time of the indef, I hadn't had an issue with 3RR for quite a long time. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)*:made it strong. I forgot about the Jim Crow thing. Tony! touche-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I've already commented, but I'll piggyback off this: if the only way someone can be unblocked if with multiple different sanctions, that's a good sign they shouldn't be unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The only area strongly argued where he should remain Topic Banned is in AmPol. How can we see improvements if the person is site banned? Did they make death threats...NO. Did they out anyone...NO. Based on the previous penalties...is any admin going to have a lot of explaining to do if Winkelvi is once again indeffed...highly doubtful.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Not sure where @Sringee: was going with the question below, but no. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss, Tony, and Dlohcierekim. I see zero benefit in unblocking Winkelvi, and he has demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of his prior issues. Nihlus 21:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony and if you need multiple editing restrictions to protect the community/project, there's no benefit to unblocking. Further, the above conversation wrt their disability is a cop-out for bad behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as: "one of the single biggest time sinks in the history of the English Wikipedia." His invocation that :those with disabilities actually are protected by the [U.S.] Constitution" shows a profound misunderstanding: his ban was not for having a disability, but for extensive bad behavior. Which the Constitution does not protect. Also: if he's going to be around at all he should be required to have readable signature. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"His invocation that :those with disabilities actually are protected by the [U.S.] Constitution" shows a profound misunderstanding: his ban was not for having a disability, but for extensive bad behavior. Which the Constitution does not protect." Could you please re-read those comments for context? If you do, I hope you note I was NOT saying I ever thought my ban had anything to do with my disability nor was I saying I'm protected by the US Constitution in Wikipedia because of my disability. In fact, I thought I made a point to make sure it was understood I wasn't saying that at all". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, does not seem to have developed a sense of self-criticism yet. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Quoting from Winkelvi's request:

  The bad: In my past editing, too much attention paid to the actions of others, which clouded my judgment and created bad relations between me and other editors as well as a bad reputation. Being unfocused on my real purpose for being here (improving Wikipedia) allowed me to make grave errors (which ultimately became my demise with the community ban) that hurt everyone in my path. Moreover, such behavior was detrimental to doing the things in Wikipedia I'm good at (article editing, adding content, improving the encyclopedia). Which ended up being a burden on pretty much everyone - even those who didn't realize it, because by becoming the focus of too many AN, AN/I, and 3RR discussions, I was taking admins and editors away from doing what we are all supposed to be focused on: improving Wikipedia content.

  Plenty of self-criticism right there. — JFG ^talk 09:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. TonyBallioni's description as "one of the single biggest time sinks in the history of the English Wikipedia" triggers memories of some very bad history. If the result is favorable to Winkelvi, then only on condition of an indefinite TBAN from post-1932 American politics, per Cullen328 and Bishonen. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tony and Dlohcierekim - I completely agree with Tony in that they are one of the biggest time sinks here and no amount of unblocking would change that, Like Tony I'm all for 2nd chances but they've had so many chances I've honestly lost count, They're a net negative to this project and if unblocked they'd only fuck it up again, Also topic banning won't achieve much as they'll still cock it up anyway. Also the replies to Mandruss doesn't fill me with any confidence either, Keep blocked for everyones sake. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Winkelvi has a long history of requesting an unblock because they have realized the error in their ways and no longer wish to edit war or participate in controversial areas, obviating the necessity of a block. However sincere this change of heart may be, they have an equally long history of going back to their old ways and becoming an enormous time sink. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen again. –dlthewave ☎ 03:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't edit over the same areas but keep a watch on the t/p(s) and I have rarely seen any other longtime editor, so stuck in the Trump-la-la-land. Per Tony, a net negative by a huge margin and a huge time-sink. Please find another hobby. ∯WBG^converse 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with TonyBallioni here, so I am not reiterating the same. The community should steer clear of time sinks and 13th chance. Winkelvi should find another Wiki site to contribute if he cant find another better hobby. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Question for the voters respondents As a general rule I like the idea of offering a second chance even after an indef. My logic being that blocks are not supposed to be punishment and we can always undo and reblock if an editor can't reform. I hope all would agree that if we had a crystal ball and could see that Winkelvi isn't going to cause problems in the future they should be unblocked as the continued block would only be a punishment. We don't have a crystal ball but we can make an AP 1932 tban part of the package. I know this isn't what WL wants but it's clear the group is concerned. If WL can show a productive, non-political edit history then in 6 months or so they can request the tban be lifted. Basically would the oppose voices change to yes if an indef tban with a minimum of 6 months before appeal was part of the package? Springee (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It takes double the disruption to reblock someone after they've been unblocked. Winkelvi was disruptive enough on their own that the bonus powers of disruption that an unblock would give him before you could get community consensus to reblock would waste hundreds if not thousands of man hours. As I say in every unblock appeal can we honestly answer the question: is the potential benefit greater than the known potential for disruption. Winkelvi is one of the most disruptive editors to ever edit Wikipedia. Allowing him to waste more of our time for the next year before we're here again to reblock him is not what second chances were meant for, and besides, this is a 13th chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, my answer is "no". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My answer is "no" as well, Springee, for the myriad reasons stated in opposing votes above. --Kbabej (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No, per TB. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope per Tony. Enough is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, "No". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, re: "voters", per WP:NOTVOTE, please could the wording be amended, so as not to give a incorrect impression. —Sladen (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, your assumption of good faith does you credit, but in this case is naive. To paraphrase those above, we don't need this crap again. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is no way in hell this is passing now, but I support his return with an AP2 TBAN. GoldenRing (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Goldenring, Bishonen and sorting out that sodding signature... ——SerialNumber54129 08:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Winkelvi, would like to keep the door open for a return to enwiki. Would the user of your account be willing to eg. (a) use a normal signature (suggestion of others above), (b) demonstrate ~six months of reduced conflict editing without using revert (eg. on commons; (c) subscribe to WP:0RR (ie. no reverts from your account), enforced by (d) a series of escalating blocks, eg. 1 month, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months… for infractions? —Sladen (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Apart from the TBAN from American Politics, which is supported by both Winkelvi and the community, I don't see the need for special editing restrictions. Also, working at Commons is quite different from working at enwiki: it would be hard to judge Winkelvi's enwiki behaviour based on any work he might do at Commons. Asking him to abide by 0RR "or else" is akin to welcoming a disgraced runner back on the athletic circuit on condition that he wears a 20-kg backpack: that's not our spirit. I do agree the signature could be changed, if that helps people accept him back. Note however that nicknames in signatures are legit, as I was recently reminded by Vfrickey a.k.a. "loupgarous", so perhaps any mandated change should be limited to the color styling. Of course, if Winkelvi is willing to sign his posts with a plain "Winkelvi", that would be a satisfactory outcome as well. — JFG ^talk 09:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Most of the contributors opposing Winkelvi's return have expressed exasperation at the waste of time he has created in the past, in particular due to his relentless argumentative style. I can think of many argumentative and filibustering editors who are still around, so that doesn't strike me as a valid motive to deny Winkelvi a fresh take at being a Wikipedian. The second argument I've read above goes like "that's not a second chance, it's like the 13th chance!" That is right, and all his prior "chances" have already been adjudicated by the community ban, which has been in place for a year nine months now. Winkelvi has accepted the sanction, done his time out, and provided some reasonable self-reflection in his request to be allowed back into the community. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so that a continuation of the ban would only be double jeopardy: more punishment for past misdeeds.
  Regarding prevention, there is consensus that Winkelvi should not get involved in American Politics, and he spontaneously wrote in his unblock request that he does not want to edit in contemporary politics at all, so there's alignment between his intent and the community's: this can be formalized with a standard AP2 TBAN. Finally, the risk of yet more disturbance in other topics due to personal interactions can only be assessed if Winkelvi starts editing again. How can we judge whether he'll be a dick if we don't give him a chance to not be a dick? In his unban request outlining his proposed approach to editing, he pledges: 2. Stay away from personality conflicts and avoid dissention/irritating other editors at all cost. That's a pretty strong pledge, and I for one am ready to take him at his word there. If he gets under the skin of people going forward, a simple reminder of his own declaration should be enough to stop the drama; otherwise, bye bye. In summary, in the spirit of the WP:Standard offer, we should accept Winkelvi back into our Wikipedian community. — JFG ^talk 09:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Q: How can we judge whether he'll be a dick if we don't give him a chance to not be a dick?

  A: As many have expressed, Winkelvi has been given many chances to not be a dick, and he has failed us every time. We can use our human intelligence and conclude with very high confidence that he would be a dick again. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 14 times, shame on us. Personally, I have little doubt that WV's intentions are good – I use the words "fool us" loosely – but good intentions alone are not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  a simple reminder of his own declaration should be enough to stop the drama - A simple reminder of his own declaration would be met by extended arguing about how his behavior is not actually inconsistent with his declaration, and/or how other people are distorting his words, ganging up on him, or otherwise being unfair to him. That's how Winkelvi rolls, it's in his DNA, he has made many "pretty strong pledges" before, and I am NOT "ready to take him at his word there" AGAIN. otherwise, bye bye. You know very well it doesn't work that way in practice. Or do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  "...the community ban, which has been in place for a year now.". Please count again JFG. It's been in place for nine months. Anyway, I'm as incredulous as Mandruss when you say "a simple reminder of his own declaration should be enough to stop the drama". Really..? And the old chestnut that it's easy to reblock after an unblock ("bye bye"), sometimes expressed as "reblocks are cheap", is some of the the most unrealistic fake news in this place. It's not easy, it's extremely difficult. In this case it would take hundreds if not thousands of manhours , as Tony B says above. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC).

  Sorry, I mixed up with the time you proposed voluntary restrictions in August 2018.[72] Correcting the record in my statement above. Whether 9 or 12 months, the "sentence" has been served, which leads me to discount the "but it's the 13th chance" arguments. And maybe I'm naive about reblocking outside of the DS/AE framework (which is pretty expeditious), but given the attention Winkelvi is getting today, I do believe that any trespassing would be met with a swift response. — JFG ^talk 11:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be anything like WP:AE, JFG, which is as you say reasonably speedy. If Winkelvi came up for reblock, we'd be back here at AN, again dealing with his lawyering and endless argumentativeness and timewasting; either because an overly cautious admin wouldn't want to take on the responsibility alone, or because Winkelvi would promptly appeal the new block. Perhaps with arguments something like the one he just offered today, that nobody has any right to suggest he stop harassing people, or to object to his comparison of himself, as the victim of my bias, with the victims of the Jim Crow laws. He says he has every right to that comparison because he is (it turns out) a black man who marched with Martin Luther King.[73] Did you notice he stated that today, in response to my conditional support and mention of the Jim Crow incident? Probably you did, since it was one of the responses you copied over today. I emphasize: he said it not way back, for instance before he was blocked, but today, after his appeal which seemed to show awareness of past problems. It suggests to me that they're far from past, and that his awareness of them is extremely patchy. Pinging @Drmies: who showed interest in the Jim Crow incident just now, below.[74] Bishonen | talk 15:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC).

• again dealing with his lawyering and endless argumentativeness and timewasting

But there's no reason why we would have to indulge in such endless timewasting. The way would be clear for a very rapid block, confirmed as indef by due (but again, brief) debate at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

JFG, on a few general issues, it's difficult to understand your 'time served' and 'double jeopardy' arguments precisely because it's not punishment. What it is and has to be is protecting the pedia, and whether protection for the pedia, its users, and this user should continue through this means of restriction. In that light, it has to be very relevant how many times and how many different ways the pedia has failed to be protected in the past, despite doing everything in its power, issuing multiple protective restrictions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock, on the grounds that while the most likely outcome will be an indef block within the next month, there's a chance he may be able to control his argumentative manner, incessant wikilawyering and excuses and go back to being a productive editor. If there's a chance of getting a good editor back then I'm all for that. Fish+Karate 10:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to support per Bishonen; I don't think WV is evil or anything. But I've lost faith in WV's desire or ability (not sure which; doesn't matter) to edit collaboratively, and I don't think coming up with a half dozen restrictions is the solution; soon enough, we'd need a 7th. It's always something. Regretful oppose per Tony Ballioni. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Did I see Winkelvi quote someone on their talk page who said "Welcome to the new Jim Crow days"? That's revolting--someone who was severely disruptive gets blocked by their peers on a private website, and that's JUST LIKE African Americans were treated since Reconstruction? Decline. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that Winkelvi saw fit to respond with what they claim was an attempt at clarification. It failed. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Given the editor’s history, an unblock request and all follow-up discussion by the editor must indicate that there will be no regression to previous behavior. I just don’t find the discussion here by the editor convincing. The request may have enjoyed better reception had it included a voluntary AP2 TBan – but I doubt it. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uninvolved Oppose I don't believe that Winkelvi and i have ever crossed paths directly, but i very clearly remember a large number of drama-ggedons with his involvment. So with the reasoning of TonyBallioni, Cullen328, and Bishonen (yes, i know she supported), i cannot but think that overturning the previous community action would be a Bad Thing for the community. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I also have seen nothing to make me feel optimistic that an unban would help improve the enyclopedia - what I've seen convinces me that we'll just be back here again soon and that would be a waste of everone's time. I considered Bishonen's proposal for a TBAN but I don't think that would solve the underlying problem - of course if he is unbanned I'd expect the TBAN she proposed. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni et al. We don't need more time sinks debating umpteenth chances, when we could be improving the 'pedia. I'm sorry, but it's just too much. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately WV's attitude in this unblock request is just an indication of what a timesink he would be if he were unblocked.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WV's problematic interactions with other editors have always gone beyond articles about politics so avoiding them would not do any good. The need to lash out at anyone that WV disagrees with has never stopped and, indeed, continues at the present time on their talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support as someone who was hounded in the past by WV and can testify to many of what the oppose voters are saying, I still think we should give WV the one last chance to edit Wikipedia. If WV can get by with a TBAN of APOL and use the time to edit the other areas where it's far less likely to run into issues then why not? If we see that WV is going back to the old ways, then we can siteban or block, but we have rope for a reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to their long history of disruption, Winkelvi is tone deaf when it comes to how their comments will be interpreted by others, as has been amply demonstrated in this request. For whatever reasons - and it shouldn't be our concern what the reasons are - they have persistent communication issues and great difficulty editing in a collaborative environment. They are their own worst enemy in this regard. I see no reason why that will ever change.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but a net negative to the project and timesink. WV's attitude in this very thread (one example being: "my outrage is legitimate") seals the deal for me. In the event that WV is ever allowed to return to the project, it should be with the TBAN along the lines that Bishonen suggested: an indefinite, broadly construed, strictly enforced TBAN on American politics. Neutrality^talk 21:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no change from the past here, sorry. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose When MLK was assassinated, I was 15 years old (which presumably makes WV older than dirt me). Playing the race card is one thing, but such a combative attitude so late in life doesn't bode well. Miniapolis 22:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: experience has shown that Wikipedia is not the right environment for Winkelvi. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. He threw a pathetic temper tantrum at me for making an edit to his user page that was not needed, yet was in good faith, and is seemingly much too big for his own britches to learn and actually grow from past experiences. And this is coming from an editor who is an Aspie himself, and while I'm not afraid to admit that I've had some very irrational blow-ups in the past, especially around the very beginning of my time here at Wikipedia when I was younger and less mature, in those cases, I have always managed to pick up my pieces and move above and beyond, something that Winkelvi (how do you even pronounce this weird username?) is clearly incapable of doing. And frankly, that claim that he allegedly marched with MLK has got to be the most insidious, WTF-inducing thing I've seen all day today; I do not believe him at all. Liar, con artist, manipulator, pants on fire! A more fitting username for him would be "Officer Manchild", if I say so myself! Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 00:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Interlude65: the last part of your comment is very uncivil. I would suggest that you strike the blatant personal attacks before a less lenient administrator sees your comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @NinjaRobotPirate: I have gone and scratched my comment for you. Apparently, putting a colorful, witty, humorous, light-hearted twist on a particular issue does not fly here on this encyclopedia. It's kind of sad, if you ask me..... :( And furthermore, another admin by the name of CorbieVreccan actually thanked me for my edit! Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 02:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni and others. JFZ JFG, I think, brought up that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punative. This was in support of unblocking Winkelvi. I invoke that exact same principle to oppose unblocking WV. There are many reasons to give an editor another chance. And another. At this point though, given history, unblocking WV seems like doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Keeping the block in place is preventative in my opinion. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at Requests for Page Protection

Hi. There's currently a bit of a backlog at WP:RFPP. If anyone can help and clear a few of them, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I was just on my way here. We've cleared some of them, but could use some more hands on deck. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped with this overnight. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003

Hi, I am against being able to create a Create a page if you can check again، Can Now I create a page with enough resources Like Farahabad Complex. M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note this question was also asked - and answered - here User talk:Sandstein#M.k.m2003. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What? No offense but you're not making any sense. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from the notice when M.k.m2003 was banned from creating new articles: "This topic ban can be appealed in six months."

@M.k.m2003: No, you may not appeal your ban now. The earliest you can appeal it is February 6, 2020. You may not create articles, drafts, or "Create a page"s at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected Template edits backlog

Calling any willing admins and Template Editors, there is a 16-deep backlog of edit requests for TPROT pages (See User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable). Any help would be welcome! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, please delete this image as this is not being used in any article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.120.136 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue. You can tag the image for deletion yourself if it meets any of the CSD-Fn criteria. — JFG ^talk 16:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I've answered a few requests and placed the page on my watchlist. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethinic Cleansing Myanmar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Sir or Madam,

Past incidences involving the propaganda from the company Cambridge Analytica that led to ethnic cleansing according to many news articles are being deleted from the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

The users accountable have the usernames zefr, smartse and fallinggravity and profile urls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Smartse&offset=&limit=50&target=Smartse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FallingGravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zefr

This user seems to be updating only pages related to stifling corruption. I am unsure whether to change back the edit or leave it alone. The events concern ethnic cleansing that is being silenced and there is substantial amount of evidence pointing to the company Cambridge Analytica.

Reference (Google Scholar): J. Dennis, Political Partipation in Social Media:
shorturl.at/vANV1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.112.70 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yours sincerely, J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.112.70 (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions against other users without any evidence. Saying there is "substantial amount of evidence" seems rather hollow, in this context. El_C 11:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't refactor your comment after it has been replied to. New comments go at the bottom. El_C 11:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There is constant re-editing of the genocides in Maynmar to cover the incident. Can there be anything done to prevent deletions of information that has correct referencing and valid sources from news agencies? I am currently listing the users who are deleting content without peer reviewing or talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizensinitiative2019 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for continuing to edit war on that page (they are, presumably, also the IP). At any rate, the content they're trying to add has only tangential relation to CA as far as the sources are concerned. Sam Walton (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This user samwalton9 is deleting content on the Cambridge Analytica page and taking actions of claiming ownership of this page. There is no given justification to the deletion of my writing, they are removed without any talking. There are no owners on Wikipedia. Here are my referencing to the editing made.

1. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/17138756/facebook-data-breach-cambridge-analytica-explained
2. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/bannon-cambridge-analytica/index.html
3. https://www.businessinsider.nl/representative-brad-sherman-facebook-libra-911-2019-7?international=true&r=US
4. https://globalnews.ca/news/4786680/year-in-review-facebook-2018/
5. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/a-recent-history-of-facebook-scandals-26157
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizensinitiative2019 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help fulfilling RM

I closed this RM as move, but most of the pages have full move protection so I can't perform most of them. Could an administrator please complete the moves? Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes,  Done: [75]. AGK ■ 10:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed for problematic IPs

This stems from information provided at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradley026258, where multiple IPv6 addresses in the same range as the ones listed in that discussion show a similar intent of adding incorrect, unsourced information repeatedly, ignoring notices and reverts.

• 2601:248:4B02:E040:CC4C:16BD:11D:6616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:248:4B02:E040:F532:558A:B0B9:C3CF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:248:4B02:E040:99A4:6FAD:1905:ABB9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An admin determined in the last round that the last batch of editing from that IP range was NOT recent enough to put a range block into place, but that is no longer the case. Asking for a range block of at least 1 week. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done on behaviour for 6 months given the block log of that range and it’s a Comcast IP. Also, shameless plug for WP:/64. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change <u>{{tl|disambig/sandbox}}<u> to <u>{{tl|disambig/sandbox}}</u> at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 38#new template functionality and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 38#Update disambig template?. With this edit and this edit, a user added the underline tag to several sentences, but didn't close the tag. It makes the page look a bit messy. Thanks, 153.135.158.27 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Cthomas3 appointed arbitration clerk trainee

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Cthomas3 (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the arbitration clerks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cthomas3 appointed arbitration clerk trainee

Remove

Can you please remove my Extand Confirmed flag? I do not need it anymore!الرشيد (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, الرشيد, I’m going to mark this as  Not done as extended confirmed isn’t a security issue, doesn’t really grant any advanced rights, and just lets you edit certain protected pages. We only remove it in the case of gaming, which doesn’t exist in your case :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

how can I make it gaming ? TonyBallioni.الرشيد (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni ?!! الرشيد (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

الرشيد, I’m saying we only take away this right if you cheat your way to 500 edits. Removing it from you would likely make editing much more difficult and eventually cause more work for others. There’s no reason to remove this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I took the right by editing my sandbox by adding point then deleting it! You can see that in my history!!الرشيد (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni also I am not active here and I do not want to edit anything in Wikipedia! الرشيد (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The only reason to not remove it is the hassle of giving it back later if they change their mind. But that's roughly the same amount of trouble as arguing about it with them now. I'll just remove it to make الرشيد happy, and they can request it back if they ever change their mind. They're right that there actually was some gaming a year or so ago, but it looks like they've made enough legit edits by now that extended-confirmed should be able to be given back on request; just point to this discussion, which will be linked to in the user rights log. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

   Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I was about to do the same after three pings... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorely tempted to ping you in reply, but I'll be nice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Floquenbeam and TonyBallioni: they requested at block at WP:ANI [76] which I've done. ||||
        • @Doug Weller: You might want to adjust the block notice you left on their talk page to make it clear it was self-requested.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
          • @Pawnkingthree: thanks. I didn't see your ping but I did it 3 hours ago anyway. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin please delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Island Pangkor (2nd nomination) per G6/housekeeping? A second nomination was created by mistake right after the first one. I think it's necessary to keep the "2nd nomination" title free in case the article is actually renominated later on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the second AFD was a mistake. The first AFD was closed as delete per WP:G11 on the 8th, the page was recreated earlier today and a different person created a second AFD for the new version of the article which is was then closed as an accidental filing which I don’t think is accurate. Unless I am missing something I believe instead of deleting the AFD is should be reopened.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The closer was reverted as the article has been deleted again so this can be closed.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An administrator is protecting a bigoted homophobic attack on a BLP page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Non-administrator comment)User:Bradv has protected James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960) even though the page relies on bigoted homophobic sources that I identify here and here. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Can someone please remove the contested material from the page? --PluniaZ (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ has been edit warring to delete the entire #Controversial views section (history). I responded to an ANEW report by fully-protecting the article to allow for discussion between the two involved editors on the talk page. I've responded to the concerns on my talk page, and answered the edit request made on the article talk page by deleting a part of the section that was unsourced.

I'm concerned by the allegation that this section misrepresents the sources, but I don't believe BLP policy demands that the entire section be removed, and I've asked PluniaZ to draw up a neutral version and make an edit request. Advice from others is appreciated. – bradv🍁 01:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Both PluniaZ and Thucyd deserve a weighty trouting for edit warring. I don't see any BLP violations in the Criticism section. All comments are attributed. If there are UNDUE comments or non-notable ones, that's a different story. Unfortunately, even the bigoted and homophobic sources/comments may be notable within the realm of the Catholic Church as those are not exactly fringe views there. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The comments are not properly attributed. They are taken out of context and quote mined from articles that say the exact opposite of the agenda Thucyd is trying to push, as I explain in detail here. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what you're complaining about there is sources being used to describe the criticism Martin has faced when the author of the source referred to it but was not himself criticizing Martin. That is not "quote mining" and it's not a failure of attribution. This is certainly not "a bigoted homophobic attack", and you need to cease casting such aspersions. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)There is in fact a campaign by anti-LGBT bigots to discredit Father Martin. This is proven from the NYT article cited on the page, which states:

Check out the websites and Twitter accounts of far-right Catholic groups and you’ll see why. To them Father Martin is “sick,” “wicked,” “a filthy liar,” “the smoke of Satan” and a “heretic” on a fast track to “eternal damnation.” They obsessively stalk him and passionately exhort churchgoers to protest his public appearances or prevent them from happening altogether.

Nearly all of the sources cited on the page are about this harassment of Father Martin by anti-LGBT bigots. For Wikipedia to portray this harassment as a "controversy" in which reasonable people disagree is conferring a level of legitimacy on these bigots that Wikipedia should not stoop to. If the bio page wants to describe this campaign of harassment for what it actually is, that is one thing, but it should certainly not be describing it as merely a "controversy", and this certainly should not be done by administrative fiat without first obtaining community consensus in accordance with the clear requirements of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

An NYT opinion piece doesn’t “prove” anything. Everything is properly attributed but I could see some debate on balance. You seem to be coming from a fairly bizarre stance that homosexuality isn’t controversial in Catholicism though, which doesn’t bode well for you finding some sense of NPOV here. We don’t describe who is “right or wrong”, only notable opinions. That can be improved in the article, but you really need to dial back on claiming bradv is protecting homophobic attacks. Capeo (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The issue isn't whether homosexuality is controversial among Catholics. The issue is whether Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics - other than the fringe group of alt-right Catholics whose views must be excluded by WP:BLPBALANCE. The sources provided do not establish that there is in fact controversy regarding Father Martin's views beyond a small minority. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Simple Challenge: I have a simple challenge - can anyone find a reliable secondary source that (1) claims that Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics (2) explains in what way his views are controversial, and (3) explains the arguments among Catholics on both sides of this supposed controversy? If not, then why is Wikipedia asserting something that no reliable secondary source claims? WP:NOR --PluniaZ (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's an objection you should have raised on the talk page of the article. Edit-warring over this was not warranted, and Bradv's decision was a good one. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Ok, but we can we please change the article now that the problem has been identified? --PluniaZ (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In Fr. James Martin’s Own Words, Seven Quotes Showing How He Is Harming the Catholic Faith"
• "Can Fr. James Martin's bridge hold up?"
• "Why I kept my questions for the Rev. James Martin to myself"
• "Fr. James Martin is not thinking with the Church"

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Your first link is to an extremist group, Tradition, Family and Property that has been orchestrating the harassment campaign against Father Martin. It is not a reliable source. Your second link does not assert that Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics. Your third link does not assert that Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics. Your fourth link is a criticism of Father Martin from a single far-right Catholic priest in a far-right, fringe Catholic publication. It does not contain any substantive criticism of Father Martin's views, but rather mocks and insults him throughout. I certainly hope this is not what passes for a reliable source on Wikipedia. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, PluniaZ, you need not use {{nao}} when you comment here. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, Do you have a reliable source to call TFP an "extremist group"? They look to be a fairly significant traditionalist movement. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need you to delete a thread I posted that on a talk page that contains relatively sensitive information.

Hi. My name is Undeadmerc3. A few days ago I opened a thread on the talk page of the Dayton shooting that I would like to have deleted titled "Map of the shooting needs to be edited." The title was based on a claim that I wanted the map showing where the people were killed since I believed that the shooting represented a tread in mass shootings that were makin them deadlier in which the attackers were shooting their victims while they were down. I felt like the map would unintentionally inspire copycat crimes since many of those who plot these attacks start with Wikipedia before going onto other sources. However while I was unable to convince Nice4What who is the moderator of the page to change the map. With that in mind some of the conversations I had with Nice4What did have senstive information and just to be on the safe side, I would like the thread deleted. I tried deleting the thread, but sadly General Ization restored it due to Wikipedia's policy for some reason. With that in mind I would like the Admins to delete the thread when they get the chance. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Dayton_shooting#Map_of_the_shooting_needs_to_be_edited

It seems that there is already a request in to have the edits oversighted(removed from public or even admin view). 331dot (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I declined it. This does not meet the criteria for suppression. My personal suggestion would just be to remove the thread and let it fade away into the history of the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask the OP why they're using a different handle other than their own. Your handle shows up in the history on this page, and at this link your handle is displayed as well. That and there's no user on Wiki named Undeadmerc3 at all. (There's one called Undeadmerc with no contributions of course ! ) Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

The following motion has been enacted:

In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:

9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

For the arbitration committee - GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

Possible case of sock puppetry and meatpuppetry

Hello. I just wanted to bring this issue to the attention of administrators because it seems that it's getting out of control at this point. Throughout the past two months, a new user has submitted a request to confirm Draft:Aybars İbak and turn it into an article. The draft itself was rejected multiple times by reviewers, but at some point the article was created and eventually deleted. Now, the article has been created again (Aybars İbak) and in the ongoing AFD discussion, a bunch of new users with no more than 10 edits are voting to keep the article. I really think that this article needs to be protected from creation and all these accounts need to be investigated for a potential case of sock puppetry and/or meatpuppetry. I'd be very glad if the administrators were able to look into this case. Keivan.f^Talk 16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fikeithomas is already running. All of the discussion contributions are tagged {{spa}} and that is generally enough as closing administrators will take that into account. I've been known to semi-protect a discussion before now, but that is rare, and not really necessary in the cases where a {{spa}} is enough, as is currently the case here. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

An image

this image must be deleted as the image is not being used in any article(s). 43.245.120.198 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard. The image has already been marked for speedy deletion and will be deleted in due time. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the image is useful for anything, but it was originally uploaded in 2016 with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL before being marked non-free yesterday. So the particular deletion rationale might be wrong. Chris857 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris857, the image is actually non-free, it was uploaded by myself in 2016, but I can't access that account, if I could access that account I could have mark 'self-delete'/g-7 tag on the image, I hope you have understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.120.73 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Chris857, I found the image from google search, then I uploaded it in Wikipedia, I am not being able to log in that account since 2017, you can see that account's contributions that last I logged in/edited in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.123.86 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please delete that image, that is not necessary at all.

• I removed the speedy deletion tag. The IP said they uploaded the image having found it on the Internet, but a TinEye search [77] shows only 2 hits for the image, both of which were upload 3 years after it was uploaded here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's also worth looking at the recent edits to Murder of Faisal Abedin Deepan, where IPs from this range made vandalistic edits. That article is one that was heavily contributed to by the editor who uploaded the image in question, whom the IP claims to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• The image was tagged for speedy deletion after this edit which replaced the presumptively free image witg a non-free one uploaded by the editor who made the replacement. I've restore to the original image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

Someone is vandalizing my edit to the Pope Francis Pan Amazon Synod. I even properly sourced my edits,http://www.sinodoamazonico.va/content/sinodoamazonico/en/documents/pan-amazon-synod--the-working-document-for-the-synod-of-bishops.pdf http://www.sinodoamazonico.va/content/sinodoamazonico/en/documents/pan-amazon-synod--the-working-document-for-the-synod-of-bishops.pdf but this user keeps erasing them.JoeScarce (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not vandalism — please see what vandalism is not. Anyway, both editors violated 3RR in Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region and Just war theory. I have fully-protected both pages for a week and advised them both to use dispute resolution. El_C 23:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Lise Summers, RIP

Sadly my friend Lise Summers, User:Morethangrass, has died ([78]). Please will someone make the necessary changes, as set out at WP:DWG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I am very sorry to hear of your loss. I have completed the last remaining parts of the process. My thoughts go out to you and everyone who knew Lisa. AGK ■ 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: Thank you, but as WP:DWG says, "The user page should be fully protected to prevent vandals from defacing the page." Please could you do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Carried out the protection and tagging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So sorry Andy to hear of the loss of your friend. May she rest peace. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear this, Pigsonthewing. Condolences to you, and to all her friends, family, and community. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My deepest sympathy. Miniapolis 22:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Unban request by User:Cosmic Avengers aka User:CosmicEmperor

Cosmic Avengers (talk · contribs) says he's CosmicEmperor (talk · contribs) but has lost access to all his previous accounts. His latest account hasn't made any edits except to request a review of his ban on his user page; that's how we would want a former sockpuppeteer who has lost access to the original account to behave. I'm bringing the request itself here for a community discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• I will use only one account, and will edit only mainspace articles.
  • I don't want to be held responsible for unrelated users using same ISP like User:HaRsHiT00.
  • I have not edited wikipedia for more than two and half years.
  • I did not create any account after Indian panther and Martian Manhunter xyz
  • An Administrator named TParis told me take standard offer 3 years ago in UTRS request. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Avengers&diff=725412954&oldid=725367745 In this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor/Archive the entries made by other editors are not always linked to me as noted by Bbb23.

1. CosmicEmperor and Marvellous Spider-Man are not the same person. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. Fatima Begum from downtown is technically Possible to CosmicEmperor. To connect the account to CE purely because they may use the same IP ranges is insufficient. There needs to be behavioral diffs comparing Fatima to previously blocked named accounts, and in this instance that would be very hard given that Fatima has made only one edit. The amount of activity on these ranges is significant and the number of blocked socks on these ranges is proportionally substantial. Yet, most of those socks are CU-blocked without tags, including several by me, because of the inability to connect them persuasively to a specific master. I have done the same thing with Fatima, i.e., blocked without a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
   2. Ivanvector's comment:
   3. Thanks, case closed. Responding to Smsarmad's comment above: as I understand it there are several sockmasters operating within a similar IP range, along with several unrelated users, so in these cases technical data is not of much use without better behavioural evidence. Since we can already show by behaviour that this account is the same as another blocked account, we can block it, so there's no real benefit to running CU here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
   4. Other's comments:
   5. The technical situation for CE is a real dumpster fire, thanks to many overlapping masters. Furthermore, I don't believe that CU is necessary to conduct a sleeper check, as per the technical mess and the absence of a history of sleepers. At the end of the day, the socks are blocked, no matter to whom they belong. Of course, another clerk may beg to differ here, but I am closing for now. GABgab 15:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Cosmic Avengers (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Question You were originally blocked indefinitely (as CosmicEmperor in June, 2015 for personal attacks or harassment. This unban request does not mention this at all, but you'll need to do so if you wish us to consider unbanning you. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer at User talk:Cosmic Avengers#Original block due to personal attacks. Huon (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This answer satisfies me. I have no opinion as to whether they should be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support unban I'm willing to give the editor another chance based on their commitments and the apparent length of time since their misbehaviour Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  I worded my comment to cover the possibility new evidence could emerge perhaps from a CU which contradicted the claim about how long since they've last socked. Sadly that has happened and so I'm striking my support for now. I will hold of saying more at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support unban per Nil Einne, above discussion, and that it's been 4 years since they edited (that we know of). An ounce of forgiveness and all that. — Ched :  ?  — 04:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I'm going to have to look over the evidence and edits by all the accounts. I do remember the CE account and there were some very negative feelings about it IIRC. The Rocketracoon account post is very typical of the types of edits that CosmicE made in the past. Back in the day we were able to refer to that type of editing as being by someone who lived under a bridge. Starting provocative conversations and feigning ignorance is extremely time consuming for many people. As far as which accounts belonging to who? ... I'll have to defer to a CU for that. Also, User talk:LoverBoyInGarden is one of the socks, and I suspect there are more. Back in 2015 Mike V had a pretty good handle on what was going on. (although it appears he is no longer active)
• This editor is capable of making good edits, Still - compare:

If Jesus Christ was Jew, then why there is so much hatred between Jews and Christians? a July 2019 post with the Rocketracoon account.

What i will achieve through these socks? a 2015 post as Cosmic Emperor. Reading through this section of his talk page leaves me unable to support. After reading and sorting through all this I'm going withdraw my support. — Ched :  ?  — 20:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support unban - last chance for socking. one-year period of last chance for harassment. starship.paint (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Striking my vote until the new CU situation is clear. starship.paint (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: hi all I ran a check because it hadn't been done and there was a sockmaster requesting an unblock.Rocketracoon456789 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is appears to be the same person as Cosmic Avengers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They are editing on the same relatively narrow range with the exact same user agent. I expanded the check to the wider range that Cosmic Avengers was on. While the UA is very common, these were the only people on it to have it on the range the operate on. I am also certain that Rocketracoon has edited logged out.
  I'd prefer another administrator assess behaviourally as I'm not familiar with this case, but it seems to fit the username pattern (see: Galactic Horse.) In terms of CU code I'd go with  Technically indistinguishable and  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Pinging other participants to this discussion. @Nil Einne, Ched, Huon, and Starship.paint:. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: - how many edits while logged out? starship.paint (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact amount, relatively small, but it was enough to make it 100% certain that the person behind Rocketracoon456789 had indeed edited as an IP. In ordinary cases, I would reblock both accounts as CU blocks, but since this is at AN and I'm not that familiar with the sockmaster, I'm letting someone else figure it out. I'd say the liklihood of this being the same person is pretty high technically, but having an additional set of eyes isn't a bad thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - TonyBallioni's CU data is good enough for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tony's CU data, "I have not edited wikipedia for more than two and half years." is clearly a blatant lie, CA I'd suggest you find a new hobby. –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per TonyBallioni's CU data and Davey2010 for distilling a point. People who misrepresent (lie) in an unblock request shift from the "consider" column to the "probably never" column in my assessment, most especially if they were a puppetmaster. That dog won't fly. (More final than "dog won't hunt" I think.) Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I first interacted with BrownHairedGirl at the MfD for Portal:Vermont, a portal I had volunteered to begin maintaining, where I thought some of their comments were uncivil, specifically that they kept referring to me as a "portalista" and discounting/generalizing my arguments as such, as well as asserting I am too incompetent to edit:

• "If anyone hopes that there may be other potential maintainers lurking out there who don't have the WP:CIR issues of this 'maintainer'..." ([79])
• "@User:Vermont, that's just more of the same portalista counter-factual." (Ibid.)
• "One of the saddest part of Wikipedia's experiment with portals is the way that it has lured in some editors to waste their time building abysmally designed portals (e.g. "refresh to see a new selection" is a disastrous usability fail) which readers inevitably don't want, and which portalistas then defend by flights of fantasy or outright falsehoods." ([80], italics added for emphasis)
• "This is the standard portalista tactic of dissembling." (Ibid.)

Having Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals on my watchlist, and checking that as I've intended to become more active on this project, I noticed this morning this section by BrownHairedGirl regarding Portal:Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl wrote in a later comment in that section: that view is not shared by a clique of portalista editors who have a track record of simply ignoring the parts of POG which do not suit their agenda. It is highly constructive and highly relevant to point out that their selective and mendacious approach to established guidelines is producing bad results. ([81]) I replied, and she confirmed that she was directly asserting those who she deemed "portalistas" are bad-faith editors, a direct personal attack on many people, including myself, who she uses that word to refer to. I asked not to be called a "portalista", as it is insulting, and BrownHairedGirl's subsequent response completely ignored that, saying: "I look forward to seeing who wants to move beyond the usual portalista tactic of simply ignoring inconvenient realities, and actually deny these realities." Please see the complete discussion here, and the below quotations from BrownHairedGirl's comments in that section.

• "I have demonstrated extraordinary patience, for months on end. But sadly, the mendacity of a few portalistas has become both more extreme and more persistent." ([82])
• "It is quite extraordinary to see yet again the determination of portalistas to simply lie, lie and lie again in their mendacious determination to ignore POG. This time, it's not just NA1K; it several of the groupies coming out to lie in chorus." ([83])
• "...a group which clearly does not include the drive-by portalistas who made this comedy." ([84])

There are also other civility issues with BrownHairedGirl regarding portals alluded to in other sections on that page. Here are some examples from the last couple weeks:

• "So if the portalistas want to find a way of adding this to the collection of abandoned junk which they want to keep..." ([85])
• "On previous experience, the portalisstas are most unlikely to even try to produce any such evidence. Instead, their tactics will involve a combination: Lying about the text of POG...Word negation...Distraction...Defiance" (Ibid., see the diff for their explanation of those 4 points which is omitted from this quotation)
• "It will be interesting to see which portalistas deploy which of the usual bogus-keep arguments, and indeed whether they manage to devise new counterfactuals. I'm thinking of keeping a scorecard, like bullshit bingo." (Ibid.)
• Referring to User:The Transhumanist as a "notorious portalspammer" on multiple occasions. ([86][87])
• "So why exactly do you want to ignore the established guideline and continue to lure readers to this unmaintained, abandoned junk?" ([88])
• "For over a decade, portalspace has been the corner of wikipedia where low standards of integrity and competence have been institutionalised. We are now seeing the consequence of that, as people without the necessary personal attributes resort to anger and deception as their only tools to defend the only sandpit they can play in." ([89])
• "Hecato's comment is sadly typical of the responses by portalistas, in that it either misrepresents or ignores a guideline which has been quoted at them many dozens pf times, and is quoted in the discussion." ([90])
• "So as the number of portals continues to plummet, the portalistas are looking at a massive shrinkage of the only part of this site most of them are interested in and/or capable of contributing to. So they are getting desperate, and tag-teaming MFD with barrages of co-ordinated, flat-out lies." ([91])
• "I don't think that ordinary rebuttal is sufficient to rescue consensus-building in the face of the lying campaign by the portalista desperadoes." (Ibid.)
• "Unfortunately, what we have here is a small clique of editors who persistently fail to act in good faith. They have decided that: 1/ all portals are inherently a good thing; 2/ The guidelines which require that portals should be used and maintained should simply be ignored; 3/ That deletions are inherently bad, and may therefore be legitimately impeded by strategic lying." ([92])
• "A bunch of editors who want to retain even abandoned junk portals (i.e portalistas) have taken to trying to sway MFD debates by repeatedly asserting as fact points which are demonstrably untrue and which they demonstrably know to be untrue." ([93])
• "If Hecato's chooses to become one of the portalistas who hope that persistent repetition of falsehoods will change reality, that is Hecato's choice about who they want to be." ([94])

Further, there's serious civility issues between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000:

• "Note that as usual, the serially dishonest editor NA1K continue their campaign of deception by trying to mislead the discussion." ([95])
• "The reality which the mendacious NA1K seeks to obfuscate yet again..." ([96])
• "NA1K, calm down. The only baiting here is your disruptive mendacity about policy, and your repeated attempts to disrupt of the flow discussion by posting over a screenful of data which can be viewed elsewhere and needs only a simple link." ([97])
• "NA1K+cronies should desist from attempting to disrupt consensus formation by NA1K's campaign of systematic mendacity, and desist from complaining when the mendacity is challenging." ([98])
• "I agree that the zealotry of NA1K's radical determination to retain even abandoned junk portals is severely detached from the community consensus." ([99])
• "If you have any proposals on how to bring a halt to NA1K's vile bullying tactic of persistent lying to disrupt consensus formation, then you should set it out." (Ibid.)
• "The portalista tactic devised by NA1K of systematically misrepresenting the guideline is a sustained attack on consensus-formation..."([100])
• All of this.
• "It remains bizarrely fascinating that you will do just about anything to defend the existence of unread abandoned junk portals expect quote the actual guidelines (rather than your imaginary guidelines) and provide actual evidence rather than counter-factual specualation." ([101])

I believe that most of these quotes, if not all, demonstrate behavior in violation of our civility policy and WP:NPA and should be acted on in some way by the community. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a case of serial harassment and passive aggression. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regrettably, there has been a persistent conduct problem for the last 6 months wrt portals. A small number of editors (who i have labeled "portalistas") have been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct ever since the problem of TTH's portalsam became an issue in February 2019.

Even back at the point when all that was being considered was the removal of the flood of portalspam, Certes described the community support to do so as "war on portals". That mentality has been been a toxic component of portal debates ever since.

Back in March, the portalistas thought they were being very clever in gaming the system by the requiring to community to have a full MFD deletion discussion on each of the 4,200 portals, rather than speedy-deleting them. The portalistas were very well aware that the spam portals had been created a rate of more than one every 2 minutes, and that their pal the portalspammer had spewed out automated pseudo-portals just for the heck of it ... but they still insisted that the community devote huge multiples of that time scrutinising each piece of the spam.

It was fairly clear from the ongoing outrage from portalistas that when the community nonetheless worked its way through the whole spam mountain and deleted the lot, that wasn't what the portalistas had expected. Their attempt to game the system had failed.

But more than that, the attempt had backfired badly. By requiring so much scrutiny, the portalistas had ensured that there were now several editors well-versed in portal guidelines and skilled in examining portals. And those scrutineers had found that as well as the spam portals, there were also a lot of abandoned junk portals which failed POG.

So junk portals which were no longer automated, or had maybe never been automated, began to be MFded too. And as the discussions moved on, it became clear that POG was right to require a large number of maintainers. Scores of portals appeared at MFD with clear signs that they had been built in a spurt of enthusiasm, rebuilt or rebooted a few years later in a spurt of someone else's enthusiasm, and then rotted because they had not attracted enough maintainers to sustain the maintenance. It is very clear from MFDs in the last two months that the ability to retain a large set of maintainers is a crucial criterion of a portal being kept, and that we have clear evidence that most of the deleted portals failed that criterion.

Along the way, there has been a steady barrage of personal abuse by portalistas hurled at those working on cleaning up the vast pile of abandoned portals while the portalistas have allowed to accumulate over the years There have also been many efforts to sabotage the monitoring process, such the efforts by @NA1K to depopulate tracking categories.

The result has been a lot of very lengthy MFDs in which portalistas have tried to defend many hundreds of almost-unread abandoned junk portals.

In Late June or early July 2019, there was a change of tactic by one of the most vocal portalistas, NA1K. They began to participate in MFDs, disrupting discussion by misrepresenting the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". NA1K began to make verbose !votes which were based on omitting everything after the comma in that part of the guidelines; instead NA1K posted at length based on their own subjective definition of broad.

I can readily accept that editors may be mistaken about a guideline, and fail to notice part of it. However, in this case NA1K adopted a strategy I have never seen before, of simply ignoring all efforts to point NA1K to the rest of the sentence, and instead doubling down on efforts to demonstrate subjective broadness.

This became so persistent, so blatant, and so disruptive that any assumption of good faith was impossible. So I started to call it out for it is: deliberate lying with the aim of gaming the system, and subverting the process of consensus formation.

Sadly, this has indeed become ugly. NA1K has extended their mendacious and duplicitous tactics to other aspects of portal discussions, such as the forum-shopping exercise which I documented here.[102]

I have never before encountered an admin behaving with such sustained and strategic mendacity as NA1k has displayed here, and I well understand that it is uncomfortable for other editors to see that called out and to find themselves challenged when they follow the approach taken by the serially mendacious NA1K. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In your response to my accusations of you breaking civility policies and WP:NPA, you refer to The Transhumanist as "their pal the portalspammer", his work as "the whole spam mountain", use the word portalista to refer to those who disagree with you almost a dozen times, and continue to bash User:Northamerica1000. Vermont (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Plain and simple harassment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TRM: NA1K has been using strategic mendacity to impede the application of established guidelines and subvert the efforts made by other editors to collect evidence and build consensus. I agree that NA1K's conduct amount to harassment of the good faith editors with whom they interact. It is also classic BATTLE conduct, disruption, and tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that you have harassed others. I hope that's taken seriously when this moves to the inevitable Arbcom stage. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, can you see the irony of using personal attacks ("strategic mendacity") in a section focused on civility issues with your behaviour? Please do not continue to prove the OP right. You are engaging in battleground conduct with respect to portals, and your interactions with NA1k are too toxic to continue like this. —Kusma (t·c) 21:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, any toxicity derives from the decision of NA1K to repeatedly use strategic mendacity and WP:GAMEing tactics in serial attempts to disrupt consensus formation. This could all be brought to to an end if NA1k upheld the standards of integrity and honesty expected of admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been going on forever, and has long got rather nasty at times. The view of the community was made entirely clear in various discussions. I admire BHG's stamina and restraint in following-up the community's decision. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What I hatted here is usually not described as "restraint". BHG has been personalising the portal issue to an unhealthy degree. —Kusma (t·c) 21:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, what you hatted there was a lengthy post by me[103], in which I set out length:

1. The blatant efforts by NA1K to yet again game the system
2. The huge range of points of substance missed by the cosy clique discussion which NA1K had initiated.

It is sadly typical of portalista conduct that your response was to collapse the whole post, rather than to engage with either the evidence pf NA1K's disruptively dishonest WP:GAMEing misconduct, or any of the points of substance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, if you want to discuss substance, don't post half a section of personal attacks as a start. If you can't discuss the issue without attacking other contributors, just don't post. —Kusma (t·c) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, when the problem is the use of WP:GAMEing tactics to disrupt consensus-formation, then the discussion can be refocused on substance only by first putting a stop to the mendacious GAMEing.

It is notable that you express no concern about NA1K's GAMEing tactics or mendacity, and that yo have nothing to say on the substance. The only concern you display is to shoot the messenger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• PS User:Vermont opened this discussion with complaints about post[104] at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont. I stand by that post, both in substance and in tone, and invite other editors to read the whole discussion, which closed as "delete".

The underlying issue here is that for a decade, portals have been a neglected backwater, where the portals project never even set up a grading system for the 1500 portals within their scope, and hence have been taken by surprise when scores of outside editors started scrutinising portals and actually applying the guideline which the portalistas themselves developed over the years. The portalistas have responded with anger, denial and misrepresentation ... and they deeply resent being called out on that. However, the fact that the many hundreds of MFDs in recent months have led to a reduction of the number of portals from 5705 to the current tally of just over 800 portals is clear evidence of a community consensus in favour of upholding the guidelines.

As to my description of TTH as the "notorious portalspammer", I stand by that as a factual labelling of TTH's conduct. TTH was creating automated junk portals at a rate of over one every two minutes, and even boasted of spamming out automated pseudo-portals just for the heck of it. Cleaning up TTH's mess took thousands of hours of editorial time, and even tho TTH later admitted that their wave of portalspam was all superfluous, they took absolutely no part in assisting with the massive cleanup exercise. The decision by Vermont to defend TTH against WP:SPADE labelling is not evidence that Vermont exercises good judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The first thing I notice looking through the diffs provided as evidence, is that on all of the ones related to MfDs, the portal was deleted or it looks to be headed there. I think it is entirely natural and expected that an editor would get irritated after facing the same failed arguments over and over again. This would be much like allowing civil POV pushers to win content disputes by letting them wear down their opponents. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not an excuse for incivility, especially not from an administrator. Vermont (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider BHG to be uncivil. I also think that context matters. I said irritated, not "driven to incivility". My personal reading. It is normal to get irritated by people who try to delay the inevitable. Anyway, if an administrator attempting to bring an obvious community consensus to an entire project is being annoyed by the stonewalling of a handful of editors who consistently fall on the losing side of portal-related debates, the solution would be to topic ban the editors causing the annoyance, not the administrator getting annoyed. I also agree with johnbod that BHG's patience is commendable. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a better place if you never used the word "portalista" again. This isn't about TTH, it is about you. —Kusma (t·c) 21:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a better place if the portalistas dropped the NA1K-derived practice of strategic mendacity, and started working collaboratively to apply the long-established guidelines which are repeatedly upheld at MFD.

This whole thread is about me only as a shoot-the-messenger exercise in which irate portalistas object passionately to fact that their misconduct and rejection of community consensus is being called out.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, your endless personalisation of the issue is what makes it difficult to collaboratively work on the portal system. Community consensus was to continue to have portals, at least before the portals exploded (which has since been reverted). If you have sufficient evidence of misconduct, please just start a WP:RFAR instead of using claims about "mendacious portalistas" to drown any useful discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 21:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Applying proper standards to portal pages sounds like a good idea but could you please not say portalistas if the people you are referring to regard that as a slur? Haukur (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact you continue to refer to people who you disagree with as "portalistas" after they directly ask you to stop is a serious civility problem. Vermont (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Kusma, for the millionth time: the community consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS was to reject a proposal to delete all portals in one go. There is not, and never has been, any community consensus to retain abandoned junk portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Haukur, @Vermont, I will drop that word for now, because it seems to be distraction from the real issues.

As if you need my opinion, but... the "portalista" coinage is a Bad Idea. Stick with "portal proponents" and most of the substance of the above complaints goes away. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made various attempt to find some collective term to use as a shorthand for the frequently-irate cabal of editors who defend abandoned junk portals and express outrage that long-standing guidelines are upheld by community consensus They objected when referred to as "portal fans", so I dropped that, and I'll go back to the drawing board again. But whatever labels are applied or not applied, the fact remains that we have a problem: a small set of vocal editors who are ideologically opposed to the removal of any of the still-vast set of failed portals.

I thought that this cleanup phase would have finished months ago, and we'd be left with only the lovingly curated portals such as Portal:Cheshire ans Portal:Military history of Australia. So I am appalled that even after so many junk portals have been culled, I have still in the last two weeks found more junk such as Harry Potter, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sherlock Holmes, The Muppets, and Rhône-Alpes ... and MFD remains full of abandoned junk portals nominated by others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope AN/Arbcom apply their new shock-and-awe approach to harassment equitably. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I am 100% in agreement with you on the object-level issues here. Portals that get few views and little maintenance should be pruned. But the idea of needing a collective term for those who disagree with you on this is, perhaps, best abandoned. It contributes to a battleground feeling, which makes your perfectly reasonable position come across as unnecessarily personal. Haukur (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Grouping people you disagree with into a collective using derogatory terminology is overt harassment. I hope this kind of harassment is taken seriously. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire, TRM: using collective terms to describe editors who engage in disruptive conduct is an established practice, because terminology is neccessary to facilitate discussion of the misconduct. So we have lots of such terms on Wikipedia, e.g, spammers, vandals, POV-pushers, sockpuppets, POV-warriors, trolls. I have been very clear that I have applied the collective term only to those editors who have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus to portals. There are many other editors who great work maintaining portals, and I have not called them "portalistas" not have I have applied the term to those who honestly and constructively take a different view about the future of portals.

As above, I will desist from use of the term. I hope that you will support my request that those who I have labelled in that way will desist from the mendacity, gameing and disruption which the word set out to describe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it appears that your behaviour has become too unpleasant and unacceptable to the community as a whole. Good luck, it looks like you'll need it now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You've called dozens of editors portalistas, including myself. Are you seriously saying all those editors "have engaged in misconduct to subvert the application of community consensus"? Vermont (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but that does not negate your previous use of the word and other insults and the fact it took for someone to mention it at WP:AN for you to finally agree to stop insulting people with it is not acceptable. Vermont (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks BHG for doing all the clean-up work endorsed by the community at the many MfD discussions supporting portal deletions. There will always be a small number of objectors who see merit in seldom-visited and unmaintained pages and BHG's restraint is appreciated. We could all agree to not use the term "portalistas" if the small number of objectors were to take heed of the MfD results. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We should be identifying portals that need help and fixing them when possible The problem we are having is that there is two very small isolated groups ...those that wish to fix-up the portal system before they are all gone (a dozen or so) vs those that dont see any value in them (five or so). A system should be setup to visibly tag portals that need help so editors that edit pages can take time and fix them if possible before deletion is even considered (WP:PRJDEL)....cant fix 100 portals a month that are nominated for deletion with zero effort for improvement as most people work and only volunteer their spear time to the project.- That all said with only 800 portals left its clear portals are over despite the RfC about them being retained.Moxy 🍁 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019

Moxy, portals don't need drive-by fixes from portal enthusiasts. They need ongoing development, maintenance, curation by editors who have expertise in the topic. That why POG explicitly requires both large numbers of maintainers and WikiProject involvement.

The abundant evidence of the past decade of neglect is that there are simply not enough editors who combine expertise in a broad topic area with a willingness to devote the huge amounts of time required to sustain a labour-intensive model of portal which readers don't read.

That's why so many portals are being brought to MFD as abandoned junk.

Tagging the portals won't magically create magical editors. Drive-by updates won't resurrect the defunct or dormant WikiProjects that the portals rely on.

Even the Portals WikiProject is unable to fulfil its core functions. Its project banner allows assessment of portals, but it has never even agreed a basis for assessment, let alone applied it. Category:Portal pages by class is a disgrace: Category:Unassessed Portal pages contains 657 pages, out of ~810 portals.

Much of the design of portals is based on assumptions which had some validity in 2006/7: that a huge and ever-growing set of active editors would ensure that even the most labour-intensive processes and structures worked. The sub-page model of portals is explicitly based on the model of a mini-mainpage. However, the mainpage requires several huge teams of busy editors to sustain it, an even on the smaller scope of a portal that model still requires a lot of ongoing work. That's why POG requires "large numbers" of maintainers.

Sadly, the reality has been the number of editors has declined markedly, and the ratio of articles to active-editors is now about a quarter of what it was a decade ago. So not only do we have abundant evidence that most portals have failed, we can see the structural reasons for why they failed, and will continue to fail.

I understand why this is disappointing to those such as Moxy who like portals. But it is noticeable that many of those most committed to portals act as if they are in deep denial about the realities, and have instead chosen to express their frustration through a variety of dysfunctional tactics such as rage against those propose deletion, mendacity to derail deletion, and magical thinking such as the idea that tagging portals will magically fix them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually I have voted to remove the namespace altogether a few times (as you are fully aware of )...but since you have been around the portal project I have not edited portals much at. This is the general problem that happens in discussions with you ... a general misunderstanding of others POV resulting in bullying tactics that has resulted in participation in portals to be almost null. As has been told to you before many many times pages views for portals are low because 60 percent of our readers dont see them to use them. As for labor intensive this is simply wrong since transclutiuon is taking place. Its great you have discovered the portal guideline page recently - but what we are looking for is common sense over your personal POV when implementing any guideline. I really only have one question ...do you have any advise on how to improve portals and there views? --Moxy 🍁 23:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you are back in the duplicitous battle mode which I have been calling out.

You write what we are looking for is common sense over your personal POV when implementing any guideline.

The reality is I have been applying a common sense plain English reading, when you and others have been engaging in angry denial, mendacity and reality-inversion. And the reality is that there has been repeated consensus at hundreds of MFDs to uphold the plain English reading.

So look just at the guideline which has attracted most attention. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

You and the other don't-delete-abandoned-junk-portals editors have been trying to claim that portals with no maintainers meets the guideline, and that a portal with almost no readers meets the guideline.

And yet you claim to uphold "common sense"? Boggle.

I really genuinely do hope that that you are being calculated mendacious here. Because if you genuinely believe that zero or near-zero amounts to a "large number", then your path through life will be difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) The whole topic of portals has become a quagmire and so long as people continue to engage in tendentious editing, no sane person will wade into that mess for any protracted period of time. I know, I tried maybe a month ago at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Portals guideline but eventually gave up because it's obvious everyone is talking past each other rather than with each other. Just look at the mess WP:POG2019RFC became. I don't have a great solution, but we need to do something. The idea of an ArbCom case becomes more attractive by the day, but ideally the community can solve what is obviously a wide issue. I understand some people care a lot about this topic, but we've reached edit warring over the color of templates level absurd. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wugapodes, your WP:Requests for comment/Portals guideline was an excellent idea, but sadly, yes, it got nowhere.

I think that the whole portals debate ultimately divides into two camps which I will crudely describe as the utilitarians vs the fans. (Yes, both labels are imperfect).

The utilitarians, of which I am one, broadly regard a portal as a tool which exist only if it is maintained, serves a purpose, and provides sufficient reader benefit to justify the high costs of maintaining it.

The fans like portals per se. They like having pages which aggregate or link content in creative ways, and they are not particularly concerned about whether the portals meet any identifiable need or are effectively maintained. Some of them like creating or editing pages which are largely untouched by the rigorous policies covering actual content. Several of those editors have descried how creating portals is addictive, and others have said that if there is any remote possibility that a portal might be of some use to someone someday, that's all that is needed.

These two views are not ultimately reconcilable, and some point the community will have to decide which view should prevail.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is too simplistic to divide the discussion into two groups, and do not favour labelling contributors at all. Let's just talk about pros and cons. If it helps, I (or anyone else who wants to volunteer) can create a FAQ summarizing the various pros and cons that have been discussed so far, and then no one has to repeat their arguments again. Additionally, your point was made the first time you called an editor a liar; you don't have to repeat it any more. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Without trying to assign blame, it's this kind of black-and-white thinking that I believe is causing problems in this area. We have more options than keep portals as they are and eliminate portals, but the belief that one of those two must win leads to a battleground mentality where we wind up with a sub-optimal result (see Prisoner's dilemma). Suggestions are littered across the various portal discussions (I have made some myself) but rarely gain traction because there is more noise than signal. The solution to the portal issue is a conscious community effort to collaborate and find common goals and mutually agreeable outcomes (see meatball:BarnRaising). If the editing environment is not one of good faith, people won't want to help, and the whole thing falls apart like we've been seeing in the recent discussions.

I don't mean to lecture because I genuinely feel this is a broader issue than just you, BHG, but I think a lot of the concerns expressed here are in that spirit. Everyone wants the encyclopedia to be better and to figure out what to do with portals, but that the way you have been going about it is making people not want to help achieve that goal. To be frank, I was somewhat intimidated by your first edit on the RFC subpage, but I stepped back and understood it for what it was: a good faith effort to collaborate and build the barn. It's that kind of spirit, a focus on our shared goals rather than differences, which the topic area needs from everyone. It's why I think ArbCom and topic bans at the moment are likely to do more harm than good by inflaming passions and encouraging factionalism. But if the portal discussions become more polarized and intractable, that seems to be the suboptimal solution to our prisoner's dilemma. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: maybe I didn't express myself very clearly. I thoroughly agree that there are many possible outcomes, and that within the two groups I describe there are many nuances. The problem is that it is impossible to achieve consensus on any of them unless we resolve the fundamental divide over the purpose of portals. Are they tools to which we apply utility and viability tests? Or are they self-justifying pages, whose existence justifies their existence?

I thought for several months this year that despite the extreme tensions, we were making some progress and building elements of consensus. That changed radically back in June/July, when NA1K aggressively abandoned good faith and began their campaign of strategic mendacity. That's what led me to start directly challenging the misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) How about "portalists" (without the 'a') as a seemingly reasonable, neutral term to refer to a group of editors that support portals, on the rare occasion it is necessary to refer to editors and not content? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• @BrownHairedGirl: You need to stop with the personal attacks. Paul August ☎ 00:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That advice must be accompanied with a diff of a personal attack or it must be withdrawn per WP:ASPERSIONS. If you are relying on something above, you need to quote it immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

    Johnuniq, see the large list I created this section with. Considering he commented in this section, it can reasonably be inferred that is what he is commenting on. Vermont (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:, "portalista" is clearly derogatory, (diffs can be found above). Paul August ☎ 18:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps pro-portal people prefer "portaltariat" over portalistas, but let's avoid personalizing and polarizing phrases please. Jonathunder (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

There is an issue with Portals. The Portal issue is the background to this conflict, but it is not the problem, it is barely relevant.

The problem requiring resolution is the head to head conflict between two admins, User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Northamerica1000. At the top of the conflict is that one is allegedly an uncivil bully, and the other is allegedly an repeated lier.

It is not OK for one to be an uncivil bully. It is not OK to be a repeated lier. The allegation of repeated lying is a bold upfront WP:ABF allegation of WP:disruption. It doesn't excuse the incivility, but repeated lying demands immediate investigation and action.

I told BHG on her talk page: I think if you feel justified to accusing an admin three times of lying in a formal discussion (eg an MfD), then it needs to go to WP:AN. I am disappointed in her in not doing that, but waiting for someone else to bring it to WP:ANI.

BHG has put her credibility on the line in making the repeated accusations of repeated lying. BHG must, concisely, substantiate these allegations. If substantiated, User:Northamerica1000 should face desysop. If BHG's allegations are not substantiated, in the judgement of the community, then she should be desysopped for the incivility.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Can we find a solution which doesn't cost us an admin or two? Jonathunder (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Amen. – Levivich 03:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support sending some clear message to BHG at this point. The original report here by User:Vermont is genuinely concerning. It shows uncalled for attacks on a good faith editor trying to improve a page scheduled for deletion. User:Vermont has almost no portal edits in their history and makes some good faith efforts to improve one particular portal on, yes, Vermont. For this they get attacked with claims about "portalistas", "dissembling", "falsehoods" etc. Instead of apologizing for this or offering some convincing justifying context, BHG persists in the same conduct, attacking her perceived opponents for "mendacity" in just about every edit. These attacks have to stop. Agreeing not to say "portalistas" is a step in the right direction and hopefully we can see some more steps. Haukur (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Haukur, rather than relying on Vermont's selective quotations, please read the actual exchange as it happened at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont. As you can see there, the phrases which Vermont chose to cherrypick carry a very different meaning when read in the context of the specific issues being addressed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I did read it but sadly I found nothing in the context to justify the sort of attacks you are launching in, for example, this edit: [105] This is someone you're interacting with for the first time and they get immediately lumped into some hated outgroup of liars. I urge you to apologize for this and desist from similar comments in the future. Haukur (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, not all of your comments are uncivil. Many are kind, however I linked the ones that were very uncivil as this is a thread about your incivility. It'd be quite odd if I quoted okay things you said rather than problematic ones, eh? Vermont (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

    I think Portal:Vermont should have been deleted. I think most portals (i.e. 95+%) should be deleted. I voted differently on some as the MfD mass deletions started but you and other utilitarians convinced me I was wrong, despite my general "I edit a niche which some must find silly so I should let others edit their niches which I find silly" disposition. But here's what I see when I read that deletion discussion. I see an editor new to the portal arena see a portal that is of passion to them (it's their username afterall) get nominated for deletion [106]. This sparks an inclusionist desire and given that WP:HEY works at AfD that editor takes some time to try and improve it [107] while speaking to the concerns noted in the discussion [108]. I see you, a battle hardened utilitarian seeing these edits. I see an excellent editor worn down by the actions of some fans now having to respond to arguments that you've had to respond to a lot of times before. But respond you will, but trying to do so by cutting to the chase about the flaws in the reasoning you've been presented just as you've had to do before and without any time for pleasantries [109]. I see the portal novice making an a faulty argument because he doesn't know better, no one has explained it to him really (since a plain reading of POG could support his reading of the guideline), and he has hasn't been around portals long enough to learn [110] [111]. I see you attempting to win the argument - the facts are on your side after all - by labeling this novice editor and lumping him in with a bunch of people who he wouldn't have considered himself lumped in with [112] and through implication calling him a fantasist and liar. I think there's a version of that post where you still win the argument but you do so with compassion towards Vermont rather than contempt. I then see an editor taking offense [113] which solidifies the need to make him an other so you make a more detailed case for why Portal:Vermont is not policy compliant [114]. I see an editor attempting to hang in the discussion because he feels wronged and thus is maybe not able to see that the facts and guideline aren't with him [115] . I then see that same editor feel further attacked by a fairly normal XfD !vote because his worth had already become tied up with the topic, through his own editing pride and through the attacks lobbed against him [116]. I then see the discussion being properly closed as delete [117]. That's what happens when I read that discussion edit by edit after Vermont enters the discussion.

    There's the expression ""If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." What I see happen in that discussion is that you pounded the facts, you pounded the law (policy), but you also pounded the editor. I think there are other diffs you seem to have indicated you'll produce which show why portal fans had driven you to this mindset and those diffs will not reflect well on them. But I have a hard time seeing anything other than a portal novice who is attached to a subject disagree with you and get all sorts of grief because of it in that discussion. I'm so glad you've agreed to move on from the portalista label. I am confident that diffs can be presented which will show others have acted poorly in these discussion. But I don't see Vermont being unfair in his selected phrases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe, I resent in any aspect of life seeing anyone being called an "uncivil bully" for calling lying by its name. And I resent its application to me in this context.

From my perspective, the practice of trying to achieve a goal through deliberate falsehood is one of the most deeply uncivil and bullying practices which any human can deploy. There is good reason that a lie is a punishable offence in legal proceedings (see perjury), a disciplinary matter in employment[118], a derailer of political careers[119], and a potential ender of marriages.[120]

I would not have used the terminology unless I was satisfied that it was justified. I will be happy to substantiate my assertions, with diffs. However, it's late now, so I will do so tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• • This has been dragging on for many months. Don't rush your answers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Statement amended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I do not recall an admin being desysopped for incivility or lying. Desysopping is rare and usually follows abuse of admin tools. I had a look at one of the above mentions of lying and found it was at an MfD for Portal:Armenia which, despite 63K bytes of complaint, was closed as delete. I do not think desysopping is on the table but a topic ban might be achievable. Since Wikipedia is not an exercise in being nice to everyone, a topic ban should be imposed on any editor who unreasonably obstructs actions supported by the community. That portal was deleted so, once again, BHG's work was supported by the community. Accordingly, a topic ban against anyone acting as an obstructionist might be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• The level of badgering by BHG at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia is just incredible. Yes, the portal was deleted and I would have !voted to delete it too. But an admin has to be able to show respect to people with different opinions and this constant stream of accusations of lying is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. The main trigger for this accusation appears to be that people who disagree with BHG are disinclined to quote the words "which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" from WP:POG. But emphasizing different parts of a particular written guideline is an insufficient basis for accusations of mendacity. By contrast, User:Northamerica1000 deserves to be commended for not responding in kind. Haukur (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've read through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia. I would make two observations: (1) the keep arguments are unimpressive, at best, and avoid the whole question of readership which is central to these and related discussions. BHG isn't wrong to flag what amounts to vote-stacking as a problem. We may disagree on the severity of that problem. (2) BHG has lost perspective when it comes to Northamerica1000. Leaving aside whether her assessment of his behavior is accurate, her responses to him and repeated invocation of his name in subsequent comments (to other people) also distracted from the discussion and probably weren't helpful to the closer. Mackensen (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A Few Utilitarian Comments

Here are a few comments on this contentious matter, and in particular on the conflict between User:BrownHairedGirl on the one hand, and a few portal advocates, including User:Northamerica1000, User:Vermont, and User:Moxy on the other hand.

First, although BHG is almost always right about portals as such, the OP has one valid complaint, and a serious one, that BHG persists in labeling NA1k as a serial liar and the comments of NA1k as 'mendacious'. I see why BHG says that NA1k is lying, but it is clear to me that the good-faith explanation is that the portal advocates have become stuck in a language comprehension error, and are therefore honestly and wrongheadedly repeating the portal guideline (if it is a guideline) without understanding how to read a qualifying clause. The portal advocates are not lying, because they have been shouting so long that they have convinced themselves of what isn't true. I will, once again, tell BHG that I do not think that the portalistas are lying, even though what they say is not true, and so saying that they are lying is seriously uncivil. Portals have a weird charm for a group of editors, and cause them to be unable to explain themselves.

Second, the term 'portalistas' is BHG's own usage. I originally referred to the 'portal platoon', a group of editors led by TTH who were created portals recklessly, evidently because creating portals is fun and portals look neat. I found BHG's term useful to identify a different overlapping group, editors who defend portals recklessly, as opposed to creating portals recklessly.

Third, it really is becoming clear that portals have some sort of weird charm, that a number of capable and otherwise reasonable editors will defend them fiercely, but cannot explain to the utilitarians what their value is. Portals are both like and unlike infoboxes. They divide the community. But both the advocates and the critics of infoboxes can make reasonable cases.

Fourth, some editors clearly think that certain levels of regions, such as countries, and provinces of Canada, and states of the United States, should have portals. But they won't propose a specific guideline. All that they do is whine and scream about the deletion of such portals. But the advocates of portals mostly can't make constructive comments about when and why portals are needed, which, as noted, is why WP:POG2019RFC is a mess. But they also don't to submit an alternate RFC.

Fifth, TRM refers to passive aggression, as they lurk and snipe, illustrating passive aggression; but no more need be said of them.

Sixth, because portals have a weird charm that cause people to believe things that otherwise would not make sense, User:BrownHairedGirl should be cautioned to avoid the allegation of lying, even if the portal advocates are making statements that are contrary to fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note I'm not a portal advocate per se. I noticed Portal:Vermont was up for deletion and the nominator mentioned they'd be okay if it had a maintainer, so I updated the portal and !voted keep to be subsequently insulted by BHG. Vermont (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean the portal that the community chose to delete? Why wouldn't BHG be frustrated by the pointless obstructionism—pointless because the community keeps deleting portals. The only keep reasons I see in that MfD are variations on "I like it". Actually some keeps imply that the voter does not like the portal, but they think it should be kept anyway and tagged with {{update}}. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the one that there was consensus to delete. I don’t contest that. Is it somehow my fault that the community keeps deleting portals and that there is opposition to it? Does my keep !vote make me deserving of personal attacks? My comments in that MfD are based on my interpretation of WP:POG, although that does not matter here. This is a thread about incivility, not portals. Vermont (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Everyone's behavior is considered in a discussion like this. BHG's frustration is understandable given the level of ILIKEIT obstructionism encountered while attempting to clean up the extravagant creation of thousands of pointless portals. Given that BHG is supported by the community and the obstructionists are not, it is not likely that a community discussion would choose to sanction BHG. WP:POG cannot contradict the fact that portals have been deleted and any attempt to interpret WP:POG as keep would be a misreading. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Without passing judgement on the conduct at the MfD, I want to take issue with the implications of what you said to U:Vermont. Understandable does not mean appropriate. None of the things you listed justify incivility, and the assertion that simply being supported by policy or popularity prevents someone from being sanctioned for incivility ("Given that BHG is supported by the community and the obstructionists are not, it is not likely that a community discussion would choose to sanction BHG.") is distasteful at best. Iff BHG or anyone has been incivil (especially an experienced user towards someone new to the topic area, see WP:BITE) there should be sanctions to prevent it in the future regardless of the merits. Our fourth pillar does not have an exception for being right. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wugapodes, please take a step back and read the actual discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont, and in particular my exchanges with User:Vermont.

There were substantive issues there of both fact and policy where I supplied evidence that User:Vermont was simply wrong. It may be uncomfortable for an editor to find that their assertions are repeatedly refuted, but that process of debate and refutation is an absolutely essential part of a rational decision-making process. If response and refutation is to be treated as incivility, then consensus-formation breaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: My apologies if it came off as accusatory. I had read the MfD and I still stand by what I said earlier that I don't think sanctions are appropriate at this time (I very much share Barkeep's view above). My point in the comment here was meant to be general rather than specific to this circumstance; if there were to be incivility by anyone anywhere, being correct does not justify that incivility. I was not concerned with whether it occured in this circumstance, but rather what ought to be done if it occurs in any circumstance. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wug. I agree in principle, but please note that there is another side to this.

Those like me who have long experience participation in academic and political endeavours are used to the process of debate as means of exploring issues, resolving differences and learning. So a process of point and counterpoint is a non-threatening, routine tool which we use in leisure time as well as in work.

Creating a collaborative encyclopedia involves a lot of the same processes. The talk pages of many articles are filled with similar debates, as editors debate how to use sources, how to apply WP:WEIGHT, how polish prose etc. Even outside of the controversial topic areas, here is a lot of intense debate about how to craft a high-quality article which satisfies core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as dozens of subsiduary policies and guidelines.

However, the further we get away from major topics and higher-class articles, the less that happens. It is quite possible to work away prolifically for years on stubs without ever having any serious debate. This applies even more so with portals, most of which receive little scrutiny and little editorial attention, where there are no references to consider now practice of assessing portals for NPOV. Until the last year, the discussions on portal guidleines etc resembled a walled garden, where big proposals were routinely made without any effort to seek outside views, let alone make a formal RFC. Those who did venture in from outside were routinely treated as intruders to be driven away by a tag team. As a result, many of the editors who work on those topics have little or no experience of the debate processes which are routine elsewhere on en.wp.

That has led to MFDs and debates about the future of portals exposing portal-focused editors to the unfamiliar process of debate. Many of them have responded by lashing out in anger at anyone who would dare make a proposal they don't like, or dare to uphold a long-standing guideline which they prefer to ignore. If I and other editors engaged in culling the abandoned portals had come to ANI at every turn when we were insulted or labelled, there would have been many hundreds of ANI threads.

Their evident lack of familiarity with debating processes also leads some of them to misread a rebuttal as an attack, and to react aggressively and accusingly to normal debate points.

I take away from this a community concern that the substantive MFD is not the place to challenge the lashing-outs by irate defenders of portals. Fine, but please be aware that in return for my de-escalation by dropping the word "potalista", I will insist that others drop the battlefield language of "war on portals", "deletionists", and the angry rats about "wreckers". If that resumes, I will take it to ANI every time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am not contesting that my view contradicted community consensus. However, given that I've never really been involved in portals before, and WP:POG is extremely vague as to what qualifies as broad in scope and maintained, I believe it's understandable. I quite like Barkeep49's explanation of the issue above. However, if your argument is that my lack of support by more than a few other members of the community entitles me to being insulted and degraded by BHG on her first and subsequent encounters with me, you should not be an administrator. Vermont (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Northamerica1000

First of all, there is absolutely no dishonesty or deceit in my contributions at MfD, nor elsewhere. So, I logged on and have found that I am now being maligned yet again, now here by BHG, at this very thread created to discuss the user's behavior. I have lost patience with BHG, and have no interest in discussing matters with them here; the user is unpleasant to communicate with and no matter what I say, they continue to make attacks. The user does not discuss matters, instead issuing declarations of bad faith; it's difficult to attempt to communicate constructively with the user. The user has engaged in an onging smear campaign against me on several public noticeboards, and it needs to stop. It is my view that BHG has developed some sort of fixation upon smearing me at every opportunity they find, even in discussions I have not contributed to, and it seems that they seem to enjoy doing so, for whatever reasons. BHG's approach is highly inappropriate and uncivil; a battleground approach that is consistenly reliant upon personal attacks and badmouthing me as well as other users that may have an interest in improving portals. Wikipedia should be a pleasant experience of collegiality and collaboration, not a bizarre forum for constant bullying from an angry user with some vendetta. I don't want my experience further polluted by some stranger on the internet who continuously talks about me negatively behind my back. It's sickening.

Below are some links, and my commentary.

• User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 047 § Discussions about portals – 12 April 2019: BHG shames me, and then pings me to the discussion afterward. I replied, and also requested at that time that they "please at least consider toning down on the "us versus them" stances (e.g. above: "shamefully... (et al.), "you portal defenders", etc.) and try to understand that Wikipedia consists of many diverse individuals that have many diverse viewpoints."
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 9 § Collaboration – Country and major geographical Portals - 28 April 2019: I posted a good faith request for some portal improvements at the portal Wikiproject, a project "dedicated to developing and maintaining portals and portal tools." BHG then proceeded to take over the thread in a barrage of shaming and blaming against me, to the point of preventing anyone from potentially responding. Now, BHG could have brought their concerns to my talk page, but instead, chose to engage in smearing my reputation. Furthermore, there is no shame in seeking collaboration to improve Wikipedia content, nor should there be.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Request for improvement: Portal:Northern Ireland – 1 August 2019: Another good faith request seeking improvements, which has realized some positive responses, is met with long tirades of anger and shaming toward me and other users by BHG. It appears that any discussion about portals outside of MfD is considered by the user to be gaming the system somehow. Portals can be discussed outside of MfD.
• Diff – 1 August 2019: A user asks BHG on their talk page to tone down their personal attacks against me. Diff - BHG then replies with more personal attacks against me. Diff - Then, another user also states that BHG should attempt to tone matters down.
• Diff – 14 August, 2019, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals: Same pattern, another long wall of text that in part attacks and smears me personally on a public noticeboard.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont – my simple !vote is met with long walls of criticizing text. Another user is also unnecessarily berated.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evolutionary biology - BHG attacks again, yet doesn't attack another !voter who uses a very similar rationale, that the topic is broad enough to qualify for a portal. They only attack me.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado – BHG attacks me, in part stating that my suggestion is in "bad faith", and also attacks another user in the discussion.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry – BHG attacks again. For example, see their "Reply to the liar Northamerica1000"...(et al.).
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church – More huge walls of personal attacks and battleground behavior against me.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wyoming – Another copy/paste rant of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wisconsin – Another copy/paste personal attack
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Mexico – Another copy/paste personal attack
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) – More of the same. Attacks another user there as well.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy (2nd nomination) – Attacks me and another user, in a discussion I did not even participate in.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Grenada – Attacks anyone who may potentially discuss the portal in a manner contrary to their opinion. See "Expect portalista opposition."...(et al.). I have not contributed to this discussion.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia – Already mentioned above

Furthermore, I have since moderated my stance regarding portals on Wikipedia, not per being attacked, but through the process of constructive, functional discussion about the matter that I initiated at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines § WP:POG is quite unrealistic in its present form and Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines § Proposal to update and clarify the lead of WP:POG. While some at "WP:POG is quite unrealistic in its present form" have agreed, at the proposal to update POG, people overall aren't for it.

To provide some context for those interested, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quantum computing where I have !voted for deletion, this diff, where I provide a clarification regarding a portal I updated with new content, along with commentary a couple of days earlier, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Book of Mormon, where I successfull nominated the portal for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How many portals have been deleted in recent months? Thousands? Is the suggestion that BHG has tricked the community into supporting the deletion of all those portals? How can your efforts to counter BHG be seen as anything other than obstructionism with the (good faith!) intention of wearing your opponent down? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is the BHG cease and desist in making personal attacks against me, in accordance with WP:NPA. I am a reasonable person, and am willing to discuss matters, but this user does not discuss, they consistently belittle and scold in an uncivil manner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks feelings were well entrenched by the time of your first link. How did it get to that point? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the 12 April 2019 link above: I don't possess entrenched feelings. I was pinged to and scolded on their talk page, and provided a civil, calm response. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea which editor is able to persist longest while remaining calm. However, the point is that thousands of portals were created by a handful of enthusiasts, then deleted by community consensus. Obstructing that, regardless of good faith and politeness, is obstructionism. If you like, let's assume that BHG has been uncivil. Now that is settled, what about the obstructionism that is damaging the encyclopedia by creating disruption and opposing community consensus? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

At MfD, a consensus formed for the deletion of most of the mass-created automated portals that were created with one click using the {{Basic portal start page}} template. However, I'm not aware of any consensus that this is also applicable and extendable toward all other portals, such as the non-automated, manually updated and curated ones. Do you feel that a consensus exists that all portals should be deleted? This was not the consensus at WP:ENDPORTALS, which was closed with the closing statement of "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No, of course there isn't a consensus for deleting all portals, and nobody has claimed here that there is. That's a strawman argument. What there is a consensus for is deleting all abandoned and unmaintained portals that have a negligible amount of reader interest, in addition to the automatically created ones. That consensus has been confirmed in multiple MfDs, and your continued fighting against it is disruptive. Your argumentation here, using the strawman argument of "all portals" and refusing to even conceptualize that there is something in between, does indicate that there is a behavioral issue on your part, which BHG was right to call you out on. I don't know if you're actually lying as she claimed, or whether it's just normal WP:IDHT, but I do see grounds for asking you to step back from these debates. Or we might have to consider a topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and per above, I have already since moderated my stance regarding portals, as per this and this. Also, you may not be aware of this, but I have also !voted for the deletion of some portals, and have nominated some for deletion as well. Regarding Johnuniq's comment above, it was not clear if they were only referring to the mass deletion of thousands of automated portals that occurred, since thousands of new portals were created and subsequently deleted (e.g. see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, where 1,390 portals were nominated for deletion). They didn't specify whether or not their viewpoint was applicable to both automated and non-automated portals, so I asked, particularly since their post was worded with "thousands of portals were created by a handful of enthusiasts", which seemed to potentially only be about the automated ones. Regardless, yes, of course there is a middle ground. While I feel that portals have a place on Wikipedia, specifically broad topic ones about entire countries, I also realize that others disagree, and that non-maintained and low page-view portals may eventually be deleted. I can accept this. I have essentially already reconsidered my stance about portals relatively recently, after the times of the discussions I posted above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Oh dear. Even here at ANI, NA1K is doubling down on their practice of strategic deception and misrepresentation..

1. WP:ENDPORTALS was a proposal to delete all portals, right now. That proposal was rejected, i.e. there was a consensus not to eliminate all portals. That's all. It was not a decision on the fat of individual portals, because the RFC question did not pose that question.
   Sadly, that ENDPORTALS decision was misrepresented by portal fans as a mandate to create the thousands of automated spam portals, which the community eventually addressed and rejected.
2. There was indeed a clear consensus at MFD to delete the automated spam portals. Most were deleted at two mass MFDs (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups.
3. At many hundreds of MFDs since then (I think about 500 MFDs), a consensus has been reached to delete individual portals which fail WP:POG, overwhelmingly because the portal in question fails one or more of the three tests in the POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
4. Despite those hundreds of MFDs in which poor-quality portals were individually assessed and found to fail, NA1K tries to deflect the issue to a [straw man]] which I quote in full However, I'm not aware of any consensus that this is also applicable and extendable toward all other portals, such as the non-automated, manually updated and curated ones. Do you feel that a consensus exists that all portals should be deleted?
   This is a dorm of strategic deception by NA1K, because as NA1K well knows what has been happening is not a proposal to delete all portals. It is the individual assessment of hundreds of portals against the criteria set out in POG, in which each portal is individually tested against the long-established criteria.

I have personally been astonished many times at how many of the existing portals have failed the criteria. In discussions at WT:WPPORT and elsewhere, I made several estimates of the number of portals likely to be deleted for those reasons, but I gave up doing so because I repeatedly found that there was yet more abandoned junk.

Before the automated spam portals were created (many of them by NA1K, who commendably did G7 speedy many of their own creations), there were about 1500 portals. There are now about 800, because some 700 have been deleted after individual assessment at MFD.

For some reason, NA1K repeatedly chooses to argue as if that process of individual assessment had never happened. I find it very hard to see any way in which a remotely competent editor, let alone an admin, can continue in good faith to deny this reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no denial of reality on my part at all. I just stated directly above "that non-maintained and low page-view portals may eventually be deleted. I can accept this." So, again, I can accept this. Furthermore, I have already stated and provided examples about how my stance has since changed. I don't know why you ignored all of this, but there it is. It is exceedingly difficult to communicate with you while you continue to mischaracterize me using language such as "strategic deception and misrepresentation". None of this exists in my post at all. Rather, I am actually conceding the reality of portals at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

NA1K, I was replying to your post of 05:35, 15 August 2019. My reply was delayed by a long phonecall from a friend in crisis, so when I posted it there was an edit conflict which I noted.

I am delighted to see that you have finally acknowledged in your post of 10:44, 15 August 2019 "that non-maintained and low page-view portals may eventually be deleted. I can accept this."

As you know, the reason that such portals may be deleted is per the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

So your repeated omission across multiple discussions of the second part of that POG sentence (the bit after the comma) provided a false representation of policy. That repeated omission was not due an oversight or misunderstanding. The omission was pointed out to you civilly, many times in many discussions, so there is absolutely no possibility that you were unaware of the omission or if it significance.

Sadly, you continued to make that omission well beyond the pint where there could be any reasonable doubt that it was intentional omission. At that point, I could no longer see any possible good faith explanation for our error, and so I began to describe your comments as mendacious.

If am happy to accept your assurance that you now accept that POG does permit the deletion of non-maintained and low page-view portals. If that assurance is reflected in your further contributions to MFD, then you no longer be lying and I will stop calling you a liar.

However, I stand by comment above about your strategic deception and misrepresentation of the wider context, and n particular your attempt to invoke WP:ENDPORTALS as some sort of barrier to deletion of substandard portals. It would be helpful if you would retract that too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• In the interest of moving forward, I state at this time and for the record: I accept that WP:POG does permit the deletion of non-maintained and low page-view portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I'd like to mention that I have put in a fair amount of time editing and improving portals through the years, and that letting go hasn't been entirely easy. However, as I stated, I have changed my views, particularly after discussions at the portal guideline page that I linked above (this and this), and recent events do make it clear that overall consensus is that non-maintained portals lacking page views and content are subject to deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion, hopefully not bludgeoned by the participants

I don't know why we're all making sectioned statements here, as though this was an arbitration case. We're not there - yet. I've had a sort of sampling of this dispute by reading a couple of MfDs linked above. This isn't really enough to get a handle on the conduct of those advocating for portals but it is enough to say this: BrownHairedGirl, if you believe that a user is disrupting the MfD process, then your recourse is to bring the matter here and ask the community to help resolve the problem in some way. It is not okay to deal with it by repeatedly accusing them of disruption and lying in the course of discussions elsewhere on the project. Deal with disruption through the dispute resolution processes, not by coming out swinging. As it is, I believe that your conduct falls foul of at least the "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem" and "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" provisions of WP:NPA (both of these with regards to the "portalistas" label). If you have a case to make that users should be banned from MfD (or portal MfDs or whatever) then please make it here, without all the ad-hom above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing, the term "portalista" is my own invention. It has no usage outside of these Wikipedia discussions.

So it is utterly preposterous to suggest that is somehow analogous to "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It does sounds reminiscent of sandinista guerillas. At least it does to me. —Kusma (t·c) 12:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly what it suggested to me. GoldenRing (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) See also "Corbynista", a currently popular (in the UK) "disparaging reference" to Sandinistas.[121] "Portalista" reads, intentionally or not, as hostile and derogatory, with a revolutionary tinge to it. › Mortee _talk 12:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I was a strong supporter of the Sandinistas, and many of my friends across the water in Brexitland are devout Corbynistas. I didn't intend any analogy, but if there is one to be seen, it is in my view a high compliment ... the complete opposite of a Nazi-style slur. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ahem! This is Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law in action. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron#Statement by Uncle G and Special:Diff/408001187. Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

1. There is broad consensus that portals which get few views and little maintenance should be removed. User:BrownHairedGirl is commended for her work in cleaning up the portal space.
2. The portal discussions have become unfortunately heated and personal.
3. BHG has taken the positive de-escalating step of agreeing to refrain from using the word portalistas. She is urged not to use another such word instead and not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity but instead to focus the discussions as much as possible on pages and policies rather than on editors or perceived groups of editors.

• I propose the motion above. Haukur (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is insufficient to deal with the incivility by an admin who should know better. If BHG continues to use pejorative/non-neutral language about those that are portal proponents, and keeps calling them liars, then those unacceptable personal attacks need to be addressed. If BHG is willing to agree to use only neutral language about these editors and refrain from calling them liars (by any means, eg mendacious etc) then it would be sufficient. Otherwise some sort of preventative action needs to be taken. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67, as I promised above to @SmokeyJoe, I will later assemble the evidence of how NA1K has been engaged in a process of systematic lying and deception.

I obviously do not want anyone to prejudge the evidence before they have seen it ... but I do need to ask a question about the principle underlying your comment.

It's quite simple. If there is clear evidence that an editor is lying, do you assert that it is unacceptable to say so?

Please think about that very carefully. Consensus-forming discussions underpin every decision on Wikipedia. Please consider whether this community's ability to sustain trust and collaboration and to conduct those discussions effectively is assisted or impeded by treating calling a liar a "liar" as a more serious problem than the telling of lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - The problem with the allegation of lying is that the user may be confused and may be honestly believing things that are not true. Portal enthusiasm does that to some otherwise reasonable editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, in general I agree. There is a lot of uncritical groupthink among portal fans, some of whom seem for example to genuinely believe that a few tweaks is a substitute for ongoing maintenance.

So I am very wary of suggesting that editors are lying.

But in this particular case, there has been something very different. The issue is very simple: 16 words of a guideline which describe three criteria. Those 16 words have been the central issue in hundreds of MFD discussions, and are repeatedly cited by multiple editors.

I of course understand that on a quick reading of a guideline, a good-faith editor may not appreciate the significance of all of the words, and make a good faith contribution based on an incomplete text. That happens all the time, and we deal with that amicably by noting "hey, you missed X", and go on to discuss the relevance of the omitted part. There are many occasions when I have benefited from such a correction of my oversight, and I am sure there will continue to be many more.

But this really was qualitatively different. It was NA1K repeatedly omitting those words, failing to respond to pinged notices about the mission, and doubling down in discussion after discussion on assertion that because one of the criteria was satisfied, that was sufficient. There is no possible grounds for believing that to be an oversight or misunderstanding, because the words are short and simple, and the omission had repeatedly been drawn to NA1K's attention.

This was not an error or oversight or misunderstanding. NA1K made a strategic choice to present what they believed to be a stronger case by repeatedly omitting criteria which they were very well aware of but which did not favour their argument, and by repeatedly failing to acknowledge the omission when challenged.

That is wilful misrepresentation, or more simply, lying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This civility issue is more than just between you and NA1K; it's you and every person you called a "portalista" and otherwise acted with incivility towards. Vermont (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, there was a serious, sustained problem of obstructionist tag-teaming at MFD by editors who reject the guidelines and the repeated consensus on how to apply to them, and who systematically misrepresented the guidelines. You apparently choose not to regard that conduct as uncivil, and instaed to jusge the responses to it as if they were made in a vacuum ... which an interesting choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, if there are users exhibiting problematic conduct on portal deletion discussions, the appropriate response is to bring them here for community attention, not to be rude to them. I commend you for your work on cleaning up the portal-space, truly I do; but if you genuinely are the victim here, then at the very least your language is hindering our ability to deal with the genuine problem. Please, dial it back a little. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

^^^This. This is what I was trying to say above. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not should WP:AN make a ruling on Portals. Portals are content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - Only point 1 of the three points is content. Is it point 1 that you are disagreeing with? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Do you want to propose an alternative? Or maybe we're just all on the fast train to ArbCom here. Haukur (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This is not a fast train to ArbCom. It may be a slow train. ArbCom already declined my earlier attempt to send a train. Somebody else will have to be the stationmaster this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternate Proposed resolution

1. BHG has taken the positive de-escalating step of agreeing to refrain from using the word portalistas. She is urged not to use another such word instead and not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity but instead to focus the discussions as much as possible on pages and policies rather than on editors or perceived groups of editors.
2. Close this thread immediately as the rest of this is either content dispute or heated feelings over said dispute. There is no indication of anything even remotely resembling misuse of Admin tools.

Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support – As per my discussion with BHG in the later part of the "Statement from Northamerica1000" thread above. I feel that we have developed a sort of truce, which I will hold my end of. I'd rather move on, rather than expending more of the community's time on our past disagreements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be some genuine de-escalation going on here and we can hopefully move on. Haukur (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to imagine the dispute not continuing as long as there are continuing allegations of "lying" in multiple places, continuing bringing up of editors names not involved in a discussion, continuing 'othering' by dismissal as part of an alleged side, instead of treating editors as individuals, see WP:ADMINCOND and WP:BATTLE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I am happy to accept both points of the proposal, both in letter and in spirit.

I am very pleased that NA1K and I have reached a sort of truce. The project as a whole, and all editors involved, will be much better served by drawing a line under this whole unpleasant affair, and moving on to build consensus rather than raking over embers.

In the last 24 hours, other editors have opened over a dozen new portal MFDs, so there is a lot of work to do assessing and discussing those nominations. I think we now have a basis for doing so in a much improved atmosphere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Since both parties agree on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - all interested parties seem to be on board. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per BHG and NA1K. Regardless of what anyone else may think of this dispute, if the two editors involved in the dispute both agree on a way forward, we should support it, with our thanks for working towards a resolution. Also, it meets the Jonathunder test (doesn't cost us an admin or two). – Levivich 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This resolution completely ignores the majority of this thread: BHG's incivility with people other than NA1K. It isn't a dispute with only two editors involved; I created this thread as I felt personally attacked by BHG and it was evident she was doing that with other people as well. BHG's agreement to not use the word "portalista" in the future does not negate her past actions of using it as a slur and refusing to act civilly. Vermont (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't punish people for past actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've accepted that below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, part of my point with this comment was that it does nothing to prevent her from acting similarly in the future, although I should have made that more clear. Regardless, as it seems both BHG and NA1K intend to change their actions, that negates any need for immediate action. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies, my comment did ignore that NA1K wasn't the editor who filed this thread. But now in light of the conversation below, I want to add to my support, "per Vermont". – Levivich 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, I think people are hoping "BHG . . . urged not to use another such word instead and not to accuse her perceived opponents of mendacity but instead to focus the discussions as much as possible on pages and policies rather than on editors" will mean that all that is now changed. One can always hope. It is already too bad it came this far. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich. GoldenRing (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, Levivich hits the nail on the head. —Kusma (t·c) 16:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, closing this thread without recognizing that BHG made many disparaging comments about editors rather than their arguments/content, and thus a violation of WP:NPA, leaves no consequences for continued serious incivility and toxic behavior. It is the community's responsibility to ensure their administrators meet their standards, and this proposal does not rectify that. Vermont (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. While this may not be the solution U:Vermont hoped for, it is a step in the right direction. Our goal is to prevent disruption, not punish, so sanctions-as-consequences are unlikely to be productive right now as they will make compromises like this one harder to achieve. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. My oppose above is stricken. Vermont (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Wugapodes. Vermont (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RiceGum redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since Ricegum is currently creation protected, I'm requesting an admin to redirect it to RiceGum. Thank you! MarcelTheHippie (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 07:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for more editorial eyes

I've been trying to work on making some edits to Smartmatic, but would appreciate a few more administrative eyes to help ensure that changes reflect a consensus of editors, rather than just one editors views.

I'll post a more comprehensive summary of the back story on the article talk page: Talk:Smartmatic#Request_for_more_editorial_eyesS Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Eid al-Adha protection

Please add protection to Eid al-Adha which has been subject to a stream of vandalism recently. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Protecting would definitely be an overreaction, as things stand. AGK ■ 09:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

SP two days as the disruption has increased. If protection is again needed, please request at WP:RFPP.-- Dlohcierekim 05:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong page?

Excuse me, but is none of what's treated here important at all? Have I placed that on the wrong page? Not even block evasion very exciting at English WP anymore? Realiable sources? COI? I'm confused, but also not very good at making proper reports. Thank Goodnes there hasn't been much need during all these years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The block evasion suffices. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser block by vanished user

User talk:Kiroranke has an unblock request; the account's owner was given a {{checkuserblock-account}} last year by BU Rob13, but as BU Rob13 has retired, I can't go and ask him what he thinks. How again does one request review of a checkuser block when the checkuser's no longer here? Seems that the logical thing is just to go ahead and have a discussion here, but I know the higher-ups get really picky about this kind of thing (can't trust the community to make decisions for itself...), so I don't want to get in trouble for ignoring rules that prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd ask another checkuser or refer Kiroranke to the Arbitration Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

2018 block-- it's probably stale accept to check for current activity. Even then a single edit would be hard to go by. They might need to email ArbCom, unless a CU has better options.-- Dlohcierekim 06:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• We can hardly uphold a vanished sock block when there was no indication logged as to who they were a sock of.

I would like to see a policy change such that all sock blocks must identify the suspected sockmaster or SPI page. I can see no excuse for these unattributed ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I believe WP:DENY is the usual justification for this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see that for mainspace, but not here. We just end up with unclear allegations like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, some sockmasters like to see how many socks they can get labelled with the master's username. If that seems sad and desperate for attention, well, it does to me, too. But this is the result. GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That can invoke privacy violations, so won't happen. Example: master identifies bya real-world verifiable name or handle; blocks are IPs and identifying would link identities to IP addresses. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Could the CU policy be amended to require that all sock blocks, if they do not identify the suspected sockmaster or SPI page, must be logged with that information at the CU wiki? That would avoid the issue of publicising things that need to be kept private, since only CUs have read rights there, but maybe there would be some other policy issue with the idea, or maybe it would require too much extra work. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It could, but that’d be a bad idea. Speaking for myself, I’ll block without an SPI or tag if it’s an LTA or if there is obvious socking going on, they obviously aren’t the original master, and ur isn’t clear who is. Example: 6 vandal accounts on an IP with multiple sleepers. Likely someone else, and not worth adding another name to SPI or clogging up CUwiki. I’m going to block but I’m also not really going to put much effort into figuring out who it is because it doesn’t matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• The block log and CU law suggests it was related to a check performed at wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive#22_February_2018. Rob never checked this specific account, which means it had to show up in the results from another account. I don’t have time to review right now, but other CUs can and Rob being retired isn’t a big deal on this. Just treat it like any block from MikeV... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've taken a spin at it, the things from the CU logs that show up are pretty damning even till now without being able to go back on the useragent. The allegation is that this user is WCF. Besides showing up on a more public, shared IP for your unblock request as a way to hide what range you really come from is the worst tactic in the book. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad, based on your comments, I've rejected the unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 24 hours and banned from Order of the Arrow as an arbitration enforcement action. This was overturned on appeal. However, there does seem to be a problem here between Buffs, Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The problem seems to have started over the use of a blog source in Order of the Arrow (see this discussion and following). This escalated to this RSN discussion, in which Buffs first labelled these sources "a WP:FRINGE opinion of 2-3 people" (diff). This was repeated in this discussion, in which Buffs used the Black Panthers, white supremacists and flat-earthers as examples. Indigenous girl took fairly strong exception to that, seeing it as equating indigenous Americans with flat-earthers and white supremacists.

There has been extensive bickering since then. Indigenous girl appears to have taken to following Buffs around. The articles that they have both edited this year are:

• Order of the Arrow (IG's first edit 6 minutes after B's edit)
• War bonnet (IG's first edit 20 minutes after B's edit)
• Nathan Phillips (activist) (IG's first edit 2 hours after B's edit)
• Cultural appropriation (IG's first edit 24 hours after B's edit)
• Indigenous intellectual property (IG's first edit six days after B's edit)
• Boy Scouts of America (IG's first edit 39 minutes after B's edit)
• Scouting in Vermont (B's first edit ten hours after IG's edit)
• Scouting in Massachusetts (B's first edit 17 minutes after IG's edit)

For these last two, it should be noted that they are part of a very long string of similar edits by Buffs to state-level scouting articles (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff diff Corrected diff GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)).

On this basis, Indigenous girl came to El_C to report "The guy is still following me". Buffs was blocked for 24 hours over the Scouting in Massachusetts edit. Buffs then hatted a section of OR on Talk:Order of the Arrow (diff) and, as far as I understand it, it was on this basis that El_C banned him from the page (the ban that was later overturned).

All along the way here, CorbieVreccan has been dipping his oar in and pouring petrol on troubled waters. If you read around everything presented above, you'll find plenty, but most recently followed Buffs to my TP (diff).

I am therefore proposing a community-imposed IBAN between Buffs on the one hand and Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan on the other. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment I first thank GoldenRing for his synopsis; it is concise, yet comprehensive. Given that scope, it's clear he took a fair amount of time compiling everything. Thank you so much for the effort.

Second, I didn't realize IG was following me so much, but it explains a lot.

Third, my comparison to such absurd groups (Flat Earthers, et al) was to point out that even a large group doesn't necessarily make an opinion notable enough for inclusion per WP:NPOV. I stand by my assessment that there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. The opinion of Corbie is that the existence of any Native American objections warrant inclusion and WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to them because of past oppression.

Lastly, I am not interested in suppression of differing opinions. I've encouraged them, but ONLY if they meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYN criteria. Right now, we aren't there. We HAVE made progress (especially recently) on several issues at hand. Other topics are stalled despite multiple attempts at WP:DR; I believe we will eventually resolve those as well, but it will take time. I do not believe an IBAN is in the best interests of WP or progress. Accordingly, I oppose solely on those grounds at this time as restricting the ability to talk through problems/issues will not help matters. I think that walking through a structured discussion with an agreed-upon, neutral third party mediating discussion would be significantly more effective at resolving these issues.

If my facts are in error, I welcome corrections and I will happily strike accordingly. Likewise, I've given my 2 cents. Unless specifically requested by uninvolved editors, I'm going to refrain from further replies. _{I expected people to read the evidence above and comment on it, not present new material. I'm not going to sit idly by while lies and half-truths are spouted about me.} Buffs (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC) _{(remarks updated 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC))}

• Query - Thank you @GoldenRing: for some extremely good detective work and 3rd party assistance. I'm afraid @Buffs: I'm going to immediately ask you for an additional reply - could you highlight a specific area or two (page etc) where you've made progress with the named users. Normally I'm reticent to support an IBAN where the users in question are against them, but there are circumstances where that doesn't hold up. That said, I'd like to see more before judging. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely: [122] [123] [124] (diffs #1 & 3 verbatim as proposed by me on the talk page: [125] [126] after discussion). These are three of the four major points discussed on the article's (admittedly messy) talk page. While the third one isn't perfect, the only primary objection I have is the addition of quotes. It's certainly VERY close. To date, I have no reply after asking for clarification, but I can wait. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Those changes made by Indigenous girl were both opposed by Buffs on talk.[127],[128] She was only able to make them because he was banned or blocked at the time. I do not wish to interact with Buffs anymore, and have not wanted to since his first incivility issues back in March. However, I don't feel it is correct or fair to characterize Indigenous girl's edits to shared topics of interest such as Warbonnet or Scouting articles that incorporate Indigenous materials as "following" simply because Buffs, having been on Wikipedia longer, edited some of those articles first. The articles may have come up on her watch list due to being edited; that doesn't mean she was following him. His recent behavior for which he was blocked clearly shows he was following her after a series of conflicts. He was warned to leave her alone by multiple admins and he would not stop. Now he's asking that he not be given a ban from interacting with her, which is also telling. I think he should, once again, leave her alone. But she should not be the one banned from articles on which he has been disruptive. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I do take exception of equating indigenous people to fringe, white supremacists and flat earthers. He can deny he did this intentionally but it is very apparent he did as he did it more than once. It was not necessary to use those examples to illustrate a point. Buffs was spoken to about this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019

I am not sure how I could have possibly followed Buffs to the first diff because I had never interacted with him previously.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=886182392

With regard to the above and following four edits, I do in fact have Corbie on my watchlist. I contributed because I had something to contribute after Corbie edited. Corbie is on my watchlist because I'm fairly certain they have nearly all indigenous articles on their watchlist and this is my topic of knowledge. I am not attempting to further any sort of agenda as Buffs has repeatedly proposed aside from having fair, balanced and well sourced articles.

With regard to the BSA article I admittedly looked at Buffs contribs. I do not recall what precipitated it. I saw that I could add content. I in no way conflicted with Buffs with my edit.

Buffs followed me the Scouting in Vermont article and his initial edits had nothing to do with his claim that I intentionally violated BLP in order to push an agenda. He did replace two words, that I fully admit changed the context but this was a an accident on my part. With regard to Buffs extensive topic edits, they began after I edited the Scouting in Vermont page. I also edited additional Scouting articles prior to him editing the long string of articles. I edited the Massachusetts article specifically to correct a language issue. I also had Scouting in Minnesota on my list as there were issues with links (these were later corrected by another editor). Buffs neglects to mention that he said, "I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=904522939&oldid=904517899 I am aware of this statement because I was paying attention to an admin's content regarding Buffs due to the entire situation. Buffs did not bring it up anywhere.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting_in_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=904244165
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koshare_Indian_Museum_and_Dancers&diff=prev&oldid=904415718
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say&diff=prev&oldid=904429449
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Iowa_Council&diff=prev&oldid=904486755

There is no mention that I was previously hounded by SolarStorm1859(lostpwd). SS participated in edit warring on Buffs behalf and Buffs thanked him.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=900441691&oldid=900210561

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SolarStorm1859_(lostpwd)&diff=next&oldid=900437074

While being hounded by SS Corbie and I were also followed to the point of ridiculousness by Citation Bot which led to the Bot being blocked for repair. It was assumed that Citation Bot was being driven by SS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901736143 however the first follow utilizing Citation Bot was made by Buffs. This is incredibly important and should be taken seriously.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaggy_2_Dope&diff=prev&oldid=900931111.

There is also the issue of Buffs refactoring the talk page of OA to hide my comments and closing the conversation while being an involved editor. Buffs was previously warned about refactoring. I added the content because he has asked for proof regarding a language issue. I was simply trying to comply with his request. I stated clearly that I was aware it was OR and that I had no intention to post it in the article and that it should probably be added to the individual's article.

Buffs asking for more information:

"Corbie (or anyone else), feel free to prove me wrong and just put the source here. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find it by Monday. I'll wait." :*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=903913927

An admin warned Buffs not to refactor contribs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=903942393

I add content Buffs asked for, he refactors my contribs and closed the conversation as an involved editor after having been warned about doing exactly this previously. This was also done shortly after coming off of the 24 hour block for following me.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=904806038&oldid=904708467
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=905370981

What I posted was on the talk page according to Wikipedia policy, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

There is far more to this issue that meets the eye. While I find it unfair that a IBAN would prevent me from working on articles I have put a considerable amount of time into, if that's what is necessary to prevent further conflict in the future I'm begrudgingly okay with it.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Noting I just stated I was begrudgingly in support of the IBAN and Buffs just posted to my talk page. Is it possible to self-impose an IBAN? Because I am really quite done with any interaction. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you ask Buffs not to post on your talk page again, most admins agree that a failure to follow that request is grounds for a block, or at the very least a stern warning, leading to a block if it happens again. Of course, if you do that, you should not post to their talk page either. But a full-blown IBAN? - no, community consensus is needed for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if he would not post to my talk page while on-going issues are being dealt with. I asked him back in March to please leave me alone https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=889908093&oldid=889893187 his response was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=889908093 My request back in March was not due to edit conflicts but by the way he interacted with me which is addressed by point by an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019 Also I went to another admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Ironie&diff=prev&oldid=889936995#Buffs_and_incivility In order to work on certain articles I had no choice but to continue to interact. I don't want or expect to have a congenial working relationship with Buffs but I do expect to not have to deal with unnecessary condescension (noted in the warning from the admin above) I choose not to deal with the insults. I shouldn't be expected to. I should have simply walked away from the handful of articles we were both invested in improving months ago. He did thank me for two recent edits and I do feel that it is important to note that on his behalf. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think "Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you" (19:11, 28 March 2019), followed by a refusal to abide by that request, is pretty clear. She may have been forced to interact to a limited degree on article talk if she didn't want to abandon the articles they both edit, but the other following and now posting on her talk is a violation. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to fill in a bit more on the Citation bot and SolarStorm issue here.

I'm adding the permalink on the closed ANI case on the harassment by SolarStorm:[129]. We really should have done a full sock investigation at the time. SolarStorm1859 admitted making the edits WP:FOLLOWING Indigenous girl and myself,[130] and was indef-blocked for it. but...

I don't know how I missed it at the time, probably because of all the dense bot contribs. But now we have the diff that shows Buffs started the following of my edits with the bot:[131][132]. Two edits fiddling with parameters, then the bot driver's name is removed from the bot (as was possible then, which is why it was blocked for retooling:[133]).

The hounding bot edits then continued to follow the same list of of my recent edits, but now, after those two edits adjusting different parameter settings, the name of the bot operator is missing, but the follow pattern is consistent:[134],[135],[136],[137],[138]

Then the (now nameless) bot driver starts following Indigenous girl:

• 15:55, June 8, Talk: Indigenous intellectual property (where SolarStorm first appeared to support Buffs)[139]
• 17:54, June 8: Order of the Arrow (The main article Buffs is focused on) [140]
• 22:19, June 8: An edit to Indigenous girl's sandbox: [141]

This was rightfully considered a violation of WP:FOLLOWING. But we didn't look far enough back to see who first drove the bot. We all assumed it was just SolarStorm. There is also a strong possibility that SolarStorm and Buffs are the same user. I should have asked for a more thorough SPI at the time. SolarStorm1859 and his various accounts are indeffed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffs and SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) are  Unrelated technically, having gone through this data during a joe-job in UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I asked if any checkusers could check the IPs on the bot, I was told it was not possible. Is this correct? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it runs on its own IP, so it wouldn't be helpful. I know for a fact that it didn't show up on any of Buffs IPs, but that isn't saying much since it probably uses its own. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) was pretending to be Buffs in UTRS, fwiw, I'm highly confident of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support That this immediately devolved into a wall of garbage is exactly the problem. GMG^talk 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  That is an unhelpful reply, GreenMeansGo. If you don't want to follow through the details of this argument, you can refrain from weighing in with an ill-informed opinion. This is a meaningful dispute to the participants who are trying to resolve it. It's certainly not "garbage" to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Liz: While the reply's tone was a bit flippant, I'm not sure that's quite fair. GMG has been fairly involved throughout the situation (his name turned up a lot in the material I reviewed to put this together) as far as I can tell in a capacity as helpful as it was possible to be. The above wall of text is indeed one of the symptoms of the problems here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I've been involved round about this dispute I believe since March. I have repeatedly asked the participants to refrain from walls of text and bad faith accusations. In response to a request for an IBAN for a problem caused by walls of text and bad faith accusations, we have more walls of text and bad faith accusations. These users are terminally incapable of working together and appear to have managed to drive off anyone who has attempted to intervene. Intervening here means committing 100% of your on-wiki time just trying to make sense of things, and the participants then only assume you are on "a side", and accuse you of making threats and hounding. If ArbCom is interested (though I doubt they are) I have told Buffs via email in no uncertain terms that he is part of the problem here as well. GMG^talk 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, the problem here is that Corbie and IG follow one another around reliably agreeing with each other. Corbie is want to enforce a two person consensus based on their reliably following one another and reliably agreeing. Corbie is also want to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, and call anyone who is persistent a harasser. Buffs can't seem to make a point in less than a page's worth of text, and Corbie and IG can't make a rebuttal in less than that either. IG wants to say "leave me alone" but yet wants to continue the content dispute, which means "buzz off and leave us to our two person consensus". Buffs is frustrated that no matter how much of a detailed argument he makes, he runs up against the two person consensus, and IG and Corbie are frustrated because he won't buzz off and leave them alone with the consensus they've formed. Neither Buffs nor Corbie really want a neutral third party to intervene. What they really want is for someone to enter the ring in their corner and tell the other side to shut the hell up so they can "win". GMG^talk 01:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  I concur with Liz that your original comment wasn't helpful. I endeavored to keep my remarks short When GoldenRing brought 3 months worth of edits and 100+ diffs, it's a lot to cover and nuances are missed. That said, your further explanation was immeasureably helpful. I concur that the party-of-two consensus allows for a lot of material that wouldn't stand the light of day on higher-trafficked articles. I disagree that I don't really want a neutral third party. A random person is likely to side with me or CV; I'd prefer a mediator who can handle things even-handedly. Overall, thanks for the input! Buffs (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I apologize, GreenMeansGo for what I mistook as a glib and unhelpful response. I didn't know that you were so aware of the ins and outs of this complex dispute. I'm grateful for anyone who wants to wade through these deep waters and I'm sorry if my response to you was seen as a put-down. I know I have little patience for it myself, so I probably shouldn't have been the one to judge others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In the course of this months-long interaction between the three editors, I've observed a timeline pertinent to this discussion. I'll try to keep this presentation neutral but it does focus on Buffs' actions.

1. As far back as 28 March 2019, Indigenous girl (IG) asked Buffs to stop interacting with IG. IG came specifically to my talk page to ask for help. In the course of looking into it, I placed a civility warning on Buffs talk page. It was deleted along with the conversation 19 hours later with an edit summary "I've read it".

2. On 30 March 2019, Bishonen left a detailed and itemized warning on Buffs' talk page. After a significant amount of back and forth between two over it, the day after the conversation was over, Buffs deleted it from his talk page.

3. El C engaged with Buffs starting on 28 June 2019. El C attempted mediating between all three editors for several days. (I'm not diffing that; it's too extensive.) On 2 July 2019, El C blocked Buffs for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Much more convo on Buffs' talk page during the block while Buffs requested unblock and review. After the block expired, a procedural decline was added by User:TonyBallioni

Four admins, including myself, attempted to intervene during these months with warnings and a block. All them found fault with Buffs' behaviour. I know Wikipedians sometimes have a short memory on editor behaviour beyond a few months. If it isn't causing an immediate problem, then past actions are not pertinent. AGF, y'all. Buffs is a longtime editor but his past contribs are riff with exactly this behavior and attitude. While deleting warnings and unflattering discussion from his user page is perfectly within his rights, I know my instinct is to wonder why, particularly if it happens multiple times over the same issue. That's obfuscating editor and/or admin interactions to anyone looking at it. Mostly I've seen this from problem editors, not editors in good standing.

I would have blocked Buffs for continuing harassment of IG near the beginning of all this but I had commented in an RfC on the reliability of a source and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard on the matter. I was thus involved near the beginning although I've mostly kept my distance since then.

Note that the July 2 block is different than the later article ban that was overturned. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What Mark Ironie also leaves out is that he, CV, and IG are also active contributors together at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Indigenous_intellectual_property: [142] with nearly unanimous agreement on every issue, so there is significant COI concerns, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: please refactor your comments to reflect what I was actually blocked for; I was not blocked for personal attacks of any kind. Likewise, it should be noted that this was the same block that IG set me up on and that GoldenRing so eloquently illustrated. It was an edit done solely to trap me and was the wiki equivalent of jumping in front of a truck and complaining that the truck hit them. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I hesitate to nay say you but, technically, those are the reasons on the block itself. Has El C said otherwise? I *really* don't think we want to go down the path of revising facts of events on-wiki; the block and the listed reason remain indisputable facts. I disagree with other editor's versions of the timeline. Mine starts earlier and takes into account other parts of the editing pattern of this particular sequence. My opinion, my analysis. I do not want to argue this now. This off topic but I'm really not sure about this truck metaphor you're using. Jumping in front of a truck might not leave anyone to complain. They might be dead. Are you the truck and IG the jumper? I'm sorry, but this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me? So, no, I will not refactor my comments. I admit to being irked by your suggestion editors refactor to remove references to harassment. Yes, off-wiki it is a legal term and crime. On-wiki, it is a policy. I apologize if you find these comments confrontational; it is definitely not my intent. I remain confused by some of your remarks but I'm satisfied with the presentation and analysis by all the editors, even if I disagree. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You (apparently) don't hate to do anything that denigrates me, even if it's twisting the facts. The block states: "(Personal attacks OR violations of the harassment policy)" not AND (emphasis mine). It's a boilerplate comment. Not once have I been accused of WP:NPA violations. Now that I've demonstrated you're incorrect, I'm asking that you strike your remarks per WP:CIVIL (specifically #5).

I do not want to argue this now. Apparently you do.

this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me OMG. This is EXACTLY the problem. You're so intent on reading hostility and violence into my motives that you're missing the point. It's a scam. Where I'm from, it's a COMMON scam it's been around for years. It is not real. It is fake victimhood for the sake of eliciting pity...and it's working. I'm not advocating for violence of any kind.

These are the sort of remarks I've had to deal with for about 3 months. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly read nefarious motives into actions that are explicitly endorsed under policy.

• I ask to have people strike portions of their remarks that are demonstrably untrue and your response is "Um, I'm sorry but no, I will not refactor or change my analysis. This is incredibly inappropriate to ask me to do this, Buffs. Actually I think this looks a lot like bullying."
• I update my talk page per WP:TALK and your response is basically "only guilty people do that".
• I explain it's a scam. You insinuate that I'm advocating violence.

It seems to me that you are VERY willing to read into this whatever you want if it fits your prejudices/preconceptions/anything else that denigrates me. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Support the IBAN as proposed. It seems apparent that this is a straightforward two-way issue. I have a hard time buying the harassment narrative when there are so many examples of IG apparently following Buffs over the course of months. Obviously there are issues with Buffs' behavior, but IG's claim that she's being harassed seems dubious. It's concerning that Buffs' claim that he was being followed was dismissed, when it was apparently true. This seems like a good cautionary lesson to be objective and fair when a claim of harassment is made, and not jump straight into crucifying the alleged perpetrator. I recently reviewed this case at AE, and I was under the impression that it was not being well-handled by El C and needed to be additionally investigated by the community. I applaud GoldenRing taking the initiative here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support IBAN on Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Amended 25 July 2019, after reviewing all the diffs, and all parties' actions since this thread was opened (such as Buffs' misrepresentation of the diffs he posted here, and Mark Ironie's diffs here). For details: Indigenous girl never violated policy in action or spirit, and my earlier comments on the matter: If we're going to look at timelines.... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

as I indicated in my first comment above,[143]. Since I buried the lede in a longer comment, reiterating it here and bolding in that comment, as well. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Amending Slightly: I don't normally put comments up-thread like this, but I might as well keep it all in one place:

I apologize to the tl;dr crowd for how long this is, but it's been going on since March. If people can't be bothered to read and actually look at the diffs, how can they be relied on to make any sort of ruling?

I want to note, as a long-term Wikipedian, admin, and as one of the most active participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America that Indigenous girl's edits have never appeared to me to be in any way an attempt to harass or intimidate Buffs, and therefore are not a violation of the spirit of the WP:FOLLOWING policy. To my assessment, her priority was the 'pedia. Buffs is the one using violent language against her: "she jumped in front of the truck and claimed I hit her."[144]. He really likes this image of hitting her with his truck:[145]. There are also other issues here that are not public, but are before Arbcom privately. You all had no way of knowing that.

Indigenous girl has been editing in one of her fields of expertise - Indigenous cultures - to correct mistakes in articles, add sources and sourced content, and markedly improve these articles. Some of these articles had been listed at the Indigenous Wikiproject for attention. This work is one of the most valuable services she performs for the Wikipedia community, and a look at her talk page, her contribs, and the wikiproject will show how often editors ask for her help, as we have so few Wikipedians with her level of expertise and access to sources. To my eye, her edits were never about Buffs. But Buffs responded emotionally and with incivility and WP:OWNy reactions to her edits. And mine. And yes, he continued and continues to try to force interactions with her after she asked him to leave her alone, in ways that were far beyond just editing articles in the same fields of interest. If she continued to try to reach consensus on talk, rather than abandon the articles, I don't think that should be held against her or seen as some sign that she wanted to interact with him.

I think both their lives will be better if they don't interact so I support the mutual iBan on Buffs and Indigenous girl support the IBAN on Buffs [see amended statement above. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)]. I also think Buffs should stop focusing so narrowly on this tiny cluster of articles, as it's practically all he's done for the past five months.

I also want to note for the record that I did not follow Buffs, either to edit in a benign way or to harass. I was the first one to edit the articles Golden Ring lists above. I had never heard of Buffs until he became argumentative on Order of the Arrow:[146], then Warbonnet:[147], Cultural Appropriation:[148], and Indigenous intellectual property:[149].

• Editor Interaction Tool Corbie, Buffs

While I respect that Golden Ring is trying to bring peace to this situation, and that is admirable, I do not agree with his asessment of several major and central aspects of this conflict. This is understandable as it is longstanding and complex. This is why I commented on Golden Ring's talk page to note additional info that was buried in five months of talk page chaos, as one admin to another. (Albeit an involved admin.) One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs.

While I would be quite happy to never interact with Buffs again, and I agree to avoid him, I would like Buffs to be one-way iBanned from dragging me into this anymore. I don't think my warnings to him about his incivility and POV-pushing have been out of line. Nor do I think I deserve to have a formal iBan on my record. I was doing the usual cleanup, sourcing and content creation on articles that I usually do, and Buffs started following me around in a disruptive, draining manner, quickly escalating to incivility and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. That's how this started.[150],[151],[152],[153],EIT

Perhaps some of you think I was over-protective of Indigenous girl. I think that's fair. She's newer to the 'pedia and has at times been overwhelmed here. But please understand that few of those commenting here have seen everything that went on over the past five months, including those who are claiming they have. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs. The hell it isn't! You've followed me all around WP. Any time I bring up something to another admin, there you are to jump right it to tell that admin, "NO! HE'S WRONG!!! Here's every single thing I can intentionally distort to earn some pity points" No one asked you for your opinion! You were never asked! I don't need you perpetually correcting me no matter where I go, so butt the hell out!!! Now you're accusing ME of following YOU?! That's rich. [154] [155].

In a perfect world (or even one where a site took their own policies seriously), someone would ask CV to retract his response or provide evidence per WP:IUC. Instead, the silence is deafening. No warnings. No blocks. He's an admin. He's in the club. That means he doesn't have to follow the rules.

Unbelievable... Buffs (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose I stopped virtually all edits on the articles in question (see submission) to seek consensus on the relevant talk pages. As such, virtually all the pages have problems that need to be addressed. On the Order of the Arrow article, there are disparaging remarks in the notes based on WP:OR/WP:SYN/assumptions in contradiction to what WP:RS say about its founder. Indigenous Intellectual Property is a collection of claims and neglects to mention it's Cultural Appropriation's basic definition doesn't even match the dictionary. I could go on, but that leaves the underlying issues at status-quo. If an IBAN is enacted, it leaves the articles in the condition they are in...the way CV and IG want them. Of course they support IBAN. They are just going get exactly what they want and I will be unable to change anything because they will immediately claim "IBAN VIOLATION! He edited something I did 3 weeks/months/years ago!"

Now, if CV and IG are going to leave these articles alone and want nothing to do with me/discussion, then there's no need for a community-imposed IBAN. I'll agree here and now not to intentionally talk to them on any talk page (including their user talk pages). I'll make the necessary changes to the aforementioned pages [156] [157] and we'll go on our merry way. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Request I ask that those who have made remarks about SolarStorm and I being the same person/Citation Bot acting at my behest please strike them. I'm not either of them and there is no evidence to back such baseless aspersions. Likewise, "harassment" is a crime. I request that those who have used this phrasing please change it. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. WP:IUC (specifically 2d & 2e) have been violated. I request they be struck per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility step #5. This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. I've offered to do the same. Buffs (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Much of what has been said by IG, CV, and MI (Mark Ironie) has been half-truths, wrong, or in some other way misleading. I think you can see the pattern pretty easily based up on what was brought up by GoldenRing, Mr rnddude, et al. I started to put together a comprehensive list, but quickly realized it would be too long (some of the bigger highlights below). Likewise, I think that most of you can look at these and see it.

Highlights a few of the bigger points of contention from this page. If you want more, it can be easily provided. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Those changes made by Indigenous girl were opposed by Buffs on talk. [46],[47] No they weren't. Please feel free to check: My edit vs her edit However, I don't feel it is correct or fair to characterize Indigenous girl's edits...as "following" simply because Buffs, having been on Wikipedia longer, edited some of those articles first. If you look at the timeline set up by GoldenRing, you’ll note the edit is in relatively quick succession after mine. It has nothing to do we being on WP longer. Yes, I do take exception of equating indigenous people to fringe, white supremacists and flat earthers. Please read my remarks. I did not indigenous people to white supremacists, etc. I’ve attempted to clarify multiple times, but IG and Corbie are highly insistent that their initial gut reaction is more accurate the words I chose and any clarification later made is to be ignored. If you say “You using a spatula for a plate is as effective as Germany attacking Russia in WWII!”, you're comparing two bad decisions, not equating someone to Hitler. I am not attempting to further any sort of agenda as Buffs has repeatedly proposed aside from having fair, balanced and well sourced articles. No, you’ve repeatedly stated that First Nation people have an exclusive right to control their culture and language as justification for inclusion/exclusion of material. "The Lenape are the ones who control their language.)" and other reliable sources should be discounted. This opinion runs contrary to WP's policy on reliable sources. With regard to the BSA article I admittedly looked at Buffs contribs. Well, there you go. In addition to the GoldenRing's layout, an additional admission of WP:FOLLOWING (On the edit she set me up to get blocked, she admitted the same.) SS participated in edit warring on Buffs behalf and Buffs thanked him [158] Now we're introducing WP:SYN into the talk page. I only thanked him for removing a troll’s comments and advised him not to generally engage the trolls. I did not thank him for edit warring. Please read the diffs. You won't find evidence to back up her claim. I stated clearly that I was aware it was OR and that I had no intention to post it in the article... Thereby making it pointless to add it in the first place. Your point’s been made. You don’t think it’s a “real” word in the Lenape language. Published sources say otherwise. All you have to back your opinion is WP:OR which is inconclusive at best and WP:syn by assuming connections and malfeasance that are not in reliable sources. I mentioned earlier that there is one unresolved issue on the page: this is it. ...and that it should probably be added to the individual's article. No, you didn’t. I did. An admin warned Buffs not to refactor contribs He warned me not to do "that". When I hatted the discussion, I did so partially because the same admin had advised me to do exactly that...then he blocked me for it and initiated a 6-month ban. When an admin advises you to do something and then blocks you for doing what they recommended, their advice doesn't appear to be in good faith. I'll try to keep this presentation neutral but it does focus on Buffs' actions. There's absolutely nothing neutral about this assessment. It implies malfeasance without evidence/by pointing to what policy states is acceptable. There is zero note made about the OR, POV pushing, baseless accusations, entrapment, etc. I placed a civility warning on Buffs talk page. It was deleted along with the conversation 19 hours later with an edit summary "I've read it”...After a significant amount of back and forth between two over it, the day after the conversation was over. Buffs deleted it from his talk page... Yep...that’s explicitly allowed per WP:USERTALK. I’m under no obligation to keep POV-inspired threats from highly biased editors on my talk page. On 2 July 2019, <an admin> blocked Buffs for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I've never been blocked for personal attacks. I was blocked for WP:FOLLOWING based on the actions of someone who set me up. Harassment is a crime; please strike/retract immediately unless you’re accusing me of a crime (I’ve literally been accused of murder on WP), so it wouldn't be the first time. Four admins, including myself, attempted to intervene during these months with warnings and a block. Well, this is a little redundant. Of these 4, 2 were involved editors, one was exceptionally vague and later blocked me for something he advised I do. I took Bishonen's advice and tried to be more concise, collegial. All them found fault with Buffs' behaviour. And of them, two are distorting the facts/presenting a one-sided case. Buffs is a longtime editor but his past contribs are riff with exactly this behavior and attitude. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. This is guilt by accusation. There’s no evidence to support such a conclusion. While deleting warnings and unflattering discussion from his user page is perfectly within his rights, I know my instinct is to wonder why, particularly if it happens multiple times over the same issue. That's obfuscating editor and/or admin interactions to anyone looking at it. Let me paraphrase how I'm reading these remarks: “He’s within his rights to delete it and we explicitly say there’s nothing wrong it, but it’s definitely something he’s doing wrong and he shouldn’t delete it. You should look at this actions with a LOT of suspicion!” This is just more guilt by accusation. This isn’t evidence of any malfeasance, just standard talk page maintenance. CV has done the exact same thing, but you aren’t chastising him. {{tq|I would have blocked Buffs for continuing harassment of IG...” You have stated that “If the clear opportunity had presented itself, I would have personally taken him to an appropriate noticeboard...Buffs is astonishingly good at skirting the brink of clear violations of policy…” I haven’t actually broken any rules...but now you’re saying you’d block me anyway? Mostly I've seen this from problem editors, not editors in good standing. “Innocent people don’t do this” is a terrible argument…it’s a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy

• Support the IBAN on Buffs per Buffs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Could you clarify? Buffs (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN, Buffs went to two of the articles last night. Buffs also posted here several times, with extreme vitriol. He called the IBAN "a joke", which is an insult to everyone here who has tried to bring some peace to this situation, notably Golden Ring. Even though I do not agree with Golden Ring's assessment of Indigenous girl's edits, Golden Ring does not deserve to have his efforts on Buffs' behalf called "a joke." Buffs then went to revert to his preferred versions of the contested articles. along with insulting, aggressive edit summaries. On Order of the Arrow, it was with a short essay/argument in the edit summary. On Cultural Appropriation, he removed sourced content about collective intellectual property, claiming the sources don't support it, when there are three sources (still there) that cite the content, including two with the name "collective intellectual property" in their titles. The collective intellectual property phrasing was resolved on the talk page in April. Buffs later tried to start the same discussion on intellectual property again, despite the content now being sourced. People in the previous discussion said they were sick of going in circles with him. So last night, he said he was taking their refusal to engage as "no objection" and therefore, consent.[159] This is an example of the tendentious editing that has been ongoing with him. If the IBAN is enacted, I think it is clear that he has already started trying to game the system in an effort to make sure the articles are the way he wants them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you? A self-appointed personal watchdog that hounds me at every turn? I don't need a critique of every edit of mine. Stop WP:FOLLOWING me! As for the rest of the comments you happily took out of context in order to malign me...please read what was actually written and not this atrocious "summary" from someone who has stated they want to block me even though they admit I've done nothing wrong.

• I did not call IBAN "a joke". I said the evenhandedness in this interaction is "a joke". Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
• As for the two articles. There is no insult in either edit summary, just a detailed explanation. Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
• As for each edit/summary, OA: there is no disagreement on the talk page that the comment and assessment are WP:OR; just an assertion without a WP:RS to back it up. The other was a quote where one word was changed (thereby altering the meaning) and attribution was not given; it was presented as a summary in violation of MOS:QUOTE (by definition, that's plagiarism...I don't even know who put it in there, nor am I attributing that action to any person). I altered that to include the full language of the quote of the source that even CV added; implying I'm being disruptive for adding something CV added...I'm at a loss for words. For CA, I explained the problem and asked for input over a month ago. It is literally impossible to reach a consensus when one "side" exhibits ownership of articles and refuses to discuss. I removed the weasel word "many" as the sources given do not state how many actually object. Likewise, he is correct that two articles include "collective intellectual property" in their headlines, but neglects to mention that ALL the given sources state that "collective intellectual property rights" are not recognized by anyone. They are advocating that such rights be granted. You cannot advocate for something to be changed and claim that's evidence that rights (that no one recognizes) doesn't justify a summary that CA is "a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures": no such recognized rights exist! As such it was removed per WP:RS and WP:V. Again, please read the actual sources + what was actually written, not MI's misleading summary.
• While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN...: well, that's just plain false: [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167]

Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at the diffs Buffs offers us, shall we? (Note that Golden Ring started this discussion on 16 July 2019.)

• "77" I reverted a user who put in POV language like "according to extreme positions" and deleted sources. I reverted to the stable version of the article - This is the only diff since the AN discussion has started.
• "78" an IP reverts Indigenous girl on July 15. Before this AN was posted.
• "79" IG reverts IP on July 15, before this AN proposal
• "80" I revert a source removal on July 13, the editor then apologizes on talk and the edit stands. This is two days before this AN thread.
• "81" July 10, six days before this thread, IG edits in line with consensus on talk page. This is all old news
• "82" ditto July 10
• "83" m I remove a dangling bracket- July 10
• "84" I hotlink a title, per talk page discussion, July 11. Five days before this AN discussion starts.

That's the "evidence" Buffs has. A wall of diffs that say nothing. None of this is substantial editing on the contested articles since this discussion began. This is typical of what we've dealt with from him since March - misrepresentations and bad-faith attempts at wikilawyering. Please also see what Mark Ironie posted about Buffs edits the other night, which are Buffs reverting to Buffs' preferred versions on the contested articles, complete with buckets of incivility at everyone here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Request this IBAN be extended to Mark Ironie as well

An IBAN seems all but assured now. If enacted, I'll abide by it, but I ask that Mark Ironie be added to the list as well. Like CV, he continues to inject himself into discussions, demonstrated more WP:FOLLOWING behavior, and intentionally misconstrue/introduce falsehoods in discussions of what I've said. See above. Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is patently false. Ironie has not recently edited any of the 8 articles listed by GoldenRing. He made only a short comment at this AN about you accusing IG, CV, and Ironie of misleading or false statements, a vote in the RfC at Talk:Order of the Arrow (well in line with the eventual consensus), and nothing else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Will a subhead help focus attention?

This was put into this thread above but let me see how simple I can make it. Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · count) has repeatedly asked Buffs (talk · contribs · count) since March to leave her alone, to not interact with her and stay off her talk page. She said clearly for Buffs to stop and consented to an IBAN here. Buffs said he did not support an IBAN then twice edited IG's talk page, here and here. This clearly falls under harassment policy and is a blocking offense. What more can IG do if Buffs will not accept boundaries on interaction with her? This is an example of Buffs behaviour right here, right now. This has been ongoing for months. No Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What you conveniently ignore to mention is that the second edit is Buffs removing their comment from IG's talk page and vowing to never post on your talk page again. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't tell you to leave me alone, and then use that as a basis to win a content dispute, or then continue to follow your edits and say that anything you do is harassment. If someone is harassing you then that should be brought before the community and adjudicated as such, or it should be brought privately to ArbCom, or it should go to T&S. GMG^talk 01:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

EIA often leaves stuff out, but it finds that IG is following Buffs edits to articles significantly more than Buffs is to IG.[168] Even in the rare case that IG has edited an article first, it is apparent that IG follows Buffs' edits. Look at, for example, Talk:Cultural appropriation. Within an hour of Buffs starting a thread about the article, IG shows up to engage. Oh, and that's in April, supposedly a month after she asked Buffs to leave her alone. I don't buy this "harassment" narrative. ... or it should go to T&S - Oh god no, please not again. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thought occurred to me to look at the overlap between CorbieVreccan and IG, since GMG mentions that they witnessed tag-teaming behaviour. 580[169]/853[170] (~68% of total) of IG's 853 edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Focusing on just mainspace, 205/382[171] (~54%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Talk space as well 171/184[172] (~93%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. In all three cases, most of those overlaps are recorded on articles where the "min time between edits" is less than 24 hours. Now this doesn't prove tag-teaming/meat puppetry in itself, but it is telling that the first random edit I pick to look at, I find this. IG's first ever edit to the DAP page is to support CV's proposal 12 minutes after they posted it. Coincidentally, also her first edit made in five months.[173] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

... or it should go to T&S - I second the motion that we should dismiss THAT idea (unless there's something going on I don't know about). Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, T&S has a broader job description than blocking a particular popular/unpopular enwiki admin. The last interaction I had with them involved a pedophile on Commons, and the one before that had to deal with a user several of us suspected was being paid to manipulate Wikimedia projects on behalf of a national government. GMG^talk 00:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: While it may be true that IG has repeatedly asked Buffs since March to leave her alone it is also true, as documented above, that IG has repeatedly followed Buffs to articles he is editing since March. What do you expect, that asking someone to stay away from you means you can drive onto their front lawn and force them to leave home? It's clear that IG has tried to frame this as Buffs hounding her; the reality is that IG follows Buffs around, gets into arguments where neither of them behave well, then complains about it. When IG said to El_C, "The guy is still following me" that was in fact the first time Buffs had ever followed her anywhere; in every other case, IG had followed Buffs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Save your time/effort. MI isn't interested. He's only interesting in stopping people with whom he disagrees politically. He has yet to provide constructive criticism. Buffs (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is IBAN

I've read what I've seen. @GoldenRing: can you further explain what that entails? We might not need any more input if I've been misreading what you're advocating. I think I agree with at least 90% of it. Given that IG and CV already voiced support, we might be in agreement and we can stop this. Additionally, thank you for pointing out the hounding problems from IG. Buffs (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I believe the IBAN policy explains things clearly. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: I agree. WP:IBAN sets out the terms of an interaction ban quite clearly. GoldenRing (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I tried to WP:AGF and announce edits in advance only to have IG jump in front of me in order to get me blocked (the effects of which are IG, CV, and MI bringing it up ad nauseum and mischaracterizing it despite evidence to the contrary), so with IG's persistent bugging, please bear with me if I'm not about to just AGF so readily

"undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" is exceptionally vague. Am I expected to analyze every edit on every page just to see if 2 other editors have ever edited it and, if so, if my edit will change something they wrote some time in the past 12 years? If that's the case, what we're looking at here is a de facto topic ban from ANYTHING related to Native Americans (even remotely) and a plethora of other articles/random articles. I've already been blocked for the "dastardly" act of reverting a WP:BLP violation, making innocuous edits, or doing what an admin suggested only to get blocked/banned. I'm a little wary of such an ill-defined application.

Likewise, I'd like at least a warning of some kind for CV and IG; hell, I'd support a 1 minute block just so it's on their record. I'm not looking to get them blocked for anything other than an insignificant amount of time. I generally don't do warnings; they are no more than an opinion. In hindsight, that was a mistake and I should have been giving warnings and asking others to warn them as well (since, apparently, that's allowed as evidence of wrongdoing). I won't make that mistake again. Buffs (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:A clearer definition would be "Don't touch any new edits since the IBAN went in place". If that's the case, we're fine and we're in agreement. An IBAN is not even necessary. I'll agree to all the terms listed under IBAN effective immediately right now and we can end this.

If I start working on something, it wouldn't be impossible for IG to jump in to make ANOTHER edit. Obviously there are inattentive admins who are only looking at the evidence presented to them rather than the whole picture. Then we start this whole drama again. WP:AGF is out the window on this one. I want terms to be crystal clear if I'm going to be facing people who are out to smear me using underhanded tactics. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: Changing things the other editor subject to an IBAN wrote a long time ago is something of a grey area; the rule is, if in doubt, don't do it. It's necessarily subjective and rather ill-defined, as it's perfectly possible to do a simple revert on someone else's edits from years ago if a page is not much edited, while it's also possible to cross another editor's path only a few days apart yet not be considered to be "interacting" if there have been many intervening edits. Generally speaking, yes, you need to be careful once you're subject to an IBAN to check if you're reverting something the other subject of the ban wrote, and if you're not sure, don't make the edit. Wikipedia doesn't depend on you alone. There are exceptions to most bans, but you'd better be very sure they obviously apply before you use them; in general, it's better to leave it to another editor (contact me or another admin by email if you think it's urgent). Regarding your statement that an IBAN is not even necessary: I disagree. An IBAN has two differences from what you suggest: Firstly, it is unquestionably enforceable and that seems important in this situation right now. Secondly, it affects all the parties in a way that is not up to them to interpret; you are not the only one who would be affected by this ban, and I think this is a situation where we (or at least I) want the restriction to be not subject to your (or the other parties') agreement. People who attempt to game IBANs are generally given short shrift and it's important to remember that this ban would cut both ways. It's good to know that you agree to the terms of the ban, though. GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Then, it's that simple. It's too grey for me to agree to. IG has proven she's willing to follow me and use underhanded tactics in order to get me blocked. IG, CV, and MI are also willing to twist the truth and distort facts. WP:AGF is just plain absent here and WP:IUC is the norm with two admins not only endorsing it, but leading the charge. MI even wants to enact a block even though he admits I've done nothing wrong. A third is apparently willing to simply enforce claims without considering all of the evidence. This is a kangaroo court.

...and I'm the one that ends up with blocks and bans. There's not a SINGLE warning for IG and CV, much less a block. I have zero faith that we won't end up back here because of that grey area. IG's complaints of persecution here are completely self-inflicted and it took this long for ANY admin to say, "Hang on sec...Buffs has a point here. He's been unmercilessly hounded." At this point, in an effort of balance, I think a block (or at least a warning!!!) is in order here for IG, MI, and CV's talk page from another admin.

Furthermore, why is there no call for a retraction of the inaccurate information above? I suppose anyone can just say anything they want. No one is bothering to check for accuracy. No one cares if wild accusations are thrown around. My name's being dragged through the mud with baseless accusations and no one is enforcing a retraction of these remarks. What the hell? Or are we just going to cluck our tongues? Tsk tsk.

This does NOTHING to fix the blatant problems that are present on these articles. One RFC on the OA page WAS resolved and, lo and behold/despite claims to the contrary, I stood by it. Another was resolved, but no one will close it (two people agreed with me, one took another side). Other posts have been sitting for over a month with no input. WP policies might have had merit when there were more editors, but without community involvement or Admins willing to hear people out, WP is shooting itself in the foot. It leaves ONLY people who are willing to put up with atrocious ownership of articles or forging alliances in order to push a political agenda.

Note that in EVERY instance where I was followed, CV and I were in a discussion already...WOW! IG shows up! I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you. Then CV claims consensus to silence dissent. GMG is correct. This isn't consensus. It's meatpuppetry.

Ultimately, an IBAN solves none of the problems with these articles and enables IG/CV/IM a way to further game the system to push an agenda. In the Order of the Arrow article, the "evidence" presented against the OA is a single protestor, an anonymous writer, and a professor who thinks that anyone dressing up as another is tantamount to attempting to silence an entire culture; it's pathetic. Additionally, remarks of doubt are added and OR introduced by an admin...and we have more silence. No one is addressing the actual problems. No one appears to be interested. Everyone is solely interested in everyone getting along with no conflict. Peace is NOT the absence of conflict. It's the presence of order. Right now, that's missing. People are just interested in completely neutral, tweet-sized discussions. If anyone has anything to say that changes the status quo, it's labeled "disruption" and the authors are smeared. WP:AGF? WP:CIVIL. What a joke. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'll abide by whatever the community lays down. but I oppose it solely because (mark my words) it'll be gamed by IG/CV/MI in order to block me. Buffs (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Has anyone actually looked at that massive list of diffs Golden Ring posted in the original post here? All they prove is that Buffs continued to edit "Scouting in X State" articles after Indigenous girl. That's it. And the last diff: and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff) is not even an edit by Indigenous girl, but is a comment by El C in an unrelated discussion. Mark Ironie (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: Thanks for the proofreading - I've fixed the "following his lead" diff (I got the oldid instead of the diffid). As for the "massive list of diffs", they demonstrate exactly what I said they do - that the only instances of Buffs "following" IG were made as part of a very long list of similar edits. Now, have you actually looked at the evidence that IG, despite asking Buffs to leave her along, nonetheless followed him around for months? GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Golden Ring, as to the many Scouting in the States diffs, which I really doubt people are looking at, the timeline clearly shows Indigenous girl was the first one to edit a Scouting in a state article: on 22:36, June 30, 2019, with a substantial edit to Scouting in Vermont. Buffs didn't start editing the Scouting in the states articles until after she did, at 22:45, July 1, 2019. I think it was clear he was trying to stake some kind of claim on them, with his rapid series of minor edits. After being called on this, when he kept posting his altered version of the timeline on his talk page, he kept leaving out her first edits. All the diffs for his edits to "states" articles show is that he went on that spree after her June 30 edits. This is what I've been trying to clarify all along. The other articles they've both edited are due to overlapping fields of interest - ie, that some of the Boy Scouts groups incorporate Native American symbology and activities, and some groups have been protested by Native American groups, or consulted with Native American groups. The BSA articles often have content about Native American cultures that needs better sourcing or correction of misinformation, and its from this that much of the conflicts have arisen. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me just fill some details of Buff's edits on 1 July 2019. After IG's edits to Scouting in Vermont on 30 June, Buff did 8 edits to state scouting articles in this exact order: Scouting in Arkansas, Scouting in Texas, Scouting in Oklahoma, Scouting in Vermont, Scouting in Hawaii (twice), Scouting in Vermont again, and finally Scouting in Utah.

Note Buffs didn't edit these in alphabetic order. Buffs' purpose was, indeed, to follow IG. While Buffs did find IG had left out an important two words in a quote, this was not the point. Immediately after, Buffs said "I'll be continuing auditing language that no longer applies tomorrow in other scouting articles if I have time (there's a lot of "Boy Scout" vs the more-appropriate "Scouts" lingering from the change to co-ed in February)." Then we get to the edit IG did to Scouting in Massachusetts which Buffs characterized as a set-up and she-jumped-in-front-of-my-truck description. Thus we come to "Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender." Thus we come to where fault has somehow, astonishingly, been pointed at IG rather than Buffs. There is something truly wrong going on here and it is not IG's actions. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:@Buffs: The very basis of GoldenRing's original post here, setting out to show it was Indigenous girl who was following Buffs or some equivalence, is inaccurate and unsupported by the diffs used. I think GoldenRing jumped too quickly into a complicated situation, made assumptions based on a very superficial understanding. GR really did not understand the issue was Buffs hounding and following Indigenous girl, that the crux was serious policy violations on Buffs' part. Buffs has attempted to silence Indigenous girl and continues to engage in efforts to drive her off WP. It has never been some simple "who followed who" to articles that could be resolved by assigning blame through editor interaction tools. That completely sidesteps the core issues involved over months.

|[User:Buffs|Buffs]] is one of the most tendentious editors I've ever seen. Here is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion from March, 2019. (Disclosure: I made one comment in it.) GreenMeansGo very significantly contributed to the discussion. It's long but a taste of how conflict is handled with Buffs. Please carefully check the diffs, links, policy citations, etc. in Buffs' comments/arguments and whether Buffs represents them accurately in his text. Of course, check Indigenous girl, CorbieVreccan, and other's links as well for comparison. Draw your own conclusions. This is one instance of many.

Note the progress of the discussion in this current AN thread. It started with GoldenRing reversing Buffs harassing and following Indigenous girl on-wiki. According to GR, now IG is following Buffs but without invoking the WP:HOUND policy, and GR asks for an IBAN on both Buffs and IG. As it has gone on, Buffs has become increasingly agitated about the IBAN and opposes it for himself, explicitly stating one or all of the others under IBAN will game the system to get him blocked. Now, CorbieV is to be included. Buffs wants to include me as well, not for the minor two comments I made back in March or for editing these articles (I have not) or for providing statements here on my observations but for violating hounding policy. Apparently, gathering diffs and evidence to post here is now considered "hounding". Buffs is very clear on these points: Everyone else is at serious fault here and Buffs is the victim. Buffs alone is upholding standards/policies of WP to high standards and wholly blameless in events.

Buffs has asserted that the reason User:CorbieVreccan has not been sanctioned for incivility is a special administrator favouritism and crony-ism at work; in short, The Cabal. Buffs thinks me posting about what I consider bad faith edits at this time to be hounding/stalking him rather than additional evidence for consideration here.

My reason for showing diffs from within this discussion is because they provide some of the clearest, easy to understand, and immediate examples of Buffs' deficits in policy interpretation and their application in other situations and discussion. I think Buffs believes he has an excellent grasp of WP policies and guidelines.

The WP:FOLLOWING policy is about harassment, about intimidation and silencing, not about people editing articles in shared fields of interest. Even a cursory glance at Indigenous girl's contribs show most of her work involves Native American and First Nation articles. This is one of her areas of expertise. CorbieVreccan also does substantial work in the same areas. Both were established in these fields before they encountered Buffs.

Also, as I noted above, with diffs, as this thread has been open, IG and CV have refrained from any substantial editing on the contested articles, and respected this process, while Buffs has decided to edit aggressively and scream at people here on AN.

It's my opinion that only Buffs deserves an IBAN, although possibly much more. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• The users involved here need to quit WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion and let the community review this for themselves. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose i-ban. I'm not really sure where to put this because this thread is a mess, but I guess this is the best place. I've primarily sided with Buffs in my comments here due to my belief that Buffs has not received a fair deal. This should not be mistaken as an indication that I hold Buffs completely blameless. I do believe that Buffs needs to adjust their tone and to avoid discussing the political motivations of other editors in the future. However, what alarms me is the fact that Buffs was blocked twice and received both a page-ban and an i-ban, both have which were later removed as inappropriate (but only after the page ban resulted in a block). Meanwhile, no sanctions at all have been applied to Corbie, IG, Mark, or Saxifrage. Perhaps those who have followed this affair across its various locations might think that I have been overly critical of those four editors, but please consider the following as a sampling of my concerns: in the 'Will a subhead...' section, Mark Ironie pointed out that Buffs had posted twice on IG's talk age after being asked not to do so. Yeah, two such posts seems worse than one, until you consider the second edit was a polite self-revert. It's possible that Mark did not intend to frame a good faith edit as a bad faith edit, but it's not very likely in light of his failure to even respond when called out directly by Mr rnddude. As for IG, Golden Ring has pointed to the problematic nature of following someone else around and then trying to get them in trouble for allegedly doing the same thing. As for Corbie (and IG again), please note the above summary from GMG, an editor whose judgment I have no reason to doubt. I think that GMG's words speak very loudly and should be given full attention. My objections to Saxifrage's conduct are stated in detail at the relevant thread below. In light of all this, it seems to me that some or all of these editors should consider themselves lucky to escape without sanctions. I'm not opposing this i-ban because I want to give them a break. I'm opposing because they have a numerical advantage over Buffs and I'm afraid the evidence suggests that they are not inclined to treat him fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• You can add smug, passive-aggressive insults to the case against admin CorbieVreccan. Maybe this whole mess needs to go to ArbCom. It's clear that none of the involved admins are taking concerns about their conduct seriously, and that's a problem. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps a follow-up, feature-length documentary again made by The Cabal is in order. I suggest There Is No Cabal II - Duplication. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to close

This has just been archived without action. Could someone uninvolved please close it? If it's "no consensus" then so be it but I'd appreciate a close. GoldenRing (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

And Buffs is back at it, reverting me, misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting talk page discussion, etc, etc, etc.. I am so sick of this. Again, requesting IBAN on Buffs, at the very least. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with GoldenRing: I really think this thread should be closed by an uninvolved admin. It needs a definitive close rather than just archiving. Otherwise this behaviour will continue and is already beginning per CorbieV above. I'm suspecting that the shadow of the Fram affair is casting a reluctant pall over this particular close because of the issues. Will some admin please close this, whatever the decision? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request review of close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Saxifrage appears to have supervoted a sanction into effect against a reasonable reading of consensus. In the above discussion, two admins, Swarm and GoldenRing (as proposer), and one uninvolved editor, GreenMeansGo, supported two-way IBANs between Buffs and CorbieVreccan and Buffs and Indigenousgirl. These were intended to handle three editors who have each individually demonstrated an inability to behave collegialy with the other, and in addition the issue of IG following Buffs while simultaneously demanding that he leave her alone. One involed admin, CorbieVreccan, !voted for one-way. There is also one illegible !vote, that of Mark Ironie, that they have indicated was meant to be taken as sarcasm and in favour of a one-way IBAN. Saxifrage closed the discussion in favour of a one-way IBAN on Buffs from CorbieVreccan and IndigenousGirl. This does not fit with consensus, if there is any to be found, wthat indicates that the problems are two-sided – Saxifrage even acknowledges that there is a consensus that two-sided following is happening, but then summarily ignores this as a non-issue. Really? Harassment is a non-issue? One-way IBANs are particularly problematic where issues are two-way because they open up a user to being hounded and harassed, and given that Saxifrage acknowledges a pattern of following, this close outcome becomes nonsensical. There is an additional matter, but it's not central to the review: Saxifrage, you have failed to do either of the mandatory tasks when implementing a sanction against an editor. You have not notified the sanctioned editor on their talk page of the imposed sanction, nor have you logged the sanction at ER – done by an uninvolved editor. As such, I am requesting that other editors and admins review both the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There is additional detail at User talk:Saxifrage#Can you please explain your rationale? and User talk:GoldenRing#Saxifrage's close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst close I have ever seen. There was absolutely no consensus for a one-way iban. While Buffs has not behaved perfectly in this dispute, there is ample reason to believe that he has been railroaded on numerous occasions. It is disappointing that this was handled so unevenly (against Buffs) before it came to ANI, but to apply such an unfair close, plainly unsupported by consensus, adds insult to injury. This needs to be overturned and re-archived with no consensus. I suspect Corbie V. and Mark Ironie won't like that, but maybe it will help them to avoid derailing future threads with one wall of text after another (and Buffs is not innocent in this regard either). Also, in light of Mark Ironie's condescending treatment of Buffs at Saxifrage's talk page, it's time to start taking a closer look at Mark's behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I already contested the close. All things being equal, I agree with the two editors above and restate my original edit summary. ——SerialNumber54129 11:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) To clarify, I also support Overturning the close, in case it needs putting in black and white. ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Too bad you got reverted. This type of rogue action (yes, this supervote is a rogue action) does nothing to improve the already poor perception of legacy admins, and I hope that when Saxifrage responds here he will be a little more humble and a little less dismissive than he was in his replies to Buffs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is painful, as I'm sure Saxifrage closed the discussion in good faith, and put a lot of work into it. And his omission of the technicalities (logging and placing a notice on Buff's page) isn't something that I would make a big deal of. It's not a crime to be unaware of these requirements, and they can easily be performed by someone else. But the close is unfortunately a classic supervote and does not correspond to the consensus of the discussion. That is a big deal, and means the close needs to be undone. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

  I did omit the technicalities — I was interrupted after finishing the close, and then was further interrupted by being called away from a real computer for a few days. I do regret that. I was just about to take care of that now that I'm back at a real keyboard, but I see the EDR change has been made, and in light of the review and Buffs being surely aware of the IBAN, I'll elide the notice at this time.

  Thanks for the assumption of good faith, it's deeply appreciated. The briefest summary of the summary was that I saw consensus for 1) applying a remedy (IBAN) to deal with the situation; consensus that 2) the status quo should not continue; but not a consensus for what for, except for the consensus that 3) Buffs regularly engages in overt and harmful hostility in content disputes, making them unresolvable except by the other party's exhaustion. Combining consensus for (1), (2), and (3) seemed reasonable. I welcome a review of the close, since more eyes make problems shallower, including resolving disputes like this. Given some of the contributions to the discussion, I wasn't surprised that it would need to escalate to another meta level of discussion. I somewhat expect that this will eventually reach ArbCom. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  When Buffs first approached you to request an explanation of your closure, he specifically asked for examples of instances in which he was uncivil. You provided no examples aside from the perceived hostility in his post on your page, which could hardly be cited as justification for a sanction that predated it. In the ensuing conversation, you advised Buffs that you didn't take "personalised guff" (none of which had been offered) and that you expected not to interact with him on the subject anymore. When GoldenRing registered his own surprise at your decision, you stated that you found that the argument for Buffs behaviour being egregiously hostile was overwhelming solid, and the facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors. If that's true, it really shouldn't be hard to provide examples that predate your soon-to-be-reversed sanction, should it? Yet you haven't done so. Buffs keeps asking 'when was I uncivil?' and you keep replying 'you were really uncivil!' Maybe this type of behavior was acceptable in your administrative heyday. It's not acceptable now. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am taken aback that the incivility is even in dispute, or that the failure to redocument what's already extensively documented when Buffs says "jump" is somehow more important to discuss than the incivility itself. What's "not hard" is not the same as what's reasonable. What's "not hard" can also be an effective strategy to waste the time of admins and the project as a whole, when it's deployed to avoid acknowledging the already well-documented behaviour. The only winning move for admins is to not play the game offered by offenders.

  If you want a simple example, if re-reading Buffs contributions to the discussion above and the diffs provided there is somehow insufficient as evidence, then I can give one example where not only was Buffs being given a last warning for incivility, his response was to launch into further incivility with accusations of partisanship and choosing sides. Not just one example though: Buffs regularly does this. Not just sometimes, but over and over again.

  If responding to sanctions for incivility with incivility were fine at Wikipedia, the community would be doomed. That cannot be how we handle egregiously incivil editors. The bar cannot be set so high that WP:CIVIL gets only lip service, and constant incivility-laden protests, constant demands to re-prove and re-quote what is already proved and quoted, become an effective way to be free to break a fundamental rule of the project. An editor cannot just constantly generate new threads of argument and then demand new responses, when they've already been responded to. That's especially damaging to entertain when they appear to treat every new uninvolved editor as a clean slate, offering a fresh opportunity to relitigate already demonstrated violations of WP:CIVIL.

  Regardless, providing proof to Buffs on demand is not the point here. The point is whether the contents of the so-far closed discussion contain the proof already, as that is what is referred to in the summary. Any failure to entertain Buffs requests for proof don't change the contents of the discussion nor my summary, both of which pre-date my refusal to entertain his unreasonable requests for fresh copy-pastes of existing documentation. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  It would appear that you do not understand what constitutes incivility, nor do you understand your responsibility to be accountable for your administrative actions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  I second that. Furthermore, I don't see a violation of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility in that posting nor of WP:NPA that was accused.

  A warning or accusation of impropriety is not evidence of impropriety. What was labeled a "personal attack" by MI, was an assessment of behavior. Just like anyone else's assessment, it's no more uncivil than any other. For example, your assessment of my actions I find condescending and demeaning.

  Disagreement/dissent is not inherently uncivil. Buffs (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have to concur with the opinions above (especially @Lepricavark:'s remarks. I don't agree with the conclusions of those involved in the discussion, but I will abide by consensus...but I think it's clear that the closure was NOT consensus. Thanks to all who replied already. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• For the record, I oppose an interaction ban at this time as I believe such an outcome would give an unfair advantage to a small group of editors seeking to impose their wishes, masqueraded as consensus, upon another user whom they have fought hard to silence. It seems clear that the discussion will eventually be reopened, and I'm somewhat surprised that it is still closed. @Buffs: When it is reopened, please keep your comments succinct and avoid the temptation for long walls of text. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you/noted. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Per Bishonen, this is a clear supervote. It bears no resemblance to the consensus of the discussion and is merely what the closer thought ought to happen. The closer has said in about as many words that they found no consensus and then implemented what they thought was a good solution. In as much as this represents a closure review, there is a clear need to overturn. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn - This is an egregious supervote, that has little connection to the actual discussion and consensus therein. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Whether or not the close was good, enough editors have disagreed with it that the closer should self-revert and let someone uninvolved reclose. Such a self-revert should not be construed as an admission of error -- the closer should self-revert even if convinced that he was 100% right, simply to put this to bed and let everybody move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• As Saxifrage has not yet vacated their supervote, we need an uninvolved admin to act on the above consensus and overturn the close so that the community can decide what, if anything, to do about Buffs, IG, Corbie, and Mark... preferably without the involved editors derailing the discussion this time. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• It seems Saxifrage has conveniently slipped back into semi-retirement. Could an uninvolved admin please action this? GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Administrative service awards

Greetings, all. Wikipedia:Administrative service awards (an admin complement to Wikipedia:Service awards) is well on its way to being open for business. Mop-themed emblems are under construction. Any suggestions for alteration or improvement are welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't like being the killjoy, but is that really a good idea? More administrator actions is not always merrier, and it kind of looks like an invitation towards doing a lot of possibly unnecessary or even harmful actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I wondered the same, Jo-Jo, however I'd be surprised if we still had any admins fresh-faced enough to actively chase down targets rather than just meet them over time. Alternatively, it could just be used as a honeypot vetting method - anyone using it is immediately subject to checking ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

What the hell? This isn't a videogame; the mark of a good administrator is someone who resolves situations without needing to break out the banhammer, not someone who racks up the apparently arbitrary figure of 42,000 admin actions. I would take anyone being stupid enough to actually display one of these awards as prima facie evidence of their unsuitability. Please just {{db-g7}} this and pretend it didn't happen. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see; the apparently arbitrary figure of 42,000 actions is not in fact arbitrary at all, it's by happy coincidence the number of administrative actions you've made. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What, Iridescent, am I not a good enough benchmark for you? bd2412 T 22:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought that couldn't be right, but I checked, and it really is - that is beyond parody. My suggestion is to delete this. I'm not sure "embarrassing" is a speedy criteria in and of itself, but with just over 42,000 admin actions I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out. Fish+Karate 10:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly we need to make ProcseeBot grand overlord of all admins based on its total action count. I think it needs a (virtual) chest covered in medals, like the old South American military dictator look. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a waste of time. I don't see much community involvement either. ——SerialNumber54129 09:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To mix metaphors, the whole thing is crumbling around our ears...and meanwhile the Titanic's deckchairs are in urgent need of rearrangement! ——SerialNumber54129 10:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't think giving ourselves shiny awards should be high on the list of priorities for admins. Of course, for those who really like shiny awards, no community consensus is needed for awarding oneself as much as one likes. But in my country, there's an often-quoted bon mot attributed to Frederick the Great: leaders should aim at servir et disparaître – serve and then quietly disappear. This also applies to admins, even though they aren't leaders. Sandstein 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: Why did he say it in French, d'you know? ——SerialNumber54129 11:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He was something of a Francophile, I gather. According to his article, "Frederick disliked the German language and literature, explaining that German authors 'pile parenthesis upon parenthesis, and often you find only at the end of an entire page the verb on which depends the meaning of the whole sentence'". He wasn't wrong in that respect. Sandstein 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • He established a medal for valour that lasted until the end of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1918-1919. Its name? Pour le Mérite. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Xe was educated in German and French, but spoke and wrote the latter almost indistinguishably from a native, whereas xyr spoken German was, in xyr own words ″comme un cocher″. Now that quotation is one of xyr more famous remarks. ISBN 9780191613692 p. xx; ISBN 9781134820795 p. 105. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Besides, French was the de facto diplomatic lingua franca (literally) of the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment the highest award is for 42,000 actions after 16 years, providing 2,625 actions per year, or slightly more than 7 per day. Is that a reasonable figure for the bitholders to consistently maintain over the course of 16 years? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  If one were only interested in one's action count, one could probably rack up 2,625 actions in a day just by constantly refreshing CAT:CSD, or over a slightly longer term by heading over to WP:RFD and clearing it out regularly. Remember, a lot of deletions count twice as the talkpage is being deleted as well. Part of the reason this is such a peculiarly meat-headed idea is that that's the exact opposite of how we want admins to behave; we want the admins thinking "can this be saved from deletion?", "can this dispute be resolved without protection?" and "is it really necessary to block this person rather than try to talk to them?", not looking at situations as an excuse to increase their action count. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable, although per everyone above it seems like a particularly pathological form of editcountitis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Just find a single /16 IPv4 range that needs to be blocked, and block them all individually! </sarcasm> Someguy1221 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  As someone who has 42,000 admin actions from clearing out WP:RFD on a regular basis, I can confirm that I am only interested in action count. As such, I will be patiently waiting my service award. (You may ship it to this address.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  As it happens, I've made on average around 7 blocks per day since becoming an admin. Just blocks. The idea that an admin would perform any actions, never mind lots of them unnecessarily, just to receive a self-awarded award is fairly laughable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Any admin who is regularly engaged in closing RM and XfD discussions will hit the mark. bd2412 T 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to thank BD2412 for taking the initiative to set this up. It seems like a little bit of lighthearted fun. I'm personally not into collecting badges, but if it makes somebody happy to put them on their user page, more power to them. That being said, I have to agree with the sentiments of others above. Most of the administrative actions I take (delete, block, protect, etc) represent somebody else's failure of one sort or another. I'm not sure that's what we want to be celebrating. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Pretty harmless imo; if users want to display these, then we shouldn't stop them. Take it easy folks, and remember Wikipedia can be fun sometimes :) -FASTILY 00:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that these were made in good faith, and I trust most admins not to let these become a game. Even so, I think these are a bad idea, because they send the worst sort of message to non-admin editors. Tracking edit-count can be questionable, but at least every edit is supposed to be adding value directly to Wikipedia. Bread-and-butter admin actions, on the other hand, typically remove or prevent things. New editors feeling hurt by a block and trying to do better aren't going to be encouraged by admins displaying badges for blocking them. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Xtools and WP:ADMINSTATS gamify admin actions too much already IMO. —Cryptic 03:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm sure it was done in good faith but it's a horrible idea. As Vanamonde93 says, it sends a terrible message to non-Admins. And an excuse for problem editors to claim a block was made only to get a new badge. Doug Weller talk 06:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I notice lots of people are sore about this but none have taken the initiative to send it to MFD yet... I'm going to be ambivalent, beyond voicing my opinion here that editcountitis is fundamentally a bad thing, while also having become a fact of Wikipedian life we have all had to begrudgingly accept; I do not think blockcountitis and deletioncountitis are things we should encourage. However if people want to show off how many "admin actions" they've performed on their user page who am I to stop them. We already have Template:Adminstats for long enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't want to send anything to MfD unless and until those involved with creating it have had a chance to reflect on what's been said here, and to G7 it themselves. We don't need to be precipitate about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oh come now, those pearls are going to break if you clutch them any harder. bd2412 T 04:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is a terrible idea for all of the reasons stated above, CSD it. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weeeell seeing as how I am pretty close to being a f***ing "Grandmaster Administrator First-Class", I wanna say this is a great idea. Then again, there's Materialscientist at an outrageous 228265; we should put them on payroll. But yeah, MS is a great admin, and I am pretty great myself, but the stats are really not that meaningful. Blocking and deleting is easy; unblocking not so much, so zzuuzz with 1471 should get a ton of extra credit. I mean, it's cute and all, but my admin cabal does serious bizniz. So no let's please not do this. (BTW, User:Jürgen Klinsmann1990 was an admin? Wow--I wonder if they were blocked by a Dutch admin who wanted to free him up.) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• No! So, Adminship isn't a big deal - it's gamification! But if this does gain traction, is there going to be one to show off how many death threats one has received? Or one saying "this user has made so many admin actions they're expecting to be 'disappeared' any day now"? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• I see this page as no big deal. The only problem is that this "game" is gatekeeped by RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a non-admin I think this page is a disgrace, and goes against the foundation of Wikipedia. Imagine if a police department had a public page awarding police officers with the number of arrests or tickets issued. While it is a function of society, it is not one to be awarded. Administrator functions should not counted and should most certainly not be awarded on a quota system. This page gives the impression that it is. It should be deleted pronto. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Is this really wise? Especially the references to The Cabal (TINC)? It seems to risk the encouragement of rouge admins. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've missed an opportunity to work in a reference to "Rouge Admins". I'll have to think about that. bd2412 T 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• If there are going to be a "service award", I don't think they should be based on admin actions. I think admins should be nominated by editors, say, five editors who've been active for at least two years. The best admins, that I can tell, have the respect of the non-admin crew for 1) diffusing endless, ridiculous conflicts in a peaceable manner in a way that the participants can live with and 2) taking decisive action when the problem is intractable and unresolvable.

Of course, there are great admins who have taken action against long-standing editors who might not win any popularity contests. But, in my experience, regular editors can distinguish an effective admin from a, well, ineffective one. And it might be a nice move to put editors in charge of deciding which admin deserves a service award for their work. And I think it would also make an award more meaningful to admins than one based on how many blocks or deletions one has done which is a measure of productivity, not effectiveness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)