Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111

Continuous edit warring, disruptive editing, addition of unsourced content and use of WP:SYNTH by User:Lmharding

User:Lmharding have been engaging in long-term disruptive editing on multiple pages related to LGBT rights claiming the countries impose vigilante attacks and executions as a legal penalty without providing sources or using WP:SYNTH sources where the content outright contradicts or have nothing to do with the claims being made. The user has also engaged in long-term edit warring by continuously reverting the removal of content by multiple users.

The user has claimed to @LocalWonk: that the behaviour would cease and no complaint to WP:ANI is necessary but as the user continues to repeat the behavior, I believe a complaint to WP:ANI is necessary.

The user continues to revert and add the same content that had been removed by both me and @AukusRuckus: multiple times The user has provided no sources for the claims or have used WP:SYNTH sources for example in here a source suspect who was arrested and tortured during interrogation on his alleged ties to the militant separatist organization the LTTE has been used to justify the claim despite having no relevance to the claim of vigilante attacks or any action against LGBT people specifically as the source mentions the person involved only identified as LGBT well after the incident. The user has not yet provided an actual source that supports the claims the LGBT rights in Tunisia as well despite continuously reverting to re-add the content and instead the user simply removed some of the sources but the source present still used makes no reference to the claims of vigilante attacks being a legal penalty. Thank you. -UtoD 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just awoken to this notification, and it caught me a bit by surprise. I was still in a process of compiling a wide index of edits by @Lmharding to show a pattern of behavior despite warnings. I am requesting a few hours to finish compiling said index and present it and thoughts in a more coherent manner than I am currently. Apologies for not replying chronologically, not sure what the correct procedure here is when another user doesn't tab out their response. LocalWonk (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I immediately reverted as I reverted in the heat of the moment only realizing what I dsid right after and it was undone. As for Tunisia, there are plenty of incidents of vigilante action but it was sourced as [1] does mention executions torture and other punishments. However, I will revert it. Small setback as a small slip-up. My apologies. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)~

Reply: Hoping that for now this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better. As for those edits, I admitted my mistake and I undid them. Let's not make a bigger situation out it than we need to. Any past mistakes have been resolved with aukus the editor in question and other then this small slip-up I am doing edits in other categories of articles primarily and the articles have been brought back to any consensus edits. @LocalWonk: there is no need to bring up old edits as we resolved any edits your "compiling" with him being satisfied that I am cooperating so there is no reason to dwell in the past. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I motion to close this, as this editor LocalWonk is now bringing up old and already settling or in the process of settling discussions doing WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a WP:HOUNDING campaign without any context into the fact that they are already being discussed and are being done so civilly without any future edit warring or other guideline regulations other than the two edits I mentioned above which I realized were wrong and immediately self reverted. Please don't punish me for trying to do better WP:NOPUNISH. My WP:FRESHSTART does not mean I'll be flawless or perfect and I have apologized for it. I encourage WP:FAF and to WP:AGF as I am sincerely trying.Lmharding (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding, thanks for your response.

I find it a bit disparaging to refer to me as a 'random editor' — aren't we all? Also, we haven't heard from @AukusRuckus as to if this is their position on the matter, so please let them speak for themselves. Some of these issues persist on the latest revision of the pages, and the issue at hand isn't limited to interactions you've had with User:AukusRuckus. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pattern of Behavior

The rest of this message is addressed to everyone:

I share @UtoD's concerns. I’ve noticed that User:Lmharding has taken interest in editing various articles related to LGBT rights in various countries and administrative subdivisions. Overall, they seem to edit the articles to portray the situation as harshly and pessimistically as possible, even when that means flattening real nuance about the current reality, and compromising an article's factuality. I’ve organized some questionable edits by article:

• LGBT rights in Zambia (Removing information, flattening nuance, not providing new sources to support the change)
• LGBT rights in Sudan (Removing information, no change in sources)
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (The use of the phrase “with certain death for those who participate” seems to stand in opposition to WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can write about legal penalties and nuance surrounding that, but cannot make such definitive statements about the hypothetical fate of people engaging in certain actions.)
• LGBT rights in Mauritania (Flattening of nuance without providing sources to support the edit)
• LGBT rights in Senegal (Changing information without providing a source to support said change)
• LGBT rights in Syria (Use of language that lacks precision and not fit for an encyclopedia (see WP:WORDS), with contribution “Vigilante executions, beatings torture, and vigilante attacks happen all the time in Syria, including by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a rebel group.” — this goes without mentioning that the claim has no solid citation to back it — that would be impossible, as the phrase ‘all the time’ makes inferences about the future.)
• LGBT rights in Sierra Leone (Nuance completely flattened in this edit, namely that the has no recent history of being enforced, and provided no sources to support the edits. Another source, not previously cited on the page confirms the prior state of affairs described in the article.)
• LGBT rights in Eswantini (More nuance was flattened (including the non-illegal status of lesbian acts), and a sentence was contributed that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL; “The only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts”)
• LGBT rights in Uganda (Edit warring against two other editors who raised valid concerns)
• LGBT rights in Morocco (Changed information, without citing a new source, that contradicts the original source which was left unchanged.)
• LGBT rights in Malawi (After being informed by another editor that they were flattening nuance and removing information that was factually true, they engaged in edit-war behavior, undoing the other editors reversion of your work, without addressing their concerns in any meaningful way. See edits relating to a disputed moratorium on 23 August 2022.) LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous warnings

Lmharding has continued to put catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox, which they have already received pushback on. This problem dates back as far as June of 2022. The mass of edits to comb through is so wide, so I apologize if I've missed anything.

In closing, though their desire to contribute to articles on this topic is appreciated, their edits are not improving these articles (if not violating Wikipedia rules), and they are not addressing concerns raised by other editors. There is also something to be said about their unwillingness to abide by basic Wikipedia etiquette, like tabbing their responses, even in the face of being told by another editor that they have a visual disability which renders tabbing extra important. To quote WP:CIR, "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." I would like for a topic ban relating to LGBT issues to be considered for User:Lmharding to protect the integrity of these articles and to give editors the space needed to begin to repair them. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As for mOst of this edits, they were shortened to clarify, be less wordy or list up to top punishments to get to the point nd to copy the style of other articles which took the same approach. It was not to "flatten" or erase any important information. Other details like id a punishment was "unenforced" was removed if there was no source to verify it Finally, for Malawi it was an editing battle that both sides both me and other editors edit warred and reverted rapidly so all parties involved are equally guilty of violatios there but I apologize for my addition to that situation. Overall, mpst if these are either misunderstandings or old behavior I'm growing out of. 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding:, I can't accept your contention that you removed statements like "unenforced" because they were unsourced. For example, at LGBT rights in Eswatini, you removed sourced statements here which I restored, with a better source. I thought perhaps the first removal of "unenforced' was due to lower-quality sourcing, but that can't be right, as you used the Beast cite to add "the only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts."

I posted on the talk page about this and received the reply from you:

It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct.

That was in June. By 3 September, you made nearly the same edit again. Following that, "unenforced" in the table and "female same-sex behaviour not criminalised" were restored, only for you to, yet again, on 29 September remove these points, saying in ES: "(removed original research and unfounded conclusions)". There's also the entirely unsourced "Penalty: 2 years" now added by you. Numerous sources state no penalty is prescribed, and no prosecutions have taken place under the criminalising law.

Normally this could all be hashed out in the talk page as a simple content dispute. But the type of editing detailed here is very widely distributed across the whole topic area, and contributions to talk page discussions only occur up to a point. They may degenerate in to long, drawn-out, somehow impossible-to-reach-common-ground back and forth, or you, LMH, simply abandon them, as here and as here Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#Still waiting: "nullified" claim. There are many other examples, but this reply is already too long. I can supply more if wanted.

I don't know if posting on this board is the right approach or not, but I do not think things can just go on in the same vein: the whole topic area is really poorly served. Your approach to editing and lack of consensus-building efforts do not help. I, for one, feel like I spend all my WP time putting out spot fires, rather than contributing substantive improvements, as I had hoped to. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Added dates AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak for that edit as I would have to research more into my reasoning as it was a while ago and I made 50 edits since then. I doubt you compartmentalize all your edits. I do not have time right now, but as for the the longer disputes I did go back to the UAE discussion so don't pretend that I didn't. I discussed those edits a few days ago here As for the Texas discussion, I am still in the process of researching hence why I did not respond. There are a lot of nuances to Texan laws, and sadly there is a lot of information to sort to find correct information as you would know being WP:CAUTIOUS. Plus, I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me. But those are again, either old discussions I have responded to or or have been in the process of looking into t. You have reverted and 3RR'd me as well many times breaking your own rules with harassing and time consuming spamming on multiple pages often with your own personal attacks towards me as well, pestering and annoying me trying to prod me. Hypocrisy at its finest. Lmharding (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of response makes it hard to believe that you've changed your ways. What do you mean by "you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me"? Lmharding, trying to collaborate with you has been very frustrating. Is there anything short of administrative action that could convince you to change your approach to content and conduct disputes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Patience and understanding, I am trying to change but again the process is not straightforward, I am not WP:PERFECT and I again want to shed my past but with disputes like this you don't let me. It feels very much like a group tagteam in my perception, hence why he had followed my edits and watched me. I am free to have that opinion. That view has no bearing on the situation so let's get back on focus.Lmharding (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

tangent

@Lmharding: I make plenty of mistakes and missteps. If anyone looks, they would be able to bring a shedload of diffs here to my embarrassment. Nevertheless, although I will argue my corner, I try to accept constructive criticism. I modify my behaviour. What I don't do, is turn and around and attack those who raise concerns. If I have personally insulted you (rather than criticised your editing) I apologise without reserve. That is entirely unacceptable and no-one deserves it. If there is something specific that has affronted you that I have not already made amends for, please raise it with me. That said, I believe you may sometimes confuse an editor insistently objecting to your edits with someone attacking you.

Either way, I have tried really hard to understand your point of view; I have been subjected to a fair quantity of what I would call less-than-polite responses from you. This is our very first interaction: [2] In addition to being a little unfriendly, it displays a mistaken understanding of WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. This approach is one that continues to be shown in your editing to this day. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: To help me understand, would you be able to address your thinking in regard to the Eswatini edits that I detailed above, please? This may seem like a small matter, but as a representative edit of your wider patterns that I have found puzzling, it would be helpful to get your thoughts on it. I realise you have made many edits since, but those two I mention in particular were only done on the 3rd and 29th of September. If you click on the diffs I provided, which show the edits, that may help you recall. I'm especially at a loss to understand why they were made when you said you agreed with my restorations in June, but then apparently thought better of it, but without engaging in more discussion. The 2-year penalty addition is just plain mystifying.

(And, if you won't take it amiss from me, I'd like to suggest the consistent use of edit summaries; they act as record of your thinking as well as being helpful to other editors).AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: None of the sources mention lesbianism being legal and but according to ILGA report (2020) there was a law pending that made homosexuality punishable by a minimum of 2 years, but does not mention a top penalty hence penalty of 2 years in jail.Lmharding (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I have made some comments about your recent article edits on Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini; thank you for letting me know the reasoning. What I would like to discuss here in this venue, are the reasons you did not think it warranted talk page discussion before you made your edits—especially since you had earlier said on the talk page that you concurred with my view of the sources. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing content after posting

Addendum: Would like the record to reflect that Lmharding is editing the content of their replies after publishing them, here's an example where they referred to me as a "random editor" (not something I imagined, as I initially thought I did when I first refreshed the page). I am also not bothering to address the (newly) introduced accusations of me participating in WP:FORUMSHOPPING or WP:HOUNDING — a cursory reading of either policy reveals them to be irrelevant to the situation and my conduct, and a deflection from the issue at hand. LocalWonk (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I refer to you as a random user because we have barely talked before. That's not meant as an insult just a realistic observation. Now the hounding and forumshoping comes from the two of you seeming like you gang up on me by collecting up resources together against me might I add communicating outside of Wikipedia to do this which is also against the rules. You also bring the issue to other forums almost like it seems like your shopping to find admins that side with you You are breaking rules here. 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well hey, I was wondering when I would see this here. So I would like to comment as the person who gave USPOL DS alerts to both AukusRuckus and Lmharding, and engaged a bit with both of them regarding this dispute, specifically on the Texas LGBT Rights article, a couple of months ago. I posted on the talk there after reading through the dispute with both of them, encouraging them to drop the stick and seek a 3O. I later noted that there did appear to be some disruption from Lmharding, and encouraged Aukus to see if there were other editors wiling to go to ANI with them, as the disruption and disputes were taking place across a wide variety of LBGT Rights articles. Given that, almost two and a half months later, despite assurances that an ANI would not be needed, we are now here, there may need to be some concrete action taken here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To your point FrederalBacon you said oth of us were typing paragraphs, and hat there was edit warring and 3RR on both sides, either both are guilty or neither. You don't get to pick and choose who should get action against them when AukusRuckus was doing the same thing. It wasn't just "my disruptions" so don't try to edit history. Lmharding (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the some of the edits of Lmharding I agree that concrete action may be required if only due to their behaviour on article talk pages where they often change what they have previously written without indicating changes. In particular Lmharding should :

• Not remove article talk page discussions as was done at [3] even if it has been "reviewed and handled".
• Use strikethrough and insert (i.e. <s> and </s> and <ins> and </ins>) rather than editing their previous entries as they did at [4], [5] and elsewhere including multiple times in this conversation.
• Not remove something of your own after it has been there for 4 days as you did at [6] as whilst people may not have replied it may have affected how someone edits or is planning to edit the main page.
• If they have concerns about what someone else has written on a talk page then they should raise your concerns to allow for retraction rather than removing it for themselves as at [7]
• Take some time to read up on talk page formatting as correct use of indents is important.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations.

Commitments to change

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations. -UtoD 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie I have been working on it, you don't know me personally? Can you read my mind? an you now my intentions in my head? No. The proof of talking offline has been sourced and mentions collection offline through email which is against Wikipedia rules as well as collaborating through the discussions I sourced to talk to only people they agree with and going to other forum to shop for moderators. Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me. I have been changing, other than the slip ups I reverted immediately I have been primarily not even editing LGBT articles temporarily and I have been successfully editing other topics. I take that as a personal attack, please purge your last acccusatory allegations. Lmharding (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have changed. Poland LGBT righ§ts state in the gender identity section that transition requires approval which only occurs twice a year and is often rejected. For Belarus,other than homosexuality being legal and gender changes being permitted almost no rights are offered in that country. The sources are all there. Nice try with your knitpick but there was no problem with it. Your knitpicking searching for miniscle reasons, albeit false and incorrect ones are enough proof for WP:HOUNDING for me.—Lmharding (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: Who are you addressing here? AukusRuckus (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a reply to UtoD.Lmharding (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Throwing accusations of WP:HOUNDING in an administrative noticeboard is meaningless because it's mandatory for users to find the necessary diffs. You have not provided any evidence of wiki hounding. Edit warring in the LGBT rights in Texas and being dismissive when warned and the continuous dismissive behavior such as " Nice try with your knitpick but there was no problem with it. Your knitpicking searching for miniscle reasons, albeit false and incorrect ones are enough proof for WP:HOUNDING for me" again keep contradicting your claims of having changed. Total dismissiveness, confrontations which implies WP:NOTHERE -UtoD 03:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about NOTHERE, but Lmharding does consistently demonstrate poor collaboration. The clear 3RR breach at LGBT rights in Texas happened over a individualized edit-warring warning and a request to self-revert. They called an obviously good-faith editors efforts "unconstructive". I get that this is a long filing, but it's disheartening to see a lack of input from uninvolved admins and editors. AukusRuckus' #Working rough summary below has a good encapsulation of the issues, to which I'd add these recent troubles at the Texas article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The edits in Belarus and Poland were not breaking dome promises, because I said I generally don't edit those articles, not that that I never do. Secondly, the information was the same and saying exactly what the sources say. 3. Nitpicking and semantics to target me. 4. Any recent edits in Texas were using the talk page for consensus but I don't know maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me. firefangledfeather it was inappropriate to bring those up as you and I both know this IP was blanking and I reverted them so it was unconstructive. I'll come back to this issue in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Again another random accusation, dismissive behaviour, and refusal to change. " maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me". This is a continuation of problematic behavior and a serious accusation which you randomly keep throwing at other users. This is again a contradictory behaviour to your claims of having changed as you have consistently engaged in the same behavior across the entire page

1 ": I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me."

2 "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me"

Continuously being dismissive and throwing accusations of users conspiring against you without any evidence of such is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. -UtoD 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing comments of others

Do you you think redacting the comments of other users in in a noticeboard without any administrative authority to do so will not be noticed? Trying to remove complaints, throwing out random accusations without any evidence and claims like "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me " don't really show you as putting any effort to changing or any intention of collaborating. -UtoD 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC).

I restored your comment, and I agree this is additional troubling behavior from Lmharding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

An administrator warned Lmharding "Don't remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them" earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an attack on character based on assumptions of my mind and process of thinking. Under NPA that was justifiable to be removed. Don't you dare accuse me of being a liar I have changed, tbut that was a personal snipe obviously against Wiki guidelines. Lmharding (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The only use of lie and liar that I can see, seems to be in your posts, Lmharding. It's understandable that you may resent someone saying they disbelieve your stated intentions; few of us would enjoy that. Still, UtoD is only stating how they view your behaviour going by your history. We are all entitled to make the case as we see it, using reasoned statements and evidence. How do you think editors here feel when they read unfounded accusations from you regarding quite serious WP policy violations? (I know you believe you have evidence of that and provided it, but an entirely appropriate discreet user talk post is in no way improper. Similarly unfounded are the HOUNDING and FORUMSHOPPING jabs.) Nobody redacted your posts. You make a plea for "patience and understanding": Would you please display some towards your fellow editors here?

The best and easiest way to overcome others' scepticism about your intentions is to engage in civil dialogue about their concerns, be open to what they're saying, and expressly state how you'll change your editing. It is not by being defensive, accusatory, and using their slipups against them, nor by insisting everyone believe you just because you say so. I genuinely hate to see anyone upset by comments made, but can't in all honesty read what you removed as a personal attack. You will find others more likely to be sympathetic to your attempts to change, if you show them you are doing so. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding, what the hell are you doing? You edited my comment in the midst of a discussion about your problematic editing practices, one of which is removing or editing the comments of others. Please stop! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit referenced above just now pretty much declared a WP:Battleground. Doesn’t seem promising. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8BC:8C48:62A5:C5B (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Although quickly deleted by the user, I cannot but conclude that someone who harbours attitudes such as displayed in this edit

"4. Because of your lack of cooperation and attacking of me, I will be taking back my compromise edits in Texas, as you are not willing to see reason and see that I was trying in good faith to find a reasonable middle ground edit with this vandalizing IP so I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult."

is less interested in collegial discussion and more so in ensuring their own viewpoints are not challenged. (And to think I've been ashamed of my less conciliatory posts!) AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Working rough summary

This discussion rapidly became long and unwieldy − something I contributed heavily to. So, I hope it's ok; I've decided to make a summary list here, extracting everyone's main points from the above. If others think it's worthwhile and wish to, perhaps diffs or (very brief) comments could go under each category. (Feel free to improve these rough points, change, or add to them): Then, if warranted, proposals for specific action could be made. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Part of following discussion, a reply to Lmharding by AukusRuckus, moved to User talk:AukusRuckus

 – Added little to already overlong section

Major points

1. adds catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox and summary tables in large number of LGBT rights articles
2. uses inadequate sourcing, SYNTH and OR for these additions, or even lacks cites entirely
3. continuously reverts multiple users who remove questioned content
4. when reverting others, often does not give any indication of reasoning for reversion, even in edit summaries:
5. alters own comments on article talk pages without indication of having done so [Altered for clarity AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)]
6. alters and deletes others' posts
7. makes apologies and suggests intention to change, without noticeable follow-through, minimising extent of issues
8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining

If okay, could examples or evidence be added under relevant point/s below in "Examples", with any discussion or responses added separately below that subsection? (Just an idea...) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples

3. Reverting multiple users:

• Table of some diffs from LGBT rights in Texas removing and reinstating same material. An assertion added by Lmharding was removed by at least seven separate editors and reinstated by Lmharding each time:

"Nullified by Religious Freedom Bill" edits, March–September 2022

By	Date	Description	Diff / ES
Lmharding (LMH)	11 March 2022	"nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom" inserted, among other changes	[8]
AR	11 March 2022	Query change, and text rearrangement	Last edits inserted multiple "nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act" caveats in table-seems bit too strong. ...can state law. for example, "nullify" federal protections?
LMH	14 March 2022	re-added in 24 edits, deleting fv tags	[9]
IP	18 March 2022	Removed in 2 edits "nullify" (table only)	[10] 207.192.196.154
LMH	18 March 2022	IP reverted in 5 edits	[11]
AukusRuckus (AR)	10 April 2022	re-added failed verification tags, among other changes	[12]
LMH	15 April 2022	deleted failed verification tags, among other changes	[13]
AR	15 April 2022	restored failed verification tags, table in other section, formatting	None of the sources: a) 2019 Guardian article...b)TX SB1978; or c) Tribune piece...say anything about protections being "nullified". ...please leave tags or provide a relevant ref. Columns for Universities section)
LMH	16 April 2022	deleted failed verification tags in 6 3 edits	"bullying is not the way" [14]
AR	4 June 2022	Added disputed tags and completed LMH's quote from Bill	Religious Protection Bill quote is about disqualifying complainants from suing government after remedy; it is unrelated to any purported overruling of antidiscrimination laws and is misinterpreation of the source: tagged accordingly.
LMH	4 June 2022	Reverted AR	[15]
AR	22 June 2022	Removed "nullify" statements among others	...The "nullify" note also unsourced & highly contentious, disputed by several editors. Discussion opened on talk page some time ago has had no response from inserting editor. Please do not reinstate without WP:RS
LMH	22 June 2022	reverted AR edit	Undid revision 1094486359 by AukusRuckus (talk) the tags cover this discretion discussion is still pending talk in the talk page I'm here to discuss it
ME123	23 June 2022	Removed "nullify" statements among others	Lmharding, you need to discuss this material at the Talk page, NOT via edit summaries. Your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive
LMH	23 June 2022	Undid much of ME123 change	adoption was left alone, but the rest of the mentions for religious bylaws remain and have not been voted to be removed ...
CodeTalker	23 June 2022	Reverted LMH	Reverted 7 edits by Lmharding: Unsourced claims of "nullification"
LMH	24 June 2022	Reverted CodeTalker	(Undid revision 1094652882 by CodeTalker)
AR	25 June 2022	Removed disputed edits again, among other changes	rmv unsourced "nullification" claims; added discussion of this, new bill and sources; added correct quote from passed act, instead of mistaken one from old bill that was amended ...
LMH	25 June 2022	reverted AR	Undid revision 1094901320 by AukusRuckus (talk) discussion still pending stop editing this or I'll get temporary protections on the page do not edit again we're still talking about it
AR	26 June 2022	restored earlier - reverted LMH	talk is ongoing, but lmh you are not there, except and until your edits are changed. Your edits are the disputed additions, ...
LMH	26 June 2022	reverted AR	[16]
AR	27 June 2022	tags	restored tags that were deleted several edits ago & never restored despite requests; added new {cn} tags; restored deleted par that was pre-existing (it's never been objected to), and was not later restored in "partial self-revert"...
LMH	29 June 2022	In 9 edits - no idea	[17]
IP	3 July 2022	Removed "nullify" statement (table only); other changes	[18] 2601:601:200:3ef0:2d10:5c93:17c7:81ef
LMH	3 July 2022	restored earlier, pre-IP version	[19]
Laura Trump (LT)	30 July 2022	Removed disputed edits, also using 2 further edits	... is very wrong as far as the RLA is concerned. This Act did not override local protections from discrimination, nor did it harm Obergefell or Bostock. Still need to change the summary table. Wikipedia has to keep an eye on it. This article is wrong in that regard
LMH	31 July 2022	Undid LT's edits	changes without reasoning or citation
FireFangledFeathers (FFF)	19 August 2022	Removed disputed edits, and with 1 further edit	...removing content suggesting that federal, county, or city protections have been nullified ...
LMH	19 August 2022	Not only reverted FFF's changes, also removed other supporting evidence suggesting "nullify" is not right	no edit summary (again)
FFF	7 September 2022	Made changes: nullified unsourced as discussed	[20] series of edits rectifying (several ES)
LMH	7 September 2022	Undid FFF	Undid revision 1105933040 by Firefangledfeathers still too early)

This is a copy of a table I posted at a talk page that illustrates a pattern of reverting multiple editors; it also demonstrates lack of edit summaries used when LMH reverts. (If the table format is too cumbersome or disruptive for this page, let me know and I will remove or modify.) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Reversions without edit summaries:

• Brazil nut reversions; diffs:
  • edit by LMH
  • LMH's edit reverted; edit summary supplied
  • LMH reverts reversion, without edit summary AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• On various LGBT-related pages: [21]; [22]; [23]; [24] AukusRuckus (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining. For example see this series:

• LMH removed here at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates and
  • a repeat of same removal of two {{cite check}} and {{fv}} tags the on same day; and
  • again, LMH removed one of the two tags)
• An editor added more tags {{better source needed}} for a Florida student newspaper article Lmharding had added to source the death penalty and soon after, Lmharding's
  • removal of those newer tags, also again deleting the older tags they had removed twice before. There was extensive explanation on the talk page from other editors about why the source/s were not sufficient, including linking to an older discussion about it on RS noticeboard.
• Discussion of this source, a WP:SPS which still exists on the article as source for execution as penalty, met with similar resistance from Lmharding regarding its unsuitability as RS:
  • removed by an editor, with ES explanation
  • Restored by Lmharding: "the source says in the line above for pride at ESUC that certain countries sentence LGBT to death including the UAE read the source first"
  • I objected: "ESUC source is a Washington State church page. Sure they're very fine people, but not RS for claim of death penalty in UAE ... (had enough of shenanigans now)"
  • Lmharding restored the ESUC Church source and again removed the maintenance tags for the Oracle student news source, and, perhaps because of my ES, said in their ES: "you alone don't have the authority to singlehandedly claim any source is not valid enough", which is strange as it had been first objected to by another editor, and had been discussed on talk, going back to 2021
  • a third editor removed the ESUC church source and returned the maintenance tags
  • Lmharding reverted, removing the "better source needed" tags for The Oracle again and restoring the Church website source AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• removed notability tag AukusRuckus (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to point 1: I take offense to you calling my edits "catch call". If there is any source I find that can back it, whether or not you nitpick these sources and incorrectly call them "inadequate" according to Wiki standards, many of them are suitable. It does not matter if they mention these punishments in passing. Wiki standards are followed not your micromanagement or made up additional rules. If they are deemed as not enough according to community consensus, I can and have been looking for additional supporting sources to add.

To points 3 and 4: Many of your reverts were done too with you 3RR ing as well and not explaining your reverts ma good amount of the time either. When you have remembered to, I take them to the talk page and discuss them. Your false narrative is incorrect I have been doing what I needed to. I have been using the edit summaries but yes go ahead and pretend I haven't if you look many of them have explanations.

To 5 and 6: No edits of others have been edited, 1 was removed as a personal attack according to removal of personal attack policies. Go ahead and look at those, I did nothing wrong there. I have no requirement to explain or not remove things on my own talk page according to WP:DRC and WP:BLANKING.

Again, not sure if you read the top comments but I'll repeat for the last time I did and thern made 2 other edits which I immediately reverted to keep with my agreement which I have kept. No action is needed, stop wasting the moderator's time there have been no new edits since those self-reverts and the issue is taken caee of. Any new dispute s on content I'm dealing with in talk pages first.Lmharding (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Above numbering and paragraphing in Lmharding's response above added, by me, for ease of reading and navigating. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to cause anyone offence, @Lmharding: I'm trying to summarise everyone's discussion and I took "catch-all" directly from an earlier post (see 1st par in #Previous warnings section). AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Have added an example, with diffs, above. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cross that out, it was in the process of being repaired for some reason the edit summary was not showing up in the talk page due to a glitch. Lmharding (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you search through my edits for small things, stop WP:HOUNDING. Lmharding (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence for WP:WIKIHOUNDING and you have clearly continued with the same pattern of adding uncited opinions in LGBT pages for Belarus and Poland. This is a clear contradiction of your claims of no longer editing LGBT articles and changing your editing behavior. -UtoD 06:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that someone who leaves comments like this on the ANI board reviewing battleground behavior doesn’t get a topic ban.

“I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult.” [25]

For openness and clarity, I am an involved editor on LGBT rights in Texas disputes. 2600:1700:1111:8630:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2600:1700:1111:8630:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B was the user in the Texas discussion. The above IP 2600:1700:1111:8630:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 just admitting to be an alt. Please ban this user and cross out his comments from the record, no alts allowed. 05:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This amount of change in the IP address is common in IPv6 addresses. Nothing untoward has happened here. While you're thinking about the IP, care to apologize for accusing them of vandalism? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Would you please respond regarding your baseless aspersion against the IP? It is so clearly not vandalism. Have you read WP:VANDAL? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Housekeeping (refactor): Lmharding's comment of 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC) and AukusRuckus response moved up to beneath post it was responding to. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Comment/Housekeeping Hi Lmharding: Would you mind me moving your reply here to go up page beneath the question that it's answering, above? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [Done. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)] I have gone ahead and moved the above-mentioned response of Lmharding's to be immediately below the post of mine to which it was responding. If not ok with you, let me know and I will change back. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Comment/Houskeeping Can someone look at the edit history of this thread? There is a lot of content, including a comment from myself, that shows up when you click edit, but it isn't displayed here. I don't think anyone maliciously hid others comments, but there are indeed some that are not displayed for some reason. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC) LMHarding fixed it, it was an errant ref tag, all good now. Thanks Lmharding. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC) I have a general query about this process. Is it acceptable to notify editors who may have had past relevant experience, that this discussion is taking place? I do not want to make this more difficult, but I know there are a few other users who might like to know. They may be able to offer something constructive to the discussion, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range used by a single person was previously blocked for three months for "Nationalist disruption and anti-Persian POV-pushing.". With their block expired, they have now resumed their disruptive anti-Iranian/Persian activities, once again spamming talk pages with their personal WP:SOAPBOX opinions, where they dispute academic sources (preferring their own opinion instead) simply because the sources mention about "insert something Iranian/Persian here" which they naturally doesn't like due to his blatant anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour. [26] [27]. See also my previous ANI report [28]. I think another block is due, this person is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. El_C 20:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

2A00:23C5:980:B601:9DC:6E1:DC90:F945 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This editor has been changing content without changing the sources for a while now. They are particularly active on pages regarding economy subjects ([29], [30], [31], and many others). They are also editing military-equipment-related pages, with the same modus operandi ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). On these pages, they also like to classify equipment by generation, with no sources as always ([37], [38], [39]). This has lasted for more than four months already, and the editor has already been warned several times, so I think it's time to put an end to this behaviour. BilletsMauves^€500 18:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so that this doesn't get archived BilletsMauves^€500 17:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@BilletsMauves: I've blocked the /64 range for a week for persistent addition of unsourced content. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolas1980

• Nikolas1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Desert Rose (Sting song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Nikolas1980 has been claiming that Sting's song "Desert Rose" was released as a single in 1999, but the source they are using (and refusing to even add to the article) is Discogs, which is an unreliable source. I have pointed this out on both edit summaries and their talk page, but they refuse to acknowledge this. Furthermore, there are two sources in the article's Release History section that back up the January 2000 release date, which I'm assuming the user is refusing to check or believe. On a related note, I've also noticed this user changing sourced genres without consensus. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Alguem ai2022 is blanking pages

Alguem ai2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) If you see his contributions, they include some very strong-opinioned and not-sourced edits over and over again and now he's repeatedly blanking pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Alguem ai2022 has stopped blanking articles, and has even reached out to discuss the situation after I reverted and warned them.

From my perspective, they seem to be trying to right great wrongs in a disruptive (but not bad faith) manner, and will hopefully approach things differently from this point on, if they take my advice on board.

You also seem to have notified me instead of Alguem ai2022, so I've done the honours. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, major oversight. Sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave EEng 16:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm on a Burma-shave binge. See elsewhere this page. EEng 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Page moves by User:Joshko Vano

User:Joshko Vano was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, but not before numerous page moves that seemingly would fall under WP:ARBEE. I'm AFK for a bit, so any assistance in undoing those that are blatantly inappropriate would be appreciated. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Kinu, maybe a list should be compiled at WP:RMT...? El_C 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

After reading this I checked his recent contributions and reverted a few that seemed to be straight wrong (I have doubts about one or two more but I don't have time to devote to checking, sadly), but most were probably moved correctly from a transliteration that followed the rules of Russian to one based on Ukrainian. It should also be noted that in general the articles he moved are pretty peripheral and of a low quality which, on the one hand, makes it hard to go through a talk page discussion before moving (because there's noone to talk to!), and on the other it also makes it hard to see if the figures themselves have used a particular transliteration of their name into Latin script: while most articles he moved are about Ukrainians, it's probable that some are Russian speakers and thus prefer or preferred a transliteration from the Russian - in one case the article subject had posted articles on a website in English signed with his name transliterated from the Russian. If an actual Ukrainian could check at least the BLPs it would be great. Ostalgia (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a random example, Oleksii Bessarabov, I was initially confused as one of the [Ukrainian] sources states his anglicised name as Oleksiy Bessarabov. Then I re-read the lead, he a Russian who is a Ukrainian journalist. His article should be at Oleksiy Bessarabov. It doesn't look like any care or attention was made to the moves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Partial block isn't nearly enough

Mass disruption by IP range 2401:4900::/33 (talk · contribs), a WP:LTA. I'm also wondering about connection to Balasoreanishman (talk · contribs), who quacks in a similar tone. Probably there are more. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also Ranjith Apex (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Geniac, as blocking administrator, you might want to have a look. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

   Range blocked, anon only. SPI looks the place to take possible socks. Geniac (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • An incredible amount of damage done in just the last day. I've spent too much time reverting a fraction. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

PauyAewGuaius only here to advertise a YouTube channel

PauyAewGuaius (talk · contribs), judging by their repeated recreation of the article PauyAewGuaius, appears to be only here to advertise their YouTube channel of the same name. Seems like a classic WP:NOTHERE violation. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the editor for promotional username, promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is that article worth protecting/salting? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, salting is only needed if multiple accounts try to create articles about the same topic. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)'7

YOUR CONTRIBSGIVE ME THE NOTIONYOU'RE JUST HEREFOR SELF-PROMOTIONBurma-shave EEng 03:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a template for these now? With a predefined "promo" parameter? Whaaat. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course we do -- this is Wikipedia! See Template:Burma-shave-notice/doc#Usage. EEng 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we", EEng? Is yours a shared account? Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That double-E is a dead giveaway. Levivich (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Royal we. EEng 11:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

this is peak "Wikipedia being Wikipedia" IMO The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Pangration. The Ancient Greek martial art

ANI is not a venue for content discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have just added on the Wikipedia link "Martial Arts", the following: Pangration is the first historically documented martial art. Pangration was considered the best competition in the ancient Olympic Games - Philostratos describes it as "the best in Olympia" («το εν Oλυμπία το κάλλιστον»). It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling techniques, boxing, throws. Many of Pagratio's techniques are similar to techniques found in today's martial arts. Aristotle said: "Good for wrestling is he who is able to squeeze and hold his opponent; good for boxing is he who can repel his opponent with blows. Anyone who is capable of both is good for pangration " ("ὁ δὲ θλίβειν καὶ κατέχειν παλαιστικός, ὁ δὲ ὦσαι τῇ πληγῇ πυκτικός, ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις παγκρατιαστικός"). The sources of the historical times mentioned in the pankration cover the period from the 8th century BC to the 12th century AD. This martial art was spread to the depths of Asia by the soldiers of Alexander the Great, who practiced it, during the campaign of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Alexander the Great reached India. From there it is known that martial arts spread to China and then to Japan and Korea in the known forms. Orphic texts between 12,000 – 4,000 BC! (verse 586) "This Pangratio gave to old Heracles, a silver krater as a prize for Pangration, a silver krater of many varieties". According to the verse, Herakles was therefore given a silver prize for his performance in the Pacration. This report certifies that at that time the Pangration did not simply exist but that high performance in it could be evaluated with specific criteria and awarded with a prize of monetary value. The historical analyst takes into account that Orpheus lived before the Trojan War which dates back to of 3000 BC. so the text is considered more ancient. To support the above I add here the following: In N. Gardiner's book "Athletics of the ancient world" Oxford Univ.Press NY on page 16 it is stated that jiu jitsu was taught to the Japanese by the Chinese warriors. This sport seems to be today the closest in technique to Pagration. On page 14 it is mentioned that the Chinese boxers are very similar to the Greek Pankratiastes. The similarities between the Chinese and the Ancient Greeks go beyond martial arts and even touch a Chinese ball sport, which according to the author has great similarities to the Ancient Greek sport Episkyros. In other words, there is a more general identification in sports matters. According to Oyama Masutatsu, some years later (6th century AD), the spread of a martial art with a limited number of exercises and wrestling techniques began in China in the Shaolin monastery. But in Greece, Pagratio, long before the time of Buddha (500 BC) was already an Olympic sport. The earliest evidence of the use of the martial art by the Shaolin monks dates back to 728 AD, which concerns two cases: the defense of the Shaolin Monastery from robbers around 610 AD; , and then their role in defeating Wang Shichong at the Battle of Hulao in 621 AD. The Spartans are said to have practiced at Pangratium, an area only accessible by bridges, which were dropped as soon as the athletes crossed them and raised again just before dark. In this way no athlete could avoid the whole training or give up. That's why athletes could turn into fierce warriors when it was called for, who would fight all day non-stop regardless of the size and equipment of the enemy. Pangratio, the mother of martial arts. History & spread of the sport – Dr. Athanasios Nakasis, head of the Department of Restoration of Ancient Monuments of the Greek Ministry of Culture, Vice-President of the World Federation of Pancration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTbq9IuTTk Some date this beginning to the twelfth millennium BC. Until today, the oldest performances-witnesses have been found in an ancient saying of 1700 BC, in Agia Triada in Crete. Herakles and Theseus are mentioned as the inventors of Pancratium. A particularly tough, imposing, spectacular, defensive sport, with intense movement and competition, with characteristic freedom in the ingenuity of movements and tricks. With Alexander the Great's campaign in Asia Minor, Persia, India and Tibet, his soldiers taught the pangrate sport to the peoples of these Asian countries. The paternity of the pancratio in all martial arts competitions has been recognized by learned historians of these arts, such as Masutatsu Oyama, the founder of the technique of the sport "Kyoku Shin Kai" in his book "Vital Karate". HISTORY OF PANGRATION ATΗLIMA - WORLD PANGRATION ATHLIMA FEDERATION Pankration Reconstruction in " Martial Arts Road" South Korea Documentary series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAaCrFisrg Nonetheless, contemporary historians who have researched and studied the history of pankration have come to the conclusion that this martial art is much older in reality than most historians originally thought. The first mention of pankration takes us back to the mythological stories of Heracles and Theseus who, according to the myths, both used techniques of pankration to fight the Nemean Lion and the Minotaur, respectively. According to the same source, pankration wasn’t only an Olympic sport (as most historians wrongly believed until recently), but a war technique that both the Spartan hoplites and Alexander the Great’s Macedonian phalanx used in battle. One of the most famous stories involving a pankratiast and a famous historical figure is that of Dioxippus and Alexander the Great. Dioxippus was an Olympic champion in pankration from Athens who volunteered to join Alexander’s army on its expedition into Asia. Alexander was known for his passion for combat sports, so he made Dioxippus an elite member of his close circle, which made many of his soldiers jealous. One of them was Coragus, a highly skilled and decorated warrior who challenged Dioxippus to armed combat in front of Alexander and the rest of the troops. Coragus fought with weapons and full armor, while Dioxippus showed up armed only with a club. This didn’t stop him, however, from dismantling Coragus - yet he did not kill him. Dioxippus’s pankration skills were too much for Coragus to handle despite his fierce fighting capabilities... The Romans eventually adopted pankration, which they called pancratium in Latin. But in 393 AD, this ancient martial art, along with gladiatorial combat and all pagan festivals, was abolished by the Christian Byzantine emperor Theodosius I. With this act, pankration would gradually disappear over the centuries, until a Greek-American martial artist named Jim Arvanitis rediscovered it 1969. Arvanitis’ work went on to make it famous around the world by the mid-seventies. Essentially the only rules that existed in the Olympic version of pankration prohibited pankratiasts from eye gouging, biting, and striking the opponent’s genitals. These rules were the main reason why Spartans did not take part in the games, as they considered that they would become more self-indulgent, which would ultimately affect them on the battlefield. Apparently Spartans didn’t follow any rules even when they engaged in sports. Even though Greek-American martial artist Jim Arvanitis continually refined the modern version of pankration with reference to historical sources, the modern sport is considered way too civilized and light compared with its ancient original. His efforts, however, were recognized by Black Belt magazine and Arvanitis is considered a pioneer of one of the fastest-growing combat sports, mixed martial arts (MMA). A Japanese MMA organization is named Pancrase in honor of pankration. Some of the former champions of the organization include MMA legends Ken Shamrock, Bas Rutten, Joshn Barnett, and Semmy Schilt, who is widely considered the greatest heavyweight kick boxer of all time. Pancrase is the most complete martial arts fighting system. It is the original Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). It incorporates all the striking of Muay Thai and Karate, all the takedowns of wrestling, all the submission of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and all the throws of Judo. It can be used as a self-defense system but is designed to fight not necessarily defend yourself from and attacker and get away. Anyone can train. There is not requirement to get in the cage and fight. That is an option for those that want to but not for the average student learning the art. Fight team and sparring practices are not part of the basic classes. You can earn rank as a self-defense practitioner or as a fighter. History of PANCRASE “The Father of Mixed Martial Arts” The origin of UFC-type Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) dates back to the ancient Greek Olympic games. First introduced in 648 B.C. at the 33rd Olympiad, a form of free-style martial arts called Pancration (Pancrase) would soon become the most popular and demanding of all athletic sports. Olympic Pancration integrated every physical and mental resource; hands and feet, mind and spirit, in the closest simulation of competitive fighting that any culture has ever allowed. It was considered the ultimate Olympic sport for over a thousand years. However, it was more than just a sport. Called by Philostratos the “Worthiest ontest in the Olympiads and the most important preparation for warriors”, Pancration was the martial training of the Greek and Spartan armies and was taken to India with the legions of Alexander the Great, where it became the accepted ancestor of the oriental martial arts. Today, Pancrase MMA is experiencing a worldwide re-birth with an increasing number of martial artists and athletes being drawn to the ancient “King of Olympic Sports”. Pancrase MMA is the ultimate martial art of modern times. Adakiko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adakiko and MrOllie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie disagrees with that sentence and he deleted it. With him we had the following discussion: User talk:79.167.195.6 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search October 2022[edit] Adakiko: Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pankration, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Me: Hello I am trying to put the reference for my sentence but I couldn't. The sentence and the reference is the following: Pangration is considered the mother of martial arts. This martial art was spread to the depths of Asia by the soldiers of Alexander the Great, who practiced it, during the campaign of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Alexander the Great reached India. From there it is known that martial arts spread to China and then to Japan and Korea in the known forms. [1] 79.167.195.6 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC) There are plenty of books, works, biblioraphy, plus martial arts federations that supports that Pangration is the most historically recorded martial art. This event was considered the best event in the ancient Olympic Games - Philostratos. It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling, boxing that almost all modern martial arts have. A simple historical research to do will establish these 79.167.195.6 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Adakiko: And yet martial arts existed in India and China centuries earlier. MrOllie (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Me: In the article that I would like to make a change here on Wikipedia says the following: "Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China. Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD.[citation needed] The combat techniques of the Sangam period were the earliest precursors to Kalaripayattu". Pangration was established in Ancient Greece at 700 BC. Alexander the Great reached India at 3nd century BC. "..Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD..." Then martial arts spread from India to China etc. "...Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China...". So, please we have to be careful about history. 79.167.195.6 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] MrOllie: You'll have to look at Origins of Asian martial arts for the earliest claims. Even what you're citing here doesn't make sense alongside your new claim. If it spread from India around 500 BC, it must have already been in India before that, yes? MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Me: Bodhidharma (from India) spread martial arts to China, at 500 After Christ. Bodhidharma was a Buddhist monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma Martial arts appeared in India of about 2nd century BC - WIKIPEDIA "....Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD....". Pangration was established in Ancient Greece at 700 BC. Alexander the Great reached India at 3nd century BC. Alexander the Great's Greek army practiced Pangration, as did the Spartans and all ancient Greeks 79.167.195.6 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Me: You didn't reply to my answer, but you deleted my post one more time. Then, the better way is to go to the Arbitration Committee 79.167.195.6 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] MrOllie: Ok, see you there MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC) [reply] Please help me solve this dispute so I can put this text about Pangration martial art to the topic "MARTIAL ARTS" on Wikipedia, or help me modify it and then put in. Thank you very much. 79.167.195.6 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.195.6 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC) References

This is clearly a content issue, discuss it on the article’s talk page. ANI is not for adjudicating these types of disputes. WP:CIR also appears to be relevant. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:18D1:FBAE:22D:4993 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll go with the above IP saying that the article's talk page is best for this. ANI is for more severe violations. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Did anyone notice

Our basic classes are designed for the student to learn the art. Anyone can train.

? That looks like promotion. Recommend a block of the OP/IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see their draft at Draft:OLIKON. The complete martial art. and note that the username that they used, GLP GROUP (talk · contribs) is associated with the olikon website. This is someone with a COI pushing fringe historical claims to promote up their business. MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to put in the theme "MARTIAL ARTS" the following:

Pangration is the first historically documented martial art. The first mention of Pangration was made in the Orphic texts between 12,000 – 4,000 BC! (verse 586 Orphic Texts):"This Pangratio gave to old Heracles, a silver krater as a prize for Pangration, a silver krater of many varieties". In Ancient Greek: ”Αυτάρ Παγκράτιοιο δωκεν γέρας Ήρακληι, αργύρεον κρητηρα ως βραβείον δια το Παγκράτιον, κρατήρα αργυρούν πολυποίκιλον“. According to the verse, Herakles was therefore given a silver prize for his performance in the Pangration. This report certifies that at that time the Pangration did not simply exist, but high performance in it could be evaluated with specific criteria and awarded with a prize of monetary value. Orpheus lived before the Trojan War which dates back to around 3000 BC. So the text is considered more ancient. Based on these reports, Pangration is the oldest scientifically recorded martial art. Pangration was considered the best competition in the ancient Olympic Games Philostratos describes it as "the best in Olympia" («το εν Oλυμπία το κάλλιστον») Pictures A, Book B. It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling techniques, boxing, throws. Many of Pagratio's techniques are similar to techniques found in today's martial arts. Aristotle said: "Good for wrestling is he who is able to squeeze and hold his opponent; good for boxing is he who can repel his opponent with blows. Anyone who is capable of both is good for pangration " ("ὁ δὲ θλίβειν καὶ κατέχειν παλαιστικός, ὁ δὲ ὦσαι τῇ πληγῇ πυκτικός, ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις παγκρατιαστικός"). The sources of the historical times mentioned in the pankration cover the period from the 8th century BC to the 12th century AD. The army of Alexander the Great practiced Pangration, as ancient Greeks used to do. During his campaign in the depths of Asia to India where Alexander the Great arrived, in the 4th century BC, in addition to the many Greek cultural elements and sciences that he spread in the areas he conquered, he also spread Greek sports and Greek games. Among these games was the Pangration which was used not only as a sport in the games but also as a martial art during the wars."

What is the problem and you delete it? 79.167.195.6 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We have discuss the matter repeatedly. We have set historical events undeniable by worldwide historians. We don't know what is the problem and our text is being deleted. The argues that MrOllie says don't have a historic base at all. So we don't know the motives that he delete our text. Wikipedia is a very serious organization and democratic too. It must avoid such behaviors by some editors not allowing others to put historic facts about Greek Ancient History, like Alexander the Great's expedition. 79.167.195.6 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI is still not for content discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
let's forget the Olikon and the GLP GROUP. We will not put nothing about this. Olikon is another article that will not be posted in the "MARTIAL ART" theme, so there is nothing to do with promotion. We are talking about the post about Pangration in the theme "MARTIAL ARTS". It is strictly about historical facts about Pangration as an Ancient Greek martial art. We would like to put the above articles on the theme "MARTIAL ART". So, lets talk about it. The facts that we are giving about the ancient years are undeniable 79.167.195.6 (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC) In the article itself "MARTIAL ARTS" that I would like to make a change here on Wikipedia says the following: "Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China. Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD. The combat techniques of the Sangam period were the earliest precursors to Kalaripayattu". Pangration was established in Ancient Greece at 700 BC. Alexander the Great reached India at 3nd century BC. "..Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD..." Then martial arts spread from India to China etc. "...Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China...". 79.167.195.6 (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) We want to put on the article "MARTIAL ARTS" the following: "Pangration is the first historically documented martial art. Pangration was considered the best competition in the ancient Olympic Games - Philostratos describes it as "the best in Olympia" («το εν Oλυμπία το κάλλιστον»). It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling techniques, boxing, throws. Many of Pagratio's techniques are similar to techniques found in today's martial arts. Aristotle said: "Good for wrestling is he who is able to squeeze and hold his opponent; good for boxing is he who can repel his opponent with blows. Anyone who is capable of both is good for pangration " ("ὁ δὲ θλίβειν καὶ κατέχειν παλαιστικός, ὁ δὲ ὦσαι τῇ πληγῇ πυκτικός, ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις παγκρατιαστικός"). The sources of the historical times mentioned in the pankration cover the period from the 8th century BC to the 12th century AD. This martial art was spread to the depths of Asia by the soldiers of Alexander the Great, who practiced it, during the campaign of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. Alexander the Great reached India. From there it is known that martial arts spread to China and then to Japan and Korea in the known forms. These are historical facts, that no history expert could deny. So, there is a problem to put these on the article "MARTIAL ARTS" on WIKIPEDIA? 79.167.195.6 (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC) In the article itself "MARTIAL ARTS" that I would like to make a change here on Wikipedia says the following: "Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China. Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD. The combat techniques of the Sangam period were the earliest precursors to Kalaripayattu". Pangration was established in Ancient Greece at 700 BC. Alexander the Great reached India at 3nd century BC. "..Written evidence of martial arts in Southern India dates back to the Sangam literature of about the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century AD..." Then martial arts spread from India to China etc. "...Legendary accounts link the origin of Shaolinquan to the spread of Buddhism from ancient India during the early 5th century CE, with the figure of Bodhidharma, to China...". 79.167.195.6 (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 79.167.195.6 (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Pangration is the first historically documented martial art. The first mention of Pangration was made in the Orphic texts between 12,000 – 4,000 BC! (verse 586 Orphic Texts):"This Pangratio gave to old Heracles, a silver krater as a prize for Pangration, a silver krater of many varieties". In Ancient Greek: ”Αυτάρ Παγκράτιοιο δωκεν γέρας Ήρακληι, αργύρεον κρητηρα ως βραβείον δια το Παγκράτιον, κρατήρα αργυρούν πολυποίκιλον“. According to the verse, Herakles was therefore given a silver prize for his performance in the Pangration. This report certifies that at that time the Pangration did not simply exist, but high performance in it could be evaluated with specific criteria and awarded with a prize of monetary value. Orpheus lived before the Trojan War which dates back to around 3000 BC. So the text is considered more ancient. Based on these reports, Pangration is the oldest scientifically recorded martial art. Pangration was considered the best competition in the ancient Olympic Games Philostratos describes it as "the best in Olympia" («το εν Oλυμπία το κάλλιστον»). It was introduced to the Olympic Games in the year 648 BC. The numerous ancient vase paintings suggest a complete martial art, with kicks, holds, punches, wrestling techniques, boxing, throws. Many of Pagratio's techniques are similar to techniques found in today's martial arts. Aristotle said: "Good for wrestling is he who is able to squeeze and hold his opponent; good for boxing is he who can repel his opponent with blows. Anyone who is capable of both is good for pangration " ("ὁ δὲ θλίβειν καὶ κατέχειν παλαιστικός, ὁ δὲ ὦσαι τῇ πληγῇ πυκτικός, ὁ δ’ ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις παγκρατιαστικός"). The sources of the historical times mentioned in the pankration cover the period from the 8th century BC to the 12th century AD. The army of Alexander the Great practiced Pangration, as ancient Greeks used to do. During his campaign in the depths of Asia to India where Alexander the Great arrived, in the 4th century BC, in addition to the many Greek cultural elements and sciences that he spread in the areas he conquered, he also spread Greek sports and Greek games. Among these games was the Pangration which was used not only as a sport in the games but also as a martial art during the wars. 79.167.195.6 (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've left notes on the IP's talkpage concerning their apparent COI and an admonishment to stop pasting walls of content here. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave EEng 16:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

My eyes! The goggles do nothing! El_C 20:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from editing the articles they have been targeting to prevent further edit warring. (I thought I had posted this earlier but apparently not.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

new term: "certified Burma-shave moment"

The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Site ban for Athaenara

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.

---

• Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Level II desysop of Athaenara
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Athaenara
• § Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato
• § Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes

Procedural preamble that was mooted by desysop while I was drafting this.

Preamble: I am aware that the thread above about Athaenara has been closed pending action from ArbCom. However, current comments at WP:A/R/C seem to indicate that ArbCom is unlikely to impose a sanction in excess of a desysop (and may lack jurisdiction to do so), and no arb comments, as I read it, actually ask the community to hold off on reviewing sanctions of our own. As the community lacks the power to desysop an admin, there is no issue with parallel proceedings—one regarding a desysop, one regarding community sanctions. As such, I submit the following for the community's consideration:

Siteban proposal

As currently stands, Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam per § Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato for hate speech or compromised account. A number of issues have been identified with her conduct regarding trans and nonbinary editors, and editors who could be perceived as such based on requested pronouns (henceforth T/NB(?) editors). To recapitulate the evidence I have presented at A/R/C:

• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (Feb. 2019), in defending an essay widely perceived as mocking nonbinary pronouns, Athaenara wrote Another funny part of this to me is that I recall years ago checking the preferences thing about gender, because I'm a woman and don't care who knows it, and now find myself wondering if because of this some users will assume I'm really a guy pretending to be female because hormone issues, neurotic confusion, whatever, and it's just down a rabbit hole again. For the record: I'm not pretending to be anything.
• From March 2019 to present, to my knowledge 9 users have RfA'd or RfB'd who are T/NB(?).
  • Athaenara has voted at 7 of those 9 RfXs (78%, including 2⁄2 RfBs), while voting at only 24 of the other 63 RfXs (38%, including 0⁄5 RfBs).
  • At the 7 RfAs, she has voted oppose all 7 times (100%). At the other 24 RfAs, she has only voted oppose 8 times (33%). At the 2 RfBs, she opposed both.
  • Her opposes here were largely at odds with the rest of the community: 6 of the 8 concluded RfXs (75%) passed (with a 7th still pending but at 189/0/0 at time of writing, so likely 78% soon). Only 1 of the 6—mine—went to a 'crat chat. In three cases, five or fewer other editors opposed. Meanwhile of the 8 other RfAs she opposed, 4 were unsuccessful and 4 passed after 'crat chats.
  • Her rationales against T/NB(?) candidates have often been weak, and in some cases inconsistent with her stated values. See, for instance, her support defending Ashleyyoursmile only having 18 months' experience versus her oppose of theleekycauldron partly on grounds of only 18 months' experience.
• And of course, the comment about Isabelle Belato that led to this block, which I will let speak for itself:

  Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

There is of course a risk in reading too much into RfX voting patterns, but here no speculation is needed. Athaenara has told us, in no uncertain terms, where she stands on editors she perceives as trans or nonbinary. There is no reason to assume good faith here. She has engaged in a level of disruption regarding trans users, both subtly and very unsubtly, that has served to discourage editing by any members of our community who know or fear that they do not meet her definition of an acceptable gender identity. A standard indefblock, reversible by standard unblock request, does not suffice to restore that safe editing atmosphere, nor would any topic ban.

I propose the following community sanction: For repeatedly targeting other editors on the basis of their gender identity, transgender status, or requested pronouns, including in the form of an egregious personal attack, Athaenara is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

References

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(As a point of order, the desysop has now happened by motion per [40]) but in any case, I'm in strong Support of a community ban. We need to be clear as a community that this sort of conduct isn't acceptable. Mike1901 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ah. Collapsed that part, thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Notifications sent to Athenaera, Floquenbeam, and TheresNoTime. As Isabelle has said they are sitting out any discussion of the matter, I have not notified them, although I did wind up pinging them by accident anyways. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose a site ban and I think Athaenara should be unblocked immediately. Put the pitchforks away and go find something productive to do. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  You think the responses to egregious personal attacks directed at an RfA candidate because of their gender identity were akin to what, exactly? Put the pitchforks away isn't really something you should be saying to members of minority groups who are frequently persecuted or under attack. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would think that people who are so often under attack would understand best how being attacked feels and why attacking is often bad and can be counter-productive. My guess is that you and Athaenara share a lot of, maybe most, views. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  While pitchforks are a colourful metaphor for a community ban, I do not think anyone should consider a community ban enacted to prevent further disruption as an attack - which, rather than gardening, is what the pitchfork image brings to mind. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So you think that WP:NPA should no longer be a policy? I'd consider ensuring people who attack others get blocked a very productive activity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's a very wide gap between tolerating personal attacks and indefinitely banning a long-time and established editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Even when the editor has expressed their preference to be "cancelled" rather than restraining themselves from making more such comments in future? Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm reminded, some 13 years later, why I created the WP:CESSPIT redirect. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest that you not be so hard on yourself. :)

  I am also heartened by the observation that you are nearly the only editor asking for the indef to be lifted; several opposes (e.g., the per Nableezy crowd) seem to believe that prior to this RfC being closed the indef already could not be lifted without community input - although this does not seem to be the case. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems unnecessary, she isnt getting unblocked without a discussion and a consensus for it, and its going to take I dont even know what to get that far. And any unilateral unblock at this point would definitely be a wheel violation (though even if the re-block was correct on the merits, the blocker was not the person to make it imo given the comments on Athaenara's talk page and being the one to request reinstatement here). Just seems like an unnecessary amount of drama for us to spend another 24 hours on this here. nableezy - 19:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  And to be very clear, the comment was hateful and hurtful and harmful and an indef block is the correct response. I just see this proposal as essentially being a distinction without a difference from the status quo, and I think the community (and the ArbCom for that matter) have already been very clear that it is not acceptable to attack a person in such a way, and that is why she is indef blocked. I just dont think the drama of the next 24 hours on ANI is going to do anything positive. nableezy - 19:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  And also, for anybody per nableezying, Im not actually opposed. I suppose there is a certain respect for the work of the years past that makes me not really want to have that name "community banned", and I share the hope that 28bytes spoke of below, but I dont think you can express contempt for the existence of other editors and be part of a collaborative project with those editors either. But I also dont think that going to happen anyway. nableezy - 21:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nableezy. She paid the price for what she said and will likely never return. This is political headhunting. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I hope that comments equating this instance - a motion for a community ban when a person in a position of trust has chosen to verbally attack a minority based on an inherent characteristic - with political headhunting will be set aside by the closer(s). Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I regard this as essentially procedural, the issues having already been discussed fairly extensively in various fora. I would add that Athaenara's doubling down on her culture wars comments following the initial block was especially concerning for me, in terms of any hope of future participation on Wikipaedia. This doesn't seem like a community member who is prepared to accept community norms of conduct (which demand some respect for the basic dignity of other editors). Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) whilst the ArbCom deliberations are ongoing. Having multiple discussions and multiple groups of people trying to implement/considering further sanctions of some kind is ridiculous. If ArbCom don't take on the case, then we can come back to ANI and the community can decide what further action (if any) is needed. GiantSnowman 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is indefinitely blocked already. Not liking someone's RfA vote pattern is not a reason to ban anyone, even someone with as bad an argument as the one given. It's drama-mongering at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, but unapologetic attacks on editors because they are part of a minority group are, indeed, grounds for a community ban, and saying so isn't drama-mongering. If the comments in question had pointed in the direction of having too many Jews rather than too many trans people, I can't believe you would be minimizing the issue in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: Reducing this to "Not liking someone's RfA vote pattern" is such a trivialization of what happened here that it borders on a new insult to Isabelle. Someone said she doesn't want trans/nonbinary/etc. admins, having voted in a way consistent with that for years, and you're calling it drama-mongering to want a clear statement from the community that she is no longer welcome here? I did not think it was possible in the span of three sentences to make me lose all respect I had ever built for a person over the course of a decade working alongside them... well, short of remarks like the ones at issue here. Although at least Athaenara had the guts to clearly say what she believes. That merits some respect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's an argument of IDONTLIKEIT based on a thin RfA record. I share the exact same thoughts as Ealdgyth below—this is some ad hoc attempt to find smoking guns in a bunch of mist to justify a ban far beyond the existing misconduct, which has already been sanctioned. It would never stand up in an ArbCom case, so I'm not sure why it's valid here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  What are you saying would never stand up in an ArbCom case, and why do you think the community should only consider the same factors as ArbCom, anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  That must be one of the most tone deaf comments I have seen for a long time. And from an ex-Arb, as well ... at least some of the comments above are from editors who have form for such things. We've found out a lot over the last few days. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I would have preferred to only have this conversation if Athaenara requested an unblock, but I suppose we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I don't think this is necessary to demonstrate the community's intolerance of this kind of behavior. I'll admit this is easier for me to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy, Troutman, Fuchs et al. She lost the mop which is as it should be. Let's not dance on her grave. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Mu, for now. Unless and until Athanaera either makes an unblock request or engages with ArbCom as she's been requested to do, this seems premature. I desperately hope to be proven wrong, but this looks more like an Eyrian-style situation where an admin egregiously violated policy, got blocked, and is effectively banned until such time as they can defend their behaviour. I would rather see if ArbCom will issue the ban first (again, there is precedent for this), since that would be the only realistic outcome of the case request (since ArbCom cannot de jure force policy). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Athaenara had multiple opportunities to apologize, accept responsibility, and handle this in some semblance like an adult. She has failed to do any of these things. I remain astonished at her behavior, but we have no choice here. This conduct is unbecoming not merely of an administrator, but of any user. Athaenara clearly wants to go out with a Suicide by cop, so I guess we should grant her final wish. I am not persuaded by those whining about "political headhunting" and whatever else. Last I checked, being a giant dick is not a political view. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - This is a very clear-cut case of "hate is disruptive". Tamzin has done a great job here of surmising the key points, showing that Athaenara has been both overtly (comments at Isabelle's RfA, comments at Signpost) and covertly (opposing all open trans or non-binary RfAs) disruptive. While one could argue that we cannot definitively prove the covert disruption, given the overt disruption I believe the covert disruption clearly meets the duck test. For those saying that Athaenara won't be unblocked without community approval, I defer to Red-tailed hawk's excellent reply at RFAR. Athaenara is not currently subject to a CBAN, because the requirements to impose one have not yet been fulfilled, as no single discussion at ANI has been open long enough (72 hours) to meet the criteria. As such, Athaenara is currently subject to an ordinary admin block, and could make a regular unblock request. While such a request would be very likely to fail in the short term, that may not be true in 12 months. The level of disruption demonstrated by Athaenara quite clearly, to me at least, meets the threshold where a CBAN is more appropriate than an indef block, and any attempt at requesting an unblock/unban should also be required to meet the higher threshold required by a CBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sticking this here because it's not directed at any one editor, though it relates to a common strand among a subset of editors who have contributed to this discussion.

  We rightly hold administrators to a higher standard of conduct than other editors. As much as some editors hold to the WP:NOBIGDEAL days, being an admin is a a big deal. We invest in them trust that they will follow and enforce our policies and guidelines. Though it may sound corny, admins are supposed to be the best of us. They are supposed to reflect and embrace the ideals of this site, and what we're here to accomplish. Admins are of course, only human, and humans make mistakes. ADMINCOND accounts for that where it says Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However this is not a simple mistake. This is very, very far from a simple mistake.

  Athaenara made a direct, targeted, personal attack on another editor, because of one of their innate characteristics. When she cast her oppose !vote in the RfA, she attacked the candidate because of who they are. Not something they had done, or something they had said. Because of who they are. She also knew exactly how this comment would be received when she said Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care. Athaenara knew that what she was saying was wrong. She knew that there would be consequences for saying it. And yet she said it anyway.

  What followed is best described as doubling down. Athaenara first again made a link to cancel culture, and downplayed the severity of her actions. She then tried to reframe the discussion that she was the victim, claiming that she was going down under a storm of figurative fists and boots trying to obliterate me and that this was similar to puritans whipping quakers out of town, being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, etc. Then Lourdes unblocked her, and her response was to thank Lourdes, and almost immediately resume editing. During the one hour she was unblocked, Athaenara made one talk page edit, and deleted five pages.

  Think about that for a moment. Despite the fact that was an ArbCom case request into her actions, despite the requests for an apology to Isabelle, despite comments from arbitrators that imply she had yet to contact ArbCom even privately, her immediate reaction was to continue as though nothing had happened. Figuratively speaking, not only did she give the finger to every trans and non-binary editor on the site through her vile attack, she then proceeded to do the same to both the community and ArbCom by acting as though she had been given a clean bill to continue as she was previously.

  This is not an editor who has expressed remorse for her actions. This is, I dare to say, an editor who has shown and expressed hatred to another, and demonstrated contempt to the community as a whole by refusing to engage with the community process for circumstances such as this, and by using a brief window of opportunity to continue as though all was forgiven.

  To those editors who are downplaying the severity of the attack on another editor, I want you all to ask yourselves a series of questions. If Athaenara had made the same comment, except about some other innate characteristic than gender, and refused to apologise for the comments, would you still be expressing the same views that this is unnecessary or too far? If the answer to that is no, then please think about the impact this discussion will have on our trans and non-binary editors, some of whom may want to run for adminship in the future. If you do not find the actions of Athaenara during the brief unblock period contemptful, if another admin, who was blocked and facing an ArbCom case for some other reason, who refused to engage with that case, and used a brief window of opportunity to continue as though it was business as usual, would you consider that contemptful to the community? If the answer to that is yes, then why is Athaenara's actions not contempt for the community?

  And if you do recognise the severity of Athaenara's comments, the lack of remorse for making them, and the contempt she has shown to the community and its processes by refusing to engage, but do not find this worthy of a CBAN, where exactly do you draw the line? At what point is the behaviour of an admin beyond the pale, and sufficient for a CBAN?

  At the risk of being polemical, I'll end with this. About a year ago, an admin who I have the greatest respect for said I don't believe that Wikipedia is currently dealing with the problems in the field of transgender issues very well at all, and we may probably need to go back to ArbCom at some point before it gets to the point that the Wikipedia environment gets too hostile for those with certain POVs. Never have I felt that as strongly as I have the last couple of days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: If blatant hate and personal attacks are not sufficient reason for the community to show someone the door, I struggle to find what is. I think would be it wise to make it clear as can be that Athaenara's conduct is unwelcome and unacceptable to the community, and only the community – not the Arbitration Committee, not an individual administrator – should have the power to reverse that action. I also echo Sideswipe9th's peer into the matter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• A deliberate hate speech attack on an innocent third-party during the most stressful thing we put our editors through is enough for a CBAN. That it was clearly done as a breaching experiment just makes it even worse. 16 years of good editing absolutely flushed in order to pwn a member of a minority. Actions have consequences, and a line must be drawn somewhere. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support – formalizing the ban certainly won't do any harm, and takes away any confusion about how she could be unblocked. The RFA pattern is concerning but I'm supporting this based solely on her behaviour yesterday and today. If Athaenara wants to come back, she can appeal the ban as usual. Madeline (part of me) 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support topic bans on RFA and GENSEX as proposed by Mellohi!, either on top of a siteban, or instead of it in case a siteban fails to gain consensus. Madeline (part of me) 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Cban: "Political headhunting?" Is that some manner of sick joke? Expressing a general opinion is a far different thing than weaponizing it into a crude, vicious personal attack on another editor, or a demonstrated pattern of opposing RfAs where the candidates are known to be gender-noncomforming. (And what the pluperfect hell: be your views ever so anti-trans extremist, what could there possibly be about being trans that disqualifies someone from being an admin??) We would siteban a newbie twenty times over for behavior half as egregious, and no one would dare defend the newbie. Athaenara knew what she was doing, has expressed no remorse over it, declined to apologize for it, and dared us to do something about it. Suicide by ANI or not, she does not belong on Wikipedia in any capacity whatsoever. We are not "dancing on her grave" here. We're making sure this mess is decently interred, and stays that way. Ravenswing 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Beyond that, a couple postscripts. First is addressing the editors below who claim that opposing the motion will "end the drama." Excuse me? That will PROLONG the drama. We've already seen that this issue has attracted wheel warring, while blocks are appealable and revocable. A site ban ends this issue, period, full stop.

  Second is that we shouldn't be acting "pending ArbCom settling this." Folks, pay attention. ArbCom already acted. The committee is otherwise deeply split in opening a case to do more than desysopping, and there might not be one at all. In any event, we are not obliged to wait on tablets to be sent down from Mt. ArbCom, and the whole premise behind community bans is that we are capable of making our own decisions when it comes to handling bad actors. Ravenswing 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CBAN says the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. There needs to be separate involved/uninvolved sections. 46.97.168.199 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The only people involved in the underlying dispute are Athaenara and possibly Isabelle who has already said they would not be engaging. nableezy - 19:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The text at CBAN suggests use of a template that distinguishes between involved and uninvolved, but does not appear to mandate it: Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response.

  The only concern I would have when it came to refactoring this would be, how widely do you determine involved in this case? Obviously Athaenara is involved, as is I think Floq due to issuing the initial block. You could argue that TNT and Lourdes are also involved due to the events earlier today, though I would disagree with such. Are the 78 editors who contributed to the arbitration request involved? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• People can change, and my sincere hope is that someday Athaenara will do some reflecting and come to understand that you just can’t treat people like that. But her recent comments suggest that’s not yet happened, so in the meantime it makes sense to ask her to leave until she’s ready to take that step. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Fully support site ban. These kind of actions from an ip or a new account are expected and dealt with swiftly but I could never have thought of an admin doing such horrendous things to an innocent user. As a transwoman and a human all together I am repulsed that this even needs to be created considering that she has sixteen years on this platform. Td^she/her 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Thedefender35 you've posted this as a reply to 28bytes's comment; I assume that was a mistake? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  yes I mistakenly did this Td^she/her 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per GRuban and those GRuban cites, especially Fuchs. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would also strongly agree with Jeppiz's comment below. Athaenara's comments were indefensible. But the reaction is becoming mob-like and quite disturbing in itself. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So, what, it'd be okay to siteban her if only there were just a half dozen editors supporting? Ravenswing 02:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  You don't know what "mob-like" means? DeCausa (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. Ravenswing 11:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  The answer is: no. A mob is defined by its behaviour, not just numbers. "Mob-like" therefore means "behaving like a mob". It's unnecessary for you to answer my question. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also highlight below WaltCip's point that this does not fall within the WP:BAN policy, despite Tamzin's claim to have found a "pattern", as there is no evidence she is "repeatedly disruptive". It should also be noted that, in response to that point, there is an effort to change the BAN policy (emphasising that Athaenara is outside of the scope of the existing wording) but it would be quite wrong to C-BAN ex post facto. DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - she discriminated against an editor based on their gender identity by voting oppose in their RFA. She expressed transphobic views ("men masquerading as women", etc.). It's not the first time she's done this (eg the 2019 MFD), and she showed no indications of changing/retracting/etc. in her post-block posts. These are multiple violations of our policies and TOS. I'd say "no one would unblock her" except we've already had one "cowboy admin" unblock by an inactive admin who came back just for this (and this is why I support tighter admin activity requirements). A site ban will prevent any other cowboy admin unblocks. And if we don't site ban for discrimination, what the hell else would we ever siteban an editor for? This is a no-brainer. We need to be a lot better about throwing out toxic editors like this. Do we want this to be a welcoming and inclusive editing environment? By showing her the door, we show that we take this sort of thing seriously. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing. I'll add that this behavior is worse coming from a long-tenured, active admin who should really know better than from some random internet troll. ansh.666 19:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose on a full site ban as the only proferred option at this time. I think a more tailored response is feasible, along the lines of a block for some number of months followed by an indefinite topic ban from anything gender-related, and from participating in RfA and other discussions relating to user status. BD2412 T 19:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - @Tamzin: I’m just curious, how did you find that one 2019 comment? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I believe credit would go to Floquenbeam, who first uncovered the diff in this edit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I found it, and mentioned it in the RFAR. This was after I had made the block for "hate speech or compromised account". At the time, I was somewhat confident this was going to be a compromised account, so to limit the damage to her reputation, I went looking for comments she had made at other gender-related controversies I could remember, to show it was an aberration. Instead, I found that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to all the people who oppose a site ban stating that she "lost her mop" if we are to let an Admin of a sixteen year old account get away with blatant disrespect towards not only the user but to the rules they are meant to uphold and enforce how are we to assume that other users won't see this as a gateway to attack others based on their own opinions?Td^she/her 19:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  She is indefinitely blocked, and any unblock at this point would be a blatant wheel violation that would likely result in another desysop. Nobody is getting away with anything. nableezy - 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Having followed this for the past 24 hours, it is starting to look increasingly like a witch hunt. I don't defend the comment in any way, and an admin opposing a user over their identity is particularly problematic - but the comment in question is nowhere near that 50 worst NPA violations I've seen. Over the years, I've seen lots of comments attacking different users over their religions (attacks against Christians, Muslims and Jews being the most common), their nationality and so on. Most of those attacks have not even lead to a block at all, and those who did only lead to short blocks. This already seems to be by far the strongest action taken, and the reasons for doing so are not clear to me. I repeat that I consider the comment entirely wrong and nothing of this is meant to defend it. Ideally, I should be judged in line with similar comments. Or, at the very least, those who feel that this comment requires a much stronger response than all the similar comments would need to make the case for that much stronger response here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeppiz: I mean, I think Athaenara knew exactly what she was doing when she left this comment – not on some obscure article talk page, not on a content dispute – but in full view of the community on a sailing RfA, as a tenured and well-respected user with sysop privileges. That strikes me intentionally calculated for maximum disruption. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree. This isn't a witch hunt. This was very intentional. She literally said, in an RfA oppose, "Go ahead. Cancel me." Which clearly indicates she knew exactly how drama-inducing this would be. This was intentional disruption in about as public a place as one could choose. I cannot off the top of my head come up with a manner in which an opinion expressed on WP was more likely to generate major drama. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The witch-hunt, in my opinion, is the dredging of her voting history to dig up a supposed smoking gun. I agree with the concerns expressed by Elmidae and Ealdgyth below. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Um. That's not a "witch-hunt" -- that's collecting evidence. We do that all the bloody time on Wikipedia. People scrutinize contribution histories in most cases that hit ANI (probably all cases that hit ArbCom, and definitely all RfA candidacies), seeking to determine whether they're looking at a one-off offense (suitable for a warning) or a pattern of misconduct. Without Tamzin's evidence, I would still have supported Athaenara's desysopping, and possibly a tban to RfA, but I wouldn't support a site ban. I cannot imagine why doing so is beyond the pale, except for those who have an interest in the facts being suppressed. Ravenswing 08:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  From what I have read and seen on the users talk page and the info given via the links she has doubled down on her opinion and said she sees nothing wrong with what she said or who she said it to. The issue here isn't mainly what she said but how long she has been hinting at this style of thinking and how she said it to directly attack a user. Td^she/her 20:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  By contrast, I have seen several editors indeff-blocked for the equivalent of referring to trans women as males masquerading as females, and would expect nothing else, just as I would expect the same result if similarly disparaging remarks were directed at Jewish people or any racialized group. The reason a community ban, rather than simply an indef-block, is mandated here is that we are dealing with an editor who had exercised admin functions, with the responsibility that comes with the role. Under such circumstances, a regular indef seems insufficient. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• What does a site ban actually mean, compared to the current community-endorsed block? As far as I understand: a) Preventing quick unblock declines by individual administrators. Hm. b) Strictly requiring community consensus before the block can be removed. Well, a community-endorsed block practically does the same. c) Opening WP:AN (where we should ideally be having this type of discussions instead) or ANI as new mandatory venues for bad excuses and attempts to justify the behavior, instead of keeping them restricted to the blocked user's talk page. Hm. d) Having yet another discussion about whether the behavior was unacceptable enough to justify an indefinite block, allowing those who don't properly see the issue to heat up the discussion with their trivializations yet again. In conclusion, while of course I prefer a site ban to a "site ban request unsuccessful" result, the actual best situation would be if this ban discussion had not been started at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Because the discussion was never allowed to go even a full 24 hours, there does not seem to be a valid community-endorsed block in place. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  For obvious reasons, it's probably unwise to let someone who has an admin bit and is facing an indef to have 24 hours during which time they could wreak havoc (not that Athaenara would, just a general point). Also, there was still the possibility that this was a compromised account, which we always block straight away. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion could have been kept open for longer after the block, resulting in a proper consensus for the sanction, making it harder to remove. Newimpartial does thus have a point. And per Barkeep49 below, as redundant as having this discussion feels, I should probably explicitly mention that I support both an indefinite block and an indefinite site-wide community ban per the proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, Support indefinite block This is in line with actions taken against others who’ve had similar behavior. As with any indefinite block, return is conditioned upon an appropriate appeal and with a short leash. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me, at all, that the community has already made this a CBAN by endorsing the block at ANI. In fact I think the community hasn't done so. From WP:CBAN A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban. That's what we had here. Not to mention we have certain procedural safeguards around CBANs (at least 24 hours, normally at least 72 hours) that were not met here. So if Athaenara were to post an actual unblock request that this could be handled by a single administrator under normal procedure. Accepting such an appeal without some community discussion strikes me as unwise (to put it mildly) but permissible. If the community wants to ensure the block isn't undone without its consent it should support this CBAN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think the reblock section precludes any future unilateral unblock. But I do not think a CBAN has happened as a result of it either, that I agree with. nableezy - 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a distinction without meaningful difference (if pressed I could name some of them but they're not ultimately meaningful). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ping @ToBeFree as I wrote this at the same time but is my answer to the questions posed in their comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per NPA and Tamzin's RFA analysis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose while Arbcom is still sorting itself out She's been desysopped and indeffed (both well deserved IMO), which makes a suitable holding pattern while the arbs have a look at the matter. I'm also very uncomfortable with employing this kind of speculative voting analysis as an argument for a siteban - I'm aware Tamzin believes she has uncovered something, but to me this looks like data-dredging to come to a preferred conclusion. If a siteban is on the books here, we can arrive at that finding without creating what I would consider a troubling precedent of re-interpreting formerly innocuous actions post fall from grace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Arbcom has enacted a motion. I am switching to plain oppose because I remain uneasy with the use of statistics on previously innocuous behaviour as employed by Tamzin. This is a bad practice in several respects and should not be validated by supporting an action partly based on it (even though I don't have any principal objections with the indef being turned into a ban in this case). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is a TOS violation and as blatant as it can be. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not going to opine on the ban or not, but I have some concerns with the use of voting stats to argue for a ban. I went and looked at my votes rfa/rfbs since March 2019 - and of the 9 singled out - i opposed (3) or did not vote (6) on all of them. Am I going to be next? I mean, if someone doesn't agree with my reasoning for opposing, am I going to have my reasoning brushed aside and it argued that I'm against T/NB persons? I just feel like that sort of thing is a very slippery slope - stick to the inarguably bad attack vote against Isabelle and things are much firmer without risking issues with slippery slopes. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • So, just to clarify two things here: My analysis treats non-votes as tending against a conclusion of bigotry, not for. We have no way to know why someone doesn't vote for someone. So, if I were to subject your voting to the same analysis as Athaenara's, I would say that only voting in 3 out of 9 suggests you are probably not voting based on bigotry; and then a 3⁄3 oppose rate is a very small sample to infer anything from. More importantly, though, you have not said anything (to my knowledge) to suggest that you want to prevent trans/nonbinary/etc. users from becoming admins. Athaenara has. We would definitely not be having this conversation if all there was was the voting pattern. Athaenara's oppose rate is unlikely to be a coincidence (naïvely, a 1⁄2187 ≈ 0.05% chance), but WP:AGF would compel us to consider other explanations for the pattern. I know I would oppose a ban (or even desysop) based on purely statistical evidence—both because of the possibility of AGF explanations, and because of the slippery slope of sanctioning people when they have not engaged in overt disruption. But she's said how she feels, and it is thus reasonable to assume that that motivates this statistically improbably result.
    Which goes as well to Elmidae's point: The key distinction between this and some Texas sharpshooter scenario is that there was a clear reason going in to analyze this voting pattern. If I had, say, gone through every voter at these nine RfXs and picked out the one who opposed the highest percentage, that would be an essentially meaningless conclusion, because across hundreds of voters, some will fall on the far ends of the bell curve. But there was a specific question here—does Athaenara's stated opposition to a (presumed) trans admin correlate with a past history of opposing trans admins?—and I followed the data from there. I actually did not have any particular expectation as to what the data would be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have great respect for Ealdgyth and agree we must be very cautious with statistics. The sample sizes are small. But we aren't in a "someone doesn't agree with my reasoning for opposing" situation, which is extremely common and would then mean that such an analysis was itself a fishing expedition. I think it is flawed to take Tamzin's analysis and say effectively "What if they did that for all of us, if we ever disagreed about an adminship and you tar 10% of us for just happening to oppose the wrong subset of candidates". I don't think the statistics are being used to claim Athaenara is "against T/NB persons" (current tense), for we already have clear evidence of their current views.

  There was at the time of the analysis, a strong pressure, and rightly so, to find evidence that this was someone who had had a moment of madness. Floq went looking at a famous historical flashpoint, hoping to find a trans-supportive comment, and found the opposite. Tamzin looked at their voting record on 'people who are openly trans, nonbinary, or request pronouns other than a simple "he/him" or "she/her"' and compared with votes on undeclared candidates. Where would we be if they had found Athaenara had in fact supported all the previous trans candidates, or at least had supported all the successful ones? I think many editors would be falling over themselves to cite that as evidence we should give Athaenara the benefit of an enforced wikibreak until their "old self" returned. Nobody would be complaining the statistics were weak, and that being among hundreds of support votes at a successful candidacy doesn't mean much.

  Athaenara's several comments at the Signpost 'humour' debate aren't evidence themselves of someone who we are better off without (I mean, if you read that page, there are plenty nasty comments, including, well, the original 'humour'). The statistics on RFA/B votes are not evidence themselves of someone we are better off without. But we know this person is transphobic today, and both pieces of evidence are consistent with someone who was transphobic all along. -- Colin°^Talk 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Evidently, Athaenara is unfit for this collaborative project. I really don't see any valid reason to second-guess this proposal. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that a more measured response like what BD2412 proposed is more appropriate. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Seems pretty clear cut to me: this is the most cold, cruel and bigoted direct personal attack I've ever seen on this site (drive-by vandals notwithstanding). Even without the circumstantial evidence mentioned above, it seems to me that a CBAN here is absolutely justified. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd also like to propose two topic bans from a) discussing gender or sexuality, and b) requests for adminship, which would directly address her two most inflammatory issues. These may stack on top of the community ban if it passes. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mellohi!, to clarify, is this a support !vote? Valereee (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, it was a separate suggestion. It's moot now, since the topic ban proposal has succeeded. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Tbans Regardless of the discussion on a site-ban, which I think is a little too far without prior warning, I would support a topic ban from RFA and gender/sexuality, broadly construed, because I am not aware of disruption extending to any other areas of Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose To make my stance on the site ban clear. While the desysopping and topic bans are clearly warranted, a site-ban seems unnecessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and serves no real purpose. Also, I note that there appears to be a large amount of badgering of opposers in this discussion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Jackattack1597 you've !voted in two places, could you combine those two statements into one and strike the other so as not to confuse the closers? Valereee (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Later comment moved Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding badgering of opposers, I've noticed that too. There's a couple of editors in this thread have done that quite excessively and noticeably. That sort of behaviour usually gets commented on here well before it gets to this level. Not this time though. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support full siteban, basically in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS. An openly transpohobic editor who wields their bigotry against other editors is not fit to remain in a collaborative project. As an admin or as a mere editor. Zaathras (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support in order to make sure that the community has a say in any restoration process, basically per Barkeep49's comments. But I also find the opposes that dismiss the value of the voting analysis to be unconvincing. No one here is saying "if a person has a particular pattern of voting then they should be site banned solely for that reason". Lots of people are saying some version of "given new information that provokes competing interpretations of events, reassessing relevant data we already have helps us choose the more probable interpretation". Reinterpreting probabilities in light of new information is good, actually. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instead of this unseemly pile-on, we should be concentrating on how we might retain an outstanding editor and (former) admin who has made one (1) bizarre, clearly misplaced and – to me at least – totally inexplicable comment. For those who like Seabiscuit: "You don’t throw away a whole life just because it’s banged up a little". Is it too much to ask for a little humanity here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If an editor has clearly expressed their unwillingness to change, why should the community take seriously the possibility they they'll change? The comment in question might seem inexplicable, but it was quite clearly premeditated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure it was premeditated, hence why it is inexplicable. While many on this website are excited by rapid social change, some feel threatened. I can only imagine how women might feel surrounded by those who don't fit the traditional definition. Of course, you folks aren't interested in humanity, are you? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who are you folks, in this context? I for one have a deep concern for the welfare of my fellow humans.

  Anyway, any editor who taunts their audience with their willingness to be cancelled, and goes on to spout hate speech anyway, knows exactly what they're doing. That's what I mean by premeditated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Chris troutman: Are you trying to speedrun the "DS alert → AE thread" sprint? Do you realize that your comment simultaneously implies a) trans women aren't women, b) trans women's presence is a threat to cis women, and c) trans/nonbinary people and/or people who support trans/nonbinary rights lack humanity? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This reply reeks of bad faith. Please cut it out. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @MZMcBride: If you believe I am conducting myself contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are welcome to seek recourse at an appropriate venue. In any case, please don't tell me what to do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, MZM, this cis straight male read it pretty much exactly as Tamzin spelled it out. She's not the one showing bad faith. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  What Sarek said. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wait, what? As a woman assigned female at birth, I can assure you I'm not worried about being surrounded by women who weren't. Anywhere. Those I've interacted with have in general been very nice people. I'm sure there are assholes among them, but so far I've not experienced that. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  you folks aren't interested in humanity, are you? What on earth is this supposed to mean? WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Never mind, I think I have a good idea. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  God, this whole case is so disappointing. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 23:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. To say I'm bothered by the recent remarks of a fair few editors would be an understatement. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I also would like an explanation as to who, exactly, you folks is meant to be referring to, and I deeply hope it isn't referring to who I think. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Is any woman "surrounded by" such people? Of course not, because transgender people only constitute a very small minority of all people. Anyone saying that they "surround" other people believes in the ridiculous hyperbole peddled by some. And yes, I agree that Athaenara should show some humanity. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  'Surrounded' in this context probably refers to things like public showers, changing rooms, safe-houses for victims of domestic violence, etc. I'm not personally voicing an opinion on any of that, but I can understand that others' views on these issues may vary. 'Humanity' seems to refer to approaching other editors with a kind and forgiving attitude, which may seem to be lacking a bit from the pile-on here and elsewhere. I personally think that it would be better to let the whole thing rest for a while now, but if that's not possible the least we can do is to try and avoid starting to attack each other while discussing it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Chris troutman how would one feel "threatened" by a minority? Either way if she had an issue her comments were the exact opposite of what needed to be said. Td^she/her 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Chris, you're not making those of who don't toe the progressive line on sex transition look any better. Please stop. While some of the rhetoric surrounding this makes me uncomfortable, too, the corpse of an editor who was looking for a fight (and has admitted as much) is not the one you want to die on. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  While many on this website are excited by rapid social change, some feel threatened.

  This is such a silly take. Anthropologists have been talking about transgender people since the beginning of the discipline. It was a popular topic in universities around 1990. At some point, you have to join reality. The fact is, many people do not participate in a shared reality, and live in walled gardens where they expect the rest of us to join them. I have learned to say "no", in fact, they must join the rest of us beyond the wall. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, Chris, I have one thing to say: we already have enough of one high profile transphobia case. Don't add fuel to the fire. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. It seemed to be too much to ask of Athaenara, in her RfA comment, and her subsequent doubling down on her POV on her talk page. Ravenswing 08:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, support indef Arbcom already has a case request in full swing, she's already indeffed. If she's making sockpuppets, go for it, but creating a discussion in parallel to one already being had by the arbs when there's not any actual urgency seems needless. She absolutely shouldn't be unblocked, though, and I would probably support a cban after any Arbcom motion/case has concluded. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, endorse indefinite block: Here the best evidence for multiple attacks is the disrespectful comment at MfD 4 years ago. That merits endorsing the indefinite block, but not this proposal's abuse of voting patterns. 46.97.168.199 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support strongly a siteban for Athaenara. We've rightly banned people for being racist and / or misogynistic, so banning for transphobia and transmisogyny is entirely appropriate. A pity that Athaenara chose to end her time on Wikipedia this way, but oh well, it's her responsibility. Acalamari 22:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support as others have said, we ought to take a zero-tolerance policy towards hate speech and this is no exception. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• strong oppose the arbcom case was totally bonkers as it was. How much time was spent on deliberation? In my opinion, given Athaenara's tenure, and their service/contribution, we should admonish them — "an only warning", and move on. But they already have been de-sysop'ed. Also per MZMcBride said, Put the pitchforks away and go find something productive to do. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also per Jeppiz, and BD2412. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder whether your reaction would be the same if the hate speech had been directed against another minority? Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial: yes, regardless the minority, my opinion would have been same. We always give other editors a chance, or a rope. The only editors we don't give chance to are the clear trolls, or clear "not here" cases. Athaenara is definitely not one of them. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would consider Athaenaea's edits after the "incident" as having used up any requisite rope. It isn't all that difficult to acknowledge and apologize for a mistake - doubling down and depicting oneself as the victim is not required, and the community need not A further GF after that. Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to let ArbCom do its job and hear their take on the case and final decision. Enough of the ANI discussions already, this is getting a little ridiculous. All over a single oppose vote. Had the editor had their vote scrubbed/oversighted and had they been sternly warned not to post an attack like that again, that would've been the end of it. Geez, people... — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 22:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't read this as a comment who would have let the issue end in the way you describe. Also, ArbCom has clearly left the decision about a community ban to be made by the community. This is the appropriate venue for that. Newimpartial (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As has been echoed previously, any other user would've been indeffed for those comments. Being an administrator and being so openly transphobic should result in a site ban considering the loss of trust and other such elements. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. She is already de-sysopped and indefinitely blocked. There's no need for all this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong(er) oppose. As WaltCip astutely noted below, a CBAN at this time would be contrary to policy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Making hateful statements and then doubling down on them is simply beyond the pale; it's not acceptable behavior for any user, admin or not. Yup, Athaenara has done great work in the past, but that doesn't give her a free pass to go bashing on trans people. -FASTILY 22:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose not needed. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support – comment was beyond the pale, and the subsequent doubling down on the comment doesn't inspire confidence. At the arbitration page, Floq found evidence that these types of comments weren't a one time thing either. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Directing hate speech at another editor and saying they're not able to be an admin because they're trans should be completely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, especially from someone who held a position of trust within the project. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose If there was a noticeable trend, why was not she chastised (temporarily-blocked) sooner? Why should she be desysoped/indeffed/banned ("punishment" to the greatest degree) after the first instance of offence? I think her being desysoped is fair. I also think her being blocked for a certain period of time, say one month, is fair, but I oppose both her indefinite block and her community ban. She said that she herself was shocked and needed some time to reflect on her behavior. The community should give her that opportunity. I got very sad when I read this thread completely by chance. I wish I had never seen it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would fully support what you said but not only did she double down on her opinion stating she did nothing wrong she continued to insult the admins calling it a 'witch hunt'. This is absolutely the consequence of her own making. Td^she/her 23:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, sadly. The official TOS are somewhat vague on this point, but they do prohibit harassment. Harassment (as defined e.g. by the US EEOC [41]) can often be a pervasive pattern of behavior, such as the pattern Tamzin has found, but it can also come from a single action that is severe enough. I think deliberately attacking an individual editor for their gender identity in an RFA is severe enough to constitute a TOS violation, at a level we would not tolerate for other editors and should not tolerate even in longstanding editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Multiple members of Arbcom have stated that they're basically throwing this back in the community's court, as they've done the de-sysop and any further actions are to be done here, not there. So any comments opposing because of "Let Arbcom decide" should be ignored, as they have already decided on the parts relevant to them. And since it seems quite clear from Athaenara's talk page responses that they have no remorse for their statements and just want to go with a "woe is me" victim claim, I see no reason to avoid a permanent site block. And I'd like to add that claims of this being overblown by the likes of MZMcBride are just disgusting. Without even considering the blatant ongoing bigotry from Chris troutman. Silverseren^C 00:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was a bad and dumb edit and it deserves reproach to be sure. Respectfully, I think using the bad and dumb edit as a teaching moment and showing Athaenara why it's hurtful and wrong is potentially more valuable and productive than creating a pariah. People make mistakes, people hold dumb and wrong views. I certainly had racist older relatives, for example, maybe you can relate. When people do something wrong or hurt us, it's reasonable to tell them to stop and explain to them what they did wrong. For long-time established editors, I believe we should also extend grace, as I understand the term. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hm. Go take a look at Athaenara's responses on her own talk page, and see for yourself the degree to which she believes that she's being hurtful and wrong. (She's certainly already has had dozens of editors stop and explain to her at length.) Her sole concession is that she accepts the outcome and will not seek to challenge it, which while a sensible application of the principle "quit while you're behind," doesn't represent contrition. In any event, our responsibility here is not to teach people not to be bigots. It's to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 09:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as she's already been desysopped and indefinitely blocked, this seems unnecessary. Any admin unilaterally unblocking would be wheel-warring after the Lourdes/TNT unblock and reblock. Given that Athaenara made a deliberately outrageous comment in the middle of an RfA and then said, "go ahead, cancel me", she isn't coming back. And any unblock request would end up going to the community anyway. I'm not convinced by Tamzin's RfA analysis, which seems to be looking for a pattern that isn't there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Blatant, unapologetic hate speech warrants a CBAN. Clearly we're all sad to see Athaenara go down in flames like this, but her behavior does appear to be in bad faith, rather than simply being someone expressing traditional beliefs in good faith. She has been completely unapologetic about her blatant hate speech and has engaged in additional trolling behaviors after the fact rather than showing any willingness to communicate or be accountable. Given that this is unironically a rogue admin situation, the "cancel culture/witch hunt" argument is unconvincing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't matter that she is indeffed and desysoped. In order for her to come back she needs to come before the community and it will be for us, not ARBCOM, not an Admin, but us to decide whether we want to allow her back on to this webcite. --AdamF in MO (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sympathetic to the argument that with an indef block and desysop behind us there's no more need to do anything regarding this case as a community, but the opening and apparent support for rescinding the indef block in the absence of an adequate unblock request leads me to believe that we need to put this to bed and make it a CBAN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - My views come closest to those of Levivich, far above, I think. This strikes me as an easy one; had the comment been "there are too many [insert racial minority of your choice] admins," it would have been equally egregious to me. And I am also sympathetic to the "nothing more needs to be done here" line of argument. But I personally believe there is value in the community--not one admin, and not arbcom--saying "this is unacceptable to us." Condemnation of the act is a way to demonstrate (and actualize) values. As ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CBAN allows the community to impose a ban If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia. From my view, the egregious conduct at Isabelle Belato's RfA appears not only directed to Isabelle, but also towards the community. And instead of an apology or expression of remorse, Athaenara later wrote this: Special:Diff/1115539792, which seems to continue the disruptive conduct by 1) attempting to minimize what an administrator with a 16-year history has done to a candidate in the midst of their RfA, and 2) using inflammatory terms to characterize those opposed to Athaenara's conduct. I do not think we need to debate whether inferences from RfA voting history are valid, because from my view, there is already sufficient support for a site ban based on the pattern of disruptive conduct during and after the RfA. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support a CBAN for this egregious misconduct and for unapologetically doubling down. Really nothing else to say here. GAB^gab 01:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support of the alternative proposal. It's time to put the shovel down and stop digging. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Such an egregious personal attack not followed by an apology is certainly deserving of a ban. I don't think that was ever the question. The real query here is: "is a CBAN necessary given she's been indeffed and desysopped". I'd say no. But I'm certainly not opposed to it either. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN, support indefinite block. She has been indefinitely blocked. She will never do anything again, there is nothing to gain by piling more things. Her conduct on Isabelle's RFA is unacceptable, but piling on CBAN is unwarranted. I am unconvinced by Tamzin's analysis of RFA/RFB behavior. There is no rule in voting for RFA/RFB. We are "expected" to analyze one's capability to be an admin when voting in an RFA, but we are not "mandated" to vote according to one's ability and contribution to the project. That said, if any editor wanted to vote based on a coin flip, that should be fine. If one wanted to oppose all nominations, while sketchy, it is not an "impeachable offense". If one wanted to vote based on the political beliefs of the nominee, while discouraged, is not a violation of the rules as well. No matter how the numbers are, it is just an "allegation" and it should not stand. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support According to banning policy, An editor who is "sitebanned" (which may sometimes be described as a "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. This egregious and cruel personal attack on an individual editor going through a process that is inherently stressful, in a venue where hundreds of editors were watching, is so severe that ejection from the project is justified. A site ban prevents a misguided individual administrator from unblocking. Communitywide consensus would be required to unblock. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for quite a while and, as such, my opinion probably shouldn't hold much weight here. I don't think I've even commented on any of these noticeboards in at least eight years. That being said, I'm hoping to return as a contributor to the article namespace at some point when life permits. It's incidinents like these that give me pause. The user in question lauched an extraordinarily bigoted personal attack against another editor with no provocation, and in just about the most inappropriate venue imaginable. Since then, she has failed to take accountability for her actions or demonstrate even a basic understanding of why what she did was unacceptable. Per the evidence presented by Tazmin, this isn't even an isolated incident. Individuals who engage in this sort of conduct have no place on Wikipedia (or anywhere, really), and anything other than an unequivocal rejection of such behavior by the community would make me very wary of involving myself in this project agian. --SamX 04:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Open, unapologetic bigotry stated in general terms should already be sufficient for a community ban. In this case, the abuse was targeted at a specific individual and member of our editing community, and no real apology or remorse has been offered, making it even more egregious. The evidence provided by Tamzin at worst shows deliberate discrimination and at best shows an inability to fairly judge other users because of her subconscious bias. While some of the oppose !votes have voiced concerns about piling on, this is already de facto a WP:CBAN as a community-approved indefinite block. However, there is value allowing the conversation to run the bare minimum timeframe in CBAN (24 hours in obvious cases) to formalize it so no one can argue that procedure wasn't followed. In terms of driving away a good editor, the WP:STANDARDOFFER is always open to her if she demonstrates an understanding of why the community banned her. In the meantime, a ban would avoid deterring potential contributors, whether trans or just those who disapprove of bigotry, from editing. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The usual route for this would be a block (already in place) and a gender issues TBAN. No reason for anything different. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: I think this also has to do with personal attacks against a particular editor, though. Nythar^T.C 07:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:NONAZIS and the paradox of tolerance. Athaenara's egregious personal attack launched at one of oru colleagues didn't just cross a red line. She hurdled past it even while acknowledging that she would face severe consequences for her actions. We should grant that wish by banning her from our project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  It strikes me as the definition of a biographies of living persons violation to suggest, with your all-caps link, that an editor is a white supremacist or a Nazi. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef block and desysop (for lack of community trust) are the right outcome for a vicious personal attack, other measures (like TBAN) may follow later. Exclusion of an entire group of people on basis of an irracional prejudice is entirely against core goals of this project. Good behaving people of all colours, backgrounds, identities, beliefs or political views etc. should be welcome here. Pavlor (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In my view Athaenara already is de facto site banned; those quibbling about how many hours the thread were open really need to reread WP:NOTBURO. But since we've already had one cowboy unblock, we should make it crystal clear. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  What about those who note policy explicitly says a third party block review cannot cause a CBAN? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- she wants to be a martyr, let's oblige her. She knew exactly how her comments would be percieved, and decided to say them anyway. She should never be allowed to contribute to the project in any capacity. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support- I'm not sure there are any editing conditions that would make me comfortable with Athaenara being allowed to return to the site. Schierbecker (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. She appears to hold a sincere belief that allowing trans people to participate equally in Wikipedia contributes to a "toxic environment". Where would this belief go next? This goes against our fundamental values. Would we allow, for a moment, an editor who said that there were too many black people on Wikipedia, or too many gay people, or too many women - and the presence of those people was 'toxic' and therefore people in those groups shouldn't be administrators? Regardless of one's views on "trans issues" in society more broadly this is simply unacceptable. Responding to some of the other issues raised in the discussion so far: Per JoeRoe, I believe she is already "de facto site banned" and this discussion is simply formalising that. I do not follow the "Wait for ArbCom" rationale; there is no reason for the community to avoid taking action while ArbCom gets round to thinking about things. And finally I am baffled by the idea that a topic ban is a correct response. It is not as if this was a dispute about a gender-related article that got out of hand. It's a fundamental violation of our values which cannot be remedied by saying "ok don't edit articles about gender". The Land (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Policy forbids premature closure of site ban discussions for good reason. Many of our long term contributors have donated tens of thousands of precious time to this project, and they deserve due process even if they make an atrocious edit for whatever emotional reason. It would be trivial to stealth canvass a small group to create an apparent overwhelming consensus for a ban if the process only had to be open for a few hours. Witchhunters and permabanners might love it if it became so easy for them to indulge their little hobby. But I suspect few talented edits would want to volunteer their time here if the community tolerated such corruption. PS – may come to vote later, this needs some thought as while I doubt Anathera had such malicious intentions as some seems to think, their RfA oppose vote was clearly ultra distressing to a large sub section of our editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, for a site that allows for people with differing views to collaborate (i.e. it is inclusive) it is bizarre that a modest personal snide remark suddenly makes a certain user exclusive to said site. I don't think someone should need to apologise for something they believe strongly in, whichever side of the fence they sit. Sure, personal attacks suck, I'm a minority in my own country and I've received far worse than what Athaenara wrote, I just think a site ban is a massive knee-jerk reaction. There are even users on this website which I've come across who've said not the nicest things, but I just let it go. What's the point in fighting it? Let ArbCom do due justice, and then I think it should only be appropriate community sanctions be discussed. X-750 _{List of articles I have screwed over} 09:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of "a modest personal snide remark". Athaenara made a vile and bigoted personal attack on another editor. She then openly admitted that because of this bigotry, she would oppose the editor's RFA. The hate speech alone would warrant an indefinite block; the action in support of this, intentionally harming another editor, is so far beyond anything acceptable that Athaenara does indeed need to be removed from this project, with no chance of ever returning. RolandR (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as this proposal merely creates more drama, and it will create more drama if this user wants to return to editing (as there will almost certainly be community review of both an unban request and an unblock request). Assuming the alternative below fails, let the admin handling the unblock request deal with it and if community review is needed, do it just the once. Iffy★Chat -- 09:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Hurtful? Check. Uninformed? Check. Going out of one's way to Leeroy Jenkins oneself with a Go ahead, "cancel" me instead of making a thoughtful comment about an admin candidate? That's a big check. XOR'easter (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We should have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wait for the unblock request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is mob justice. This is not civilised. Athaenara crossed a line. Community reaction is clear. De-sysop is a strong rebuke. Let's wait an see how Athaenara reflects and responds, after taking a break. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Don't whitewash the situation, this is way beyond "crossed a line". It was blatant, unprovoked, discriminatory, harassing hate speech directed specifically at an RfA candidate. She acknowledged straight up that she knew there were going to be consequences for saying it, and stated that she did not care about the consequences. She admitted that she knows it was a shocking, rude outburst, but she shows no sign of apology or remorse, she tried to justify the comment, blame "cancel culture" (implying hate speech should be permitted and any backlash against it is political correctness gone mad), and engaged in trolling behavior (referring to the unblocking admin as "he/him", continuing to make normal edits after being unblocked for the purpose of participating in the Arbcom case). This is not a person who accidentally stated their personal belief on Wikipedia and is getting railroaded for having a "wrong" view. This was intentional bad faith disruption coming from an admin.

  Also, community banned active editors who wish to return in good faith are typically allowed to return after six months. We're talking about a six month ban from posting to a website. Maybe you shouldn't compare that to lynching and necklacing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  If a 6 month ban is what you're after, then why not propose a 6 month ban and then see what happens with an unblock request after then? Iffy★Chat -- 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  What you are describing is literally the same thing as an indef ban, just more complicated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Swarm. No intention to whitewash. It was ugly, and the points you make are true. The majority response here also is a bit ugly, no quantitative comparison intended. I’m surprised that you seem imply that she will be allowed to return secretly in six months. I read the intention of the crowd to be forever vigilant against her return. Others may be accused of being her sock. I don’t think a future apology should be prejudged as impossible or unwelcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:HID. Entrenched bigotry in any form is incompatible with the project. It is rare that I vote for the extra step of a community-sanctioned banned of an already indef-blocked editor, but evidence is clear that Athaenara's attitudes and behaviors towards trans and non-binary people leaves serious doubts of her ability to contribute collaboratively and productively. I feel the extra layer of sanction is necessary to make this clear that the community (and not just one admin) feels that this is unwelcome. --Jayron32 12:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support And once this closes I have a list of other editors & admins whose personal politics make them incompatible with the community here. I look forward to starting those CBAN discussions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. This discussion is about a pattern of conduct by an experienced editor in a position of trust, who may have reviewed the userpage of a candidate during their RfA, observed userboxes stating their pronouns and support for human rights, and then made an egregious comment in the high-visibility RfA forum, followed by additional conduct described in this discussion that amplifies instead of remediating the initial harmful conduct. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bigotry is not a political position. The votes for enacting the ban were not for her politics, but for bigoted statements. --Jayron32 15:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Bigotry is not a political position" is flatly wrong, both in functional practice and legally. Not accepting trans women as 'women' is substantially either an ideological position or someone taking a strict biomedical one. Its also a view they are entitled to have legally, and to express it in most of the English speaking countries from which ENWP draws its editors, not to mention one that is substantially enabled and supported by legislation in both the US, UK and other places. And I *agree* they should be banned from their views. I am just more honest than most of the support voters here in that I am admitting to wanting to ban because of their ideological views rather than any actual long-term pattern of disruptive conduct which I might add, is what usually merits a full community ban. I mean, the community wont even ban JohnPackLambert despite his public bigoted and misogynistic views on his social media, which go back years. But all it takes is one post on an RFA and off with their head. Fantastic, I have been waiting for the community to stop being so enabling. Now I can go to Arbcom with off-wiki evidence and go "This editor's views are incompatible, because this requires private evidence, only you can deal with it." And cite this discussion and event as background. Because only an idiot thinks this is not banning someone for their views, its just its taken far too long for the community to steel themselves to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Look, it appears your interested in trying to prove a point. I would advise against that, not the least of which is that this discussion (nor ANY discussion EVER) should not be used as a precedent for anything. This discussion is SOLELY about banning THIS specific one user for THIS specific one user's actions on Wikipedia, and has NO bearing on ANY other potential future discussion, nor does ANY past discussion or situation (such as the Johnpacklambert one) have ANY bearing on ANY decision that might be made here. The only thing that matters is the facts about this one user and their actions. If you try to pretend otherwise, it will only go badly for you. --Jayron32 15:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure why you seem to think this banning won't have any future effects. That's remarkably naive given how things work around here. Nor how any reading of the above support votes can't see where they substantially are about the editors views and not about any pattern of behaviour that usually merits a community ban discussion. Look you seem to be trying to badger me for some purpose. I advise against that. It will only go badly for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've directed a comment towards you, twice, before this, which AFAIR, is also the sum total of times I've spoken to you in my entire life. That's a rather low number of comments to be called "badgering". I had no intention of responding to you any more, except now I had to in order to defend myself against such an accusation as "badgering", which is bullshit. I consider this the last time I intend to speak to you about anything. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 17:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how anyone would have been discussing, much less sanctioning that editor's views had they not been expressed in a hate-filled attack in the most public of WP fora. Your attempts to deflect this into "shucks, it's just political POV" show a calculated ignorance of what was actually said and why much of the community - including many whose gender politics lies closer to Athaenara than it does to, say, UK's Stonewall - find it to be on the wrong side of a red line. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oh please cut the hyperbole. RFA isn't even close to being the most public of wp fora. I am not deflecting anything. I am just !voting with my intent very clear, unlike those who are hiding their motivations behind citing the UCoC, a document that is explicitly designed to police thought and personal views. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't the appropriate forum to register dissent with the UCoC, as you seem to believe (and in spite of what you say about making your intent very clear, it is my belief that only this 16:53 comment actually sets out the "logic" behind your very odd !vote).

  The vast majority of !votes for a CBAN make no reference whatever to the UCoC and most of the ones that do allude to it say, "let's show that the community can handle this so there is no temptarion to deploy the UCoC". Whatever scenario you think you're engaging with, it doesn't seem to be what's actually happening here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Only in death Considering that you are talking to an admin with over ten times the amount of edits as you I would recommend not saying "I advise against that. It will only go badly for you". Also yes this ban will have an affect but it will mainly affect only her. Td^she/her 17:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Consistency matters, otherwise this is arbitrary and capricious and that isnt a standard we should strive for. That said, a ban here is for directing personal attacks at an editor, not for holding a view. As far as I am concerned editors are allowed to believe whatever they like, what matters is what they place in our articles and what they say to each other. nableezy - 16:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Forced consistency is more harmful than anything else; to blindly apply the results of one situation to other situations while ignoring what makes them different from the first one is not a good way to operate. The problem with consistency is it presumes identical conditions; where conditions differ, than one should consider the possibility of different outcomes. ALso, it is for a personal attack, but it is also for the nature of the personal attack. Personal attacks exist on a continuum and not on a binary scale; for many people the type of attack is what makes this worthy of a ban. There's a difference between calling someone an asshole and the kind of hateful language used in the attack. --Jayron32 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems like a double-jeopardy situation here. She has already been desysopped for that single personal attack. We have editors of all ideological persuations here who aren't admins, and they can be good editors. People display their personal politics all the time in userboxes, and who are we to determine what is incompatible with the community? I see no reason why Athaenara cannot continue as a regular editor regardless of personal politics. Aathaenara is emphatically not one of those WP:NOTHERE trolls. She's a good editor. Give her WP:ROPE. If she has another transgression, sure, then consider a site ban. But not now. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Given the complete lack of empathy and doubling down demonstrated since the original egregious personal attack, you are not describing a realistic scenario. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial: I disagree. Unrelalistic? On the contrary, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to apologize for their deeply-held personal convictions. But that seems to be the expectation here, which is disappointing. Not a single person has denied that Athanaera is a good editor. Her offense and subsequent doubling down makes her unsuitable for being a sysop, but I disagree that holding fast to one's convictions disqualifies anyone from editing here, as long as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are followed. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Im sorry but this is just not what a fair representation of what happened. This is not being proposed because Athaenara has this conviction or any other. I dont think we would be here even if she had expressed her deeply held personal convictions. It was weoponizing those convictions in to an attack on another person. She is not the only person involved here, there is a person who was attacked here. I can juggle rocks and nobody will care. When I start throwing those rocks at people then it is not simply oh he likes to toss rocks in the air. Cant ban him for that. I really wish the people downplaying this take in to consideration the person who was attacked here, not just the person who was blocked. nableezy - 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is astonishing how many times it has been necessary to reiterate this obvious point :( JBL (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The issue isn't about holding one's convictions, it's about expressing them. If you can't express your deeply-held personal convictions without attacking other editors for an inherent trait and engaging what many jurisdictions (and clearly a very large number of editors and administrators) consider to be hate speech - thus violating community norms - then keep your convictions to yourself. Otherwise you can quite rightly expect to be cancelled, and deservedly so. You believe that such a ticking time bomb of an unrepentant aggressor could continue as a regular editor regardless of personal politics, but that scenario isn't even remotely plausible. An editor who feels entitled to lash out knowing that it will disrupt the community (inviting them to "cancel" her) cannot be reasonably expected to refrain from doing so again. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not a single person has denied that Athanaera is a good editor. Oh, let me disabuse you of that idea. We don't do WP:RFC/U anymore, so there really isn't much reason to opine about whether she is a good editor or a bad editor, but if you're going to make this argument, then let me go on record saying she is not and was not a good editor. I've long felt she was a "bad egg", particularly after butting heads with her over snarky edit summaries in 2019. If you read her talk page archives, you'll see plenty of other people complaining about her attitude and her low-level but chronic incivility. Unlike others, I am not surprised that she would blow up in an episode of incivility like this--this was a long time coming--although I am surprised by the community's reaction to it (though I shouldn't be). It's not even the first time she's expressed transphobic views (and I note that no one tried to siteban or sanction her for her previous expression of transphobic views--it's only when she discriminated against an editor by voting against their RFA because they're trans, that brought sanctions). Levivich (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Its very hard to grasp that an admin can direct such words at an adminship candidate (or at any other user), but obviously that's what happened here, and a CBAN seems like the only appropriate answer to this. —Sundostund (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per nableezy and some others. She is indeffed and won't be editing until somehow she convinces someone to lift it. While some have mentioned lack of explanation and lack of apology, the block won't be lifted until those happen, and she may need some time to cool off before doing those things. Whether that takes a week or a year or more, if she ever chooses to request an unblock those will need to happen and the community can decide at that point what steps to take. I was on the fence about this proposal because her comments were so egregious that I felt maybe a ban on top of the block would be appropriate in this case, and wouldn't cause harm. But then I saw Only in death's comment suggesting that some editors may be considering this case an appropriate precedent to start purging Wikipedia of people whose political views they disagree with. And with that, a ban in this case may well cause harm, so I have to oppose. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I do not fully understand Only in death's comment, and whether it originates from misreading this entire discussion, or whether it is within WP:POINT, i.e. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point", but given how clear our policies are about editors being welcome to hold personal political POV, it does not seem advisable to assign much weight to the idea that this discussion sets any precedent for sanctioning an editor for anything but an egregious pattern of conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes harm. Beccaynr (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I supported the indef, I don't have the stomach for a siteban. The aggressive acts constitute a severe breach of our pillars and policies, and incidentally also the UCoC, but it doesn't reach the threshold of being a site ban based on the wording of WP:CBAN - If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia ... While I find Tamzin's statistics interesting, they are not sound enough, I think, to warrant a declaration of repetitive disruption.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have suggested a change at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy to address this. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it's approved, we need to be mindful of ex post facto policy changes. We can call the revision the "Athaenara Rule" if we want, but I don't agree with going back and hitting her with a siteban once we push the change through. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  This proposed change does not seem necessary to address the current situation, which is more than a one-time disruption - this discussion is about more than an egregious comment in the RfA, and includes further comments afterwards that amplified the disruption and can be considered as support for community action with a goal of preventing further disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that counts as disruption. We don't CBAN people for throwing a temper-tantrum on their talk page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  From my view, this WP:TANTRUM extends the disruptive conduct by failing to express remorse or an appreciation for the harm caused, and instead focuses on casting themselves as a victim in inflammatory terms directed against other editors. There was egregious disruption in the RfA, and the nature of the conduct afterwards demonstrates a risk of further disruption that can be addressed by a community response. Beccaynr (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Getting defensive is what people do directly after they've done something bad because they're in a bad place. Talk pages of blocked users are full of it. What this doesn't do is demonstrate a long-term pattern. More time needs to go over this to see whether she'll come round. In the mean time editors in this thread should go do something else. Admins may look at threads such as this one, which are in far more need of attention and are getting snowed under. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This is becoming a witch hunt. She's indefinitely blocked until she can successfully convince an admin to lift it. Bans are for long-term patterns of disruption or abuse, not a single, egregious personal attack. Furthermore, as I mentioned in the request for arbitration, I also opposed, considered opposing, or didn't vote in all in the all but one of the RFAs presented as "evidence". Ealdgyth voted similarly. If you go looking for a pattern, you will find it. Starting with a foregone conclusion is a big issue in experiments in the scientific world, and it applies here too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Doubling down on an attack against a whole demographic of editors is a kind of natural "experiment" and fairly convincing evidence IMO. I would look at it this way: will the WP community experience more disruption or less disruption of the indef is converted to a community ban. I'd put a strong wager on less. As far as the witch hunt business is concerned, I think the uncontested evidence of disruption is quite convincing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would imagine a witch hunt would involve more hunting. Right now we're still talking about a response to a singular, very prominent incident. I think that the criticism of Floquenbeam and Tamzin's investigations of Athaenara's editing history is misinterpreting it: I have yet to see anyone suggest that Athaenara's comments and voting record, prior to the recent outburst, would be a strong basis for a block or ban. What the evidence does do is put to bed the belief that the outburst was totally uncharacteristic of Athaenara and thus must have been due to an unauthorized access to her account (and in that sense, I think that Floq's finding of comments at the Signpost are more significant than Tamzin's statistics). I will worry about a witch hunt when we start threads against people who haven't disrupted RfAs with personal attacks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, fine, ideological crusade then. It's no better. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't seen any ideological crusade; what I have seen is some editors attempting to ensure that a verbal attack on one group within the WP community is dealt with appropriately, while other editors want to turn this essentially ethical breach into a political issue, presumably becsuse that fits their prior assunptions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Barkeep49's, If the community wants to ensure the block isn't undone without its consent it should support this CBAN. We can see that at least one admin (a former arb!) has tried to minimize Athaenara's comment as a controversial personal opinion whose only problem is that it doesn't perfectly align with the current social climate - and, heck, everyone has controversial opinions! We can also see that Athaenara's first response was to blame cancel culture and second response was to largely paint herself as the real victim while also acknowledging that If I had been one of those policing public discussion pages and saw that blurt I'd've been likely to revert it, devrel, chastise the offender, and block for perhaps 24 to 72 hours. which suggests that she knew there would be negative consequences when she made it and just wildly misjudged what those consequences would be. Given all that, I for one do want to make sure that this block is not undone without community consent, lest an admin with ideas outside community norms as to what's hate speech and what's just "controversial" or who thinks Athaenara's only fault was saying the quiet part loud doesn't accept a non-apology unblock request like "I'm sorry if anyone was offended and I promise not to say it in a way I can't plausibly deny ever again." Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Her comments are incompatable with collaborative editing (and the "go ahead, cancel me" implies that she was aware of this.) Her one response since then is woefully inadequate, since it spends as much time blaming the "venom" of others as it does discussing her own mistakes - if she understood what she did wrong well enough to be trusted as an editor going forwards, she would understand why there was such a reaction. More generally I disagree with the procedural arguments against doing this while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case - first, ArbCom is meant to be the court of last resort; we shouldn't have a case open until we've exhausted all other options, which we have not. And second, multiple arbs have cited this discussion as influential on their approach and as a reason to wait on their end, which makes it paradoxical to argue that it should be shut down. The community should handle things that it is capable of handling; if people don't think that this should be an indefinite ban, they can say so, but I feel that the procedural objections should be disregarded given the context of ArbCom's discussions. Certainly there is no policy that "only ArbCom can block administrators" (and it would be a terrible precedent to set). --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to say, whatever the outcome of this, this has been the largest timesink I've seen on Wikipedia in years. I suppose Jim Gray was right: "People aren't drawn to calm. Everybody goes to look at the hurricane."--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban, support indef block. So unlikely to come back, why rub salt in the wound, why put the stamp of Community Disapproval on? I think everyone gets that the community doesn't approve of this behaviour, and it's hard to imagine any admin with ideas that far outside of the community norm, pace Egsan Bacon. Sad times ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can name a few editors who have been indeffed for civility and then immediately unblocked thereafter by an admin who may or may not be a close friend of theirs. I can understand why people think a CBAN is necessary, even if I don't agree with it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reaper Eternal. The desysop and indef ban is enough. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the desysop and the indef block are enough for now and a possible topic ban if she is ever unblocked. Qwv (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The offending comment was bad and wrong, and not what we should expect of an admin. We should tell the offender to take a break, cool off, and come back with an apology. How long a break? I don’t know, but it’s only been, what, three days? Comments from the offender during that time don’t look good, but were plausibly made while still in a heated state. The instant pile-on here reflects poorly on the community. Sadly it looks like the possibility of forgiveness is remote, and the outcome will be the loss of a good editor who made one mistake. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Presumably you meant to say "a partern of previously inconspicuous mistakes over several years". FTFY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  pattern. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yesth Newimpartial (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this rush to judgement. A site ban is for an offender who has received multiple blocks, whose recidivism exhausts the patience of the community. A long-standing member of the community deserves a second chance, even after a severe mistake, if she wants to ask for a second chance. Let’s hope for her eventual redemption. Jehochman ^Talk 00:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you not see that the patience of the community is already exhausted? Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see that the community has exercised any patience at all. Without giving the user any time to reflect or repent, you are proposing to ban them. That is improper. This is not some throw away sock account. The user has done a huge volume of good work over 16 years. We are all human and make occasional mistakes. This was a severe mistake, but in the context of all the user's work, they still deserve a second chance, if they want it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The editor in question has access to her Talk page and has had more than 72 hours now to reflect on her personal attack and issue an apology. How much patience do you expect the community to exercise, before reaching the quite reasonable conclusion that she continues to mean what she said? Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - There should be zero tolerance for hate on Wikipedia. Hatman31 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support if for no other reason that it'd be a poor idea for an admin to accept an unblock request without some sort of discussion given the high level of drama/interest surrounding this (85 statements at the RfAR and counting). I also endorse the indef block. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I can support the topic ban below and the de-syopping, and I believe that serves as enough punishment.Canuck^{89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page} 03:55, October 14, 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban pending showing of recidivist behavior. The editor appropriately was stripped of the admin bit and appropriately has been blocked as an ordinary admin action. Allow the editor to decide if participation in our collaborative project under the topic ban is even something they want, and then we can judge the unblock request if it ever comes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Xymmax I wonder if you and other opposers realize that we won't be able to judge the unblock request unless she's sitebanned? Without a siteban, any admin can just unblock her, without any community input. This has already happened once--she was unblocked by an admin without community input (and then reblocked, and the reblock is the subject of a current arbcom request). Ensuring the community gets to judge the unblock request is the whole point of a siteban. Levivich (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Levivich: I raised exactly that point in the discussion below, and the reponse I got was that for an unblocking admin, it would be expected to "not end well for that admin". That's exactly the sort of vague intimidation that admins should ignore in exercising their judgment in the role. Perhaps opposers don't want to have to deal with this in another community process months down the road. BD2412 T 04:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Far be it for me to vaguely intimidate anybody, I meant that I *think* a unilateral unblock at this point would be a wheel violation, considering the reblock has a consensus on ANI for it. But I am not, sadly, an ArbCom member so let me disabuse you of the idea that I mean to, vaguely or otherwise, intimidate you or any other admin here. nableezy - 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  There was consensus to reverse that specific unblock with its specific rationale. Prior to this one, there hasn't been a discussion on whether or not all unblocks should be subject to community approval first, which is a community site ban. isaacl (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I do understand, which is why I tried to frame my implied condition for support on continued misbehavior. The editor in question would have to prevail upon an admin to unblock, then prevail again in the (rather likely, I think) community discussion which would follow such an action. I understand that many in this discussion feel ready to decide the matter now, but there is no current disruption, and I see no new harm resulting from proceeding deliberately. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not currently certain where I sit on the substantive discussion, but I would observe that adminship is not a Super Mushroom – if someone's actions are sufficient to warrant a ban, the fact the actions happen to have been carried out by a sysop does not change the appropriate sanction from a ban to a desysop. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed, support. I accept the beliefs she holds are honestly held, but acting on them is not compatible with partaking in a collaborative community project. Doubling down on the argument and failing to engage or demonstrate an understanding of why it was problematic means this crosses the threshold. If consensus does not support this ban, then the second option of topic bans below is sensible. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, largely per Sideswipe9th. I see the argument put forward by Nableezy and others that it is unnecessary because no reasonable admin would unblock without community discussion as a reasonable position to hold, but given we're discussing it anyway, I don't see any real cost to formalising this as a CBAN rather than relying on admins' good judgements – especially when we've already seen one unilateral unblock! Many of the other opposes seem to be based on the entirely counterfactual premise that Athaenara was blocked for her political opinions rather than for making a personal attack, which I hope the closer will weight as they deserve. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I dont' think this is needed on top of everything: (a)The existing indef-block has stopped active disruption, and will already be non-trivial to overcome. (b)The already passed TBAN below should be effective at preventing future disruption, should it not be escalating to a CBAN at that time seems more approriate to me. (c)Removal of sysop is already open with arbcom and will need to run its course there. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The statement in the RfA was wrong. The editor has (i) had administrative privileges removed, (ii) been blocked, and (iii) Been TBAN'd. That's sufficient for now. Cbl62 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Athaenara has shown they have deliberately made comments they knew were incompatible with the community -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Although I certainly understand the desire to rid outselves of a suddenly problematic editor, and without in any way excusing or endorsing their behavior, I do agree that having the bit pulled, being indeffed and topic banned is sufficient for the moment. If A in some way is able to have their editing rights returned, they should be on an extremely short leash, and the least slip up on their part should re-trigger this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• There may have been breaches of limbs 3.1 (attacks on personal characteristics), 3.3 (discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are), and, arguably, 3.2 (We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash) of our shiny new Universal Code of Conduct here. Refer to trust and safety, as the people who get paid to make the tough calls.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Is that an oppose? Valereee (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Kind of. I don't think this AN/I discussion should have an outcome because I feel that this is what the UCOC is for, and it's Trust & Safety's job to look at it. If this isn't what the UCOC is for then I have no idea at all what the UCOC is for.—S Marshall T/C 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, I have no idea what the UCoC is for either, but I'd rather not defer to it. That's just asking for trouble. enwiki can handle its own. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think Rockstone's last sentence gets to the heart of it: UCoC is for small projects that can't always take care of crap like this themselves. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• It has been said here that the opposers base their view on the premise that Athaenara was blocked for her political opinions rather than for making a personal attack. However, I think the sentiment is rather that while the deserved indefinite block and desysop were for the personal attack, a CBAN needs to be based on a long-term pattern of disruption, and there is very little to show for that apart from the analysis of the RfA !votes and some inappropriate talk page comments, all of which more or less fall in the realm of 'opinion'. I mean think about it, c-banning based on how one !votes in community discussions? It's very hard to positively demonstrate active discrimination, and that kind of thing is evidently a dangerous slippery slope. This is a general concern.

But in this particular case, it rather seems to me that those supporting a CBAN think that the one personal attack here and the lack of retraction in the immediate aftermath is egregious enough to never want Athaenara to return. In my view, that's too quick. I'd be more interested to hear from her what she thinks in, say, three months. I cannot believe that there isn't something else that is going very badly in her life right now (she has also said herself that she's in shock and that part of where I was coming from was simple hurt). I'm not overly optimistic, but just maybe when she's in a better place she'll be able to see just how wrong it was what she has done. She will need to do this in front of the community anyway, but a few months from now might be a better time for the community too to take a sober view. The worst part of this discussion right now is that there is by far not enough disinterestedness. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just clarifying that's an oppose? Valereee (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

While I would love to give her the benefit of doubt and assume a bad state of mind not only did she double down on her statement, but she also hasn't made a single attempt to apologize for how she acted and taking from your quote " I was coming from was simple hurt that my own womanhood is not as defensible in this milieu as transwomanhood is." she is deflecting her hate and using it as a medium to say that she felt 'hurt' by the thought of a transwomen's life being seen as easier? Please correct me if I'm reading the situation incorrect. But I fully support the desyop but an indef ban might be a lot. maybe a 1 or 2 year might be fair. Td^she/her 17:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: my actual position is that it would be better to adjourn this discussion and return to it at another time (e.g., when there's an unblock request), but if that's helpful, count it as an 'oppose at this time'. @Td: I believe your reading is fairly accurate, though there's probably a lot more going on that we don't know about (and don't really need to know about); my point is simply that often people need time to discern their mistakes, and that this is a situation where we should allow such time. Not acknowledging the gravity of a transgression is a common basis for rejecting an unblock request, but not for a CBAN. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had the same position until I realized, partly due to Barkeep49's and Newimpartial's replies, that what you are (and I had been) asking for is practically a community ban: A block that won't be removed without a community discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The policy is clearly written: Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Exception: A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban. The previous reviews of the block fall under the third-party exception. So if this proposal fails there will be no requirement that the community weigh in before an appeal is accepted. I think not doing some kind of community consult would be unwise. Very unwise. But not against policy.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Yes, you're right of course. The difference though is that, as I imagine, to be community-banned must feel different from being indefinitely blocked. It's one thing to know that you've done something the community will never accept and will have to address in your unblock request, it's another to know that you're banned by the Wikipedia community. There's probably a legalese term for this, but such subtle differences in procedure do exist for a reason, and I think it's important for us as a community to observe them. @Barkeep49: I have no fear that any unblock request will be brought up for community review, even if that is not strictly required by policy. But if a non-reviewed unblock were to happen, a community discussion would quickly ensue anyway, and my basic position is that this would be a more appropriate time to have that discussion. I assume that a bad unblock can be reversed by community consensus? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll state the obvious, but... we've had exactly this bad unblock, and drama, and an ArbCom case request about that situation, and complaints about involvement, and complaints about the re-block not having been necessary enough to justify its quickness, et cetera et cetera. So the answer to your question is surely "yes", but from my point of view it can't really be the kind of "yes" you may have meant when asking and assuming "yes". Ironically: "if a non-reviewed unblock were to happen, a community discussion would quickly ensue anyway" -- yes, that's here, right now... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two things here, (1) my position that some time needs to go over this and that we shouldn't go from indef to cban before a reasoned unblock request is made and reviewed in a calmed down atmosphere, and (2) the question whether that is in line with and feasible by regular WP procedure. If the answer to (2) is 'yes' then that does not automatically remove (1) from the table with a 'we're doing it now': no unblock request has been made, and we're not discussing this with the temporal and emotional distance I believe it requires. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The legalese term may be restorative justice, which is essentially what could happen during an appeal. From my view, a harm to the community has occurred and a community ban is a fundamentally preventative action, because it is designed to address the damage done and to allow the community to determine a constructive path forward. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No, what I meant is that jurisprudentially, fine distinctions made by the law tend be given meaning even if in practice they would amount to the same thing. While an indef and a cban may de facto be very similar, there is an important de iure difference which plays out on a socio-psychological level. That is why it's wrong to argue that the 'worse' of the two can be applied without further consideration because they're the same in practice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we are dealing with a fine distinction that amounts to the same thing, because either there is an indef block appealable to a single admin, which may result in the community questioning the admin action, or there is a requirement that the appeal be made directly to the community. But I think we may have different perspectives on how to approach the socio-psychological aspect here - from my view, it is better to allow the community to address the harms and discuss how and whether the damage can be repaired, at such time that Athaenara may wish to appeal. There is a socio-psychological aspect to the community as well, and providing reassurance that the community will be empowered to hear an appeal seems to be part of preventing future harm. Beccaynr (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. However this closes, it should have a clear message that an unblock should only happen upon community review. That is indeed essential. If a CBAN is technically needed for that, I have no problem with it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: a CBAN needs to be based on a long-term pattern of disruption - I understand that this is the plain meaning of the current rules language, but I think that "a long-term pattern" here has always stood in for something like "a pattern that the community cannot imagine changing", at least not without a complete change of heart from the disruptor. And I believe this is the situation we are now in.

Also, if a complete change of heart were to happen in the future - if Athaenara came to understand that she had done profound hurt to a number of people who are worthy of real human dignity, and that by doing so she did real harm to the WP community - I don't see how the community would have more difficulty recognizing and accepting this reversal in the event of a CBAN rather than an indef-ban (noting that, as things presently stand, technically any one admin could simply reinstate Athaenara as an editor on her request).

By providing structure, a CBAN seems to me most likely to reduce future drama, and the optimist in me sees it as also more likely to lay a path for her to reach a realization of the hurt she has done whereas, if this discussion is closed inconclusively and a path of simple reinstatement within the TBAN is open, she might imagine a return to editing with her prejudices - and her self-image as a victim or a martyr - intact.

Finally, if it's not too much trouble, I would ask you to read this reply to another editor, where I borrow their analogy to explore why the conclusions to be drawn from these events may differ depending on how we have experienced them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a CBAN now may reduce future drama, that's a very strong point it has going for it. I was tempted before to !vote something like 'support CBAN and close ASAP', but a snow close wasn't coming and ultimately I believe it's more important to get this right, even at the cost of some more drama. As for a CBAN being most likely to lead to a realization of how wrong she was, I think that gets to the heart of what we're discussing here. I truly believe that a desysop cum indef is a very strong message to send, and that if that doesn't work, nothing we as a wiki-community can do ever would (that we simply cannot do anything about it should really be taken as the most likely scenario). In my view, which is probably shared by many others here, a CBAN is over-the-top and precisely for that reason less likely to lead to the necessary acknowledgments.

With regard to reacting differently according to the difference in how we experience an issue, I also happen to fit the 'T' in LGBT to some extent, and I know from broader experience that sometimes 'passionate' reactions are needed to make people see the gravity of a situation. But on the other hand I've also seen enough to know that people who are directly affected by something often have a relatively poor judgment about that very thing. It drives you, but it also blinds you. It's good to know about it, and it's certainly normal that it will lead different people to take different views on things, but that goes both ways: those not directly affected may take a different view because of that, and it's not at all uncommon for that view to turn out to be the right view. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you entirely grasped the point I was trying to make with my prior link. I wasn't claiming any epistemological privilege based on experience but rather was pointing out that it matters that the attack was placed directly at people "in the room". What they/we say ought to matter in this discussion because we are in the room and directly affected, not because we are better positioned to interpret the rules (though I will also point out, as I have to other editors in less conspicuous venues, that I for one have invested heavily in taking greater analytical distance on queer issues rather than being led, as I once was, more by my passions).

As far as trying to get this right, what I think would be right in this scenario would be to provide the community with the assurance that any return of Athaenara to editing would be preceded by a public process discussing her application to do so. A desysop cum indef simply doesn't do that; a CBAN would. The oppose !votes that don't wrestle with this issue seem to me to be largely missing the point, perhaps because the editors in question are preoccupied with other concerns (imagined "witch hunts" or "political crusades", for example). Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the precipitating comment was egregious, as was the form in which it was made, the ADMINCOND issue has been expeditiously dealt with via a rapid desysop, and the containment of damage going forward via the topic ban proposal below.
  Looking beyond ADMINCOND towards regular editing ... Like Ealdgyth and others, I do not find the analysis of alleged similarities in past RFAs convincing, and view this as a singular incident from a long-time trusted user. No one has presented any evidence that views held by this editor have crossed over in to their editing or use of tools. WRT regular editing, we should be treating this editor like any other; a first offense of this nature would warrant a very long block, a strong warning, topic bans, extra eyes, etc ... but a first offense for a long-time trusted and previously uncontroversial user should not rise to the level of a site ban. In terms of slippery slope and consistency, we have admins who hold, routinely express, and act on via the tools strong biases, and the same can be said of many non-admins. Unless we are prepared to site ban any editor or admin who expresses views against any group of editors, ideology, race, religion, political view, gender identity, nationality, etc., it is hypocritical to site ban in this specific case.
  (I am iPad editing from a hotspot en route to airport and apologize in advance for any of my typical typos ... I thought siteban discussions had to run 30 days and just now saw the note below about closing tomorrow, so this is typed hurriedly.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Site ban discussions require at minimum 72 hours except in obvious SNOW cases per WP:CBAN but could certainly go longer if later participation is trending in a way that could potentially change the outcome. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thx, did not know that, would have like to have typed up better my oppose, but oh well ... out of time.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia I believe that if an admin is holding such disruptive and detrimental opinions that can not only affect them but others that they are meant to keep a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view about then that should be treated harshly and swiftly. When you become an admin you are saying that you will not only enforce the rules of Wikipedia but also follow them. If we don't treat @Athaenara with the same rules as we would to any other account that has sprouted transphobic, racist or otherwise disgusting language then we are failing to create an encyclopedia that is information based. Admin or not these action are against the rules and shall be treated as such.Td^she/her 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Thedefender35, please don't ping Athaenara here, I'm sure she's fully aware she's being discussed, and she can't respond. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yep completely forgot. sorry it's a force of habit.Td^she/her 19:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: What is your rationale that a siteban is necessary to prevent future disruption in light of the enactment of the topic ban below? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Topic bans are suitable for editors who would be net-positives to the community if just kept away from the topic area(s) they have disrupted. When someone has made clear that they discriminate against a portion of our editors on the basis of those editors' genders, a topic ban is insufficient to remedy the disruption they have caused. A GENSEX TBAN does nothing to keep Athaenara away from editors whose identities she has overtly, deliberately denigrated. This is similar to the logic by which JGabbard's recent block appeal (with proposal of a TBAN from areas he had been racist in) was overwhelmingly declined. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; for that reason (among others that have been repeatedly brought up in this discussion), the attempt to deny Isabelle adminship on the basis of gender identity is wholly inconsistent with Wikipedia's core values. The question here is to determine what the proper response is. Per WP:TBAN, The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. I disagree with your statement that [t]opic bans are suitable for editors who would be net-positives to the community if just kept away from the topic area(s) (emphasis mine); Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is not synonymous with the Wikipedia community. In my view, topic bans are suitable for editors whose edits are net-positives to the encyclopedia except for one particular area of their actions (for example, personal attacks in the projectspace).

  There are clearly issues with how the editor has addressed gender and sexuality within the projectspace (though I'm unsure of any problematic pattern of editing in the mainspace), and I think the TBAN will well serve to prevent future disruption in that area. But your response above doesn't convince me that a community ban here is a narrowly tailored way to prevent future disruption; in fact, it convinces me that the most narrowly tailored way is the TBAN we've implemented below. When TBANS fail to do their job, violations are enforced with blocks, and if the TBAN is repeatedly violated, it would make sense to WP:CBAN to prevent future disruption; WaltCip has wisely noted above that the relevant policy on community bans requires that an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia for CBANS to be imposed. And, frankly I don't see evidence of repeated disruption thus far; there's all of a single bright line personal attack that's provided here, but that's hardly enough to trigger the repetition requirement in the CBAN policy. For these reasons, I have to oppose a CBAN, though I endorse the TBAN decision made below as narrowly tailored towards preventing future disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not Tamzin, but what I see isn't only a single bright line personal attack - this attack was preceded by comments made in the 2019 Signpost controversy and followed by doubling-down comments on her Talk page since. Whether or not this triggers your interpretation of the repetition requirement, this is clearly a pattern. And the pattern is that this editor consistently demeans and attacks members of one specific vulnerable group.

  Your view that, without making an appropriately apology or giving key assurances, Athaenara could make a net positive contribution - given the chilling effect of welcoming back into the fold someone who, from a positition of community power and responsibility, launched an entirely unprovoked attack on them - well, I don't see any support for that view aside from some wishful thinking. The idea that "oh, we'll just block her again if she does something else wrong" strikes me as both an invitation to future disruption and drama, and also a calculation that it is appropriate to enhance the risk that minorities face future verbal attacks (by her, or by others who see her actions as successful) so that the community can avoid losing a semi-productive contributor. Colour me skeptical on that one. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to two points you've made here:

  1. The notion that this is somehow a calculation that it is appropriate to enhance the risk that minorities face future verbal attacks makes no sense in light of the community response taken as a whole; do you really think that anybody who seeks to conduct personal will be emboldened by the fact that we (a) desysopped the user within days of the comment being made, (b) topic banned them from GENSEX and (c) left intact an ordinary admin block, simply because they didn't get a wholesale CBAN? The notion that the community's response writ large serves in any way as a possible incentive to encourage future behaviour like that of the now-former administrator does not seem to be based in reality; on the contrary, the community's response thus far has already served to lessen the likelihood of others acting in a similar manner.
  2. Regarding Your view that, without making an appropriately apology or giving key assurances, please do not attribute views to me that I do not hold and have not expressed; there are differences between block and bans—a topic at the heart of this discussion—and falsely conflating my opposition to a CBAN with opposition to a block remaining in place (an opposition I do not hold) does not help move the discussion forward. The user is currently indeffed, and would need to convince an uninvolved administrator that they would be able to contribute productively. I cannot imagine that any administrator would generally unblock this person for general purposes of editing without apologizing for personal attacks and agreeing to abide by the TBAN, especially after the re-block by TNT.

  Additionally, Newimpartial, you have made no fewer than thirty-six comments in this ban discussion, per a wikitext search in this subsection for your signature [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]). While I understand that this discussion may engender passion, I would urge you to please avoid bludgeoning the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your last point is noted; for the second point, I can certainly imagine an uninvolved administrator unblocking six months hence without receiving an apology or acknowledgement of wrong-doing. In fact, I can imagine an administrator following quite strictly the logic of your prior comment (made at 20:39) in doing so. Being presently opposed to a block remaining in place says nothing about what the same admin would find appropriate in six months.

  As far as your first point goes, we are talking at cross purposes; I was talking about the "net positive" scenario where Athaenara is eventually permitted to resume editing without making an apology acceptable to the community at large. If that decision were made based on the logic you describe, I believe it would have the emboldening effect I describe. Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial: I was just about to make a very similar comment. As is said above, you have posted 36 times to this thread and, in addition, by my count, you have posted responses to a third of the 45 editors who have said they "oppose" in this thread. WP:BLUDGEON indeed. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If your position is that it is not an issue if editors unapologetically demand, on-wiki, the exclusion and persecution of their fellow Wikipedians based on their gender, so long as they don't mess with content, I think that is such an absurd position, at odds both with 20 years of Wikipedia policy evolution and with basic human decency, that it refutes itself. (And carries either the out-of-touch implication that failing to ban people under circumstances like these will not alienate trans editors, or the offensive implication that trans editors feeling comfortable editing here does not benefit the encyclopedia.) It is strange, though: I consider you a friend, and know you to be a deeply compassionate person, including regarding trans people; and yet this remark, which you've chosen to ping me on despite it not demanding any response, boils down to "You and all the other trans editors should just suck it up". (No need to ping again if you reply.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  With respect, Tamzin, I think I am being misread here (and perhaps that is my phrasing's issue); I do not support an unconditional unblock of this user. I do not think that trans people should have to endure harassment to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think that repeated disruption by a user in a project space (or any place on wiki, frankly) that constitutes harassment on the basis of gender is unacceptable and incompatible with editing on Wikipedia; if you note the link to the UCOC that I included in my statement, I don't think that my position is ambiguous in this respect. It is not my position that, as is stated in the first part of a conditional sentence above, it is not an issue if editors unapologetically demand, on-wiki, the exclusion and persecution of their fellow Wikipedians based on their gender, so long as they don't mess with content. What I am stating is that there is a difference between the sorts of things that we indefinitely block people for and indefinitely ban people for; the editor should not be unblocked absent an apology and agreement to abide strictly by the TBAN, but my reading of policy here is like that of WaltCip—I don't think we have authority to issue a community ban absent repeated disruption. The most narrowly tailored way to deal with this is to allow the block to remain in place and institute a TBAN as a community sanction, but I don't think that converting that block into a CBAN is a narrowly tailored way to address this issue in the absence of repeated disruption. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law. And one of our pillars is if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. From my view, we do have repeated disruption in the form of the initial conduct at the RfA and the conduct afterwards, and this discussion appears to largely revolve around the procedure for an appeal, and whether it should be made to a single admin or to the community. The term 'site ban' sounds severe, but it implements a procedural protection for the community related to the appeal process that in this situation, seems most likely to prevent further disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. This is an overreaction driven by the fact that gender these days is a hot-button topic. Athaenara made a highly unfortunate and disruptive remark, combining 1) an attitude to gender which is outdated and offensive to many, but unfortunately still shared by a wide portion of the population, 2) a weirdly and poorly worded objection to having more admins of (class X1=trans women) based on apparent expectation that this lowers the spaces available to or influence by (class X2=cis women), which is a misconception. The normal reaction to a meltdown of this sort would be a stern talking to, an apology offered by the person who had the meltdown, and a correction noted of the wrongful fact base. The additional evidence provided by Tamzin of Athaenara's RFA voting patterns is suggestive her judgment *might* be biased, but correlation is not causation. We do not ban people for possibly having consciously or unconsciously biased judgment at RFA. Bottom line is while Atheanara's behaviour has been highly unfortunate, the rush to desysop, block, ban, topic ban, and quickly pull all possible levers to show outrage and opprobrium is more harmful to the health of the community than the original remarks. Martinp (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  An analogy: As a Canadian, I have just had our annual Thanksgiving holiday, when extended families come together, and frequently socially retrograde and awkward remarks get made. If one of my elderly relatives had made a remark like Athaenara's here, how would I react? I would challenge it, indicate support on the spot (and later also in private if there was someone there targeted by it), and after some awkward silence pass the cranberry sauce. Not eject said elderly relative from dinner and loudly resolve never ever to invite her again. Martinp (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  This wasn't a private discussion among family members. Every aspect that is different between such a private discussion and the actual situation is an argument for the ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Private vs public I think is a red herring here. It was a remark made openly in a discussion forum of our community, which I think is analogous to a remark made around the dinner table in a large family gathering: public to the members of the community, conversation-stopping and needing addressing (but in my opinion not over-reacting to). That said, I respect that analogies are never perfect, opinions vary, and this specifically an area of heightened sensitivity in discourse. Martinp (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I still think that your use of the analogy loses sight of one key aspect: the "remark" included an insult based on an innate characteristic directed at one of the guests and in the presence of other guests sharing the same characteristic at which the mockery was directed. The person doing so also accompanied her remarks with something akin to "kick me out for speaking my truth; I don't care." Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't mean to badger, but I take serious exception to a passage near the end of the original statement, the rush to desysop, block, ban, topic ban, and quickly pull all possible levers to show outrage and opprobrium is more harmful to the health of the community than the original remarks (emphasis added). I don't see any sense in which this is true. The original remarks were calculated to attack a demographic group by attacking one of its members at a moment and in a venue - as others have noted here - when they were particularly vulnerable. In doing this Athaenara disrupted the community by demeaning and aiming to exclude people, and is also responsible for the further disruption she caused by doubling down on her remarks and portraying herself as the victim rather than the aggressor. The idea that editors and admins would, or actually did quickly pull all possible levers to show outrage and opprobrium suggests that the blocks and !votes Athaenara has seen in response are somewhat performative, which I find disturbing. As a person within the "Trans" umbrella, I would point out that if you believe this to be the case - if perhaps it is the case - then whatever sense of renewed safety I might have felt within the WP community as a result of action happening in response to Athaenara's attack is severely compromised. Your idea that the steps taken to ensure that people like me are safer within the project (not "safe"; anyone editing in the GENSEX area quite quickly encounters hate speech from IPs and SPAs alike) are "more harmful to the project" than the attack itself - well that makes me feel queasy, NGL.

  As a Canadian aside, when I encounter family situations where people actually do the equivalent of Athaenara's action - someone deliberately verbally attacking one or more of those "at the dining table" based on prejudices about their inherent traits - I do not, and would not advise anyone to, after some awkward silence pass the cranberry sauce. As the person attacked I would leave if I did not receive a clear message from the host that the attack would not be tolerated (and preferably also receiving an apology from the aggressor), and as a host I would in some way eject said elderly relative from dinner while making clear to them that they would not be invited back under my roof, whether or not the person attacked would be present, unless they made amends. Your phrase made a remark like Athaenara's seems to conjure up for you something quite different (in what you see as an analogy) from the deliberate attack on people immediately present that in this instance was what actually happened. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for engaging, @Newimpartial:. I regret that my comment makes you feel "queasy", and I hope that however this situation ends, you and others are able to regain a feeling of (greater) safety. But I think it should not be inconsistent to take comfort that there is near-universal opprobrium (including by me) of the remark Athaenara made about the group you are part of, with also feeling consternation at the uncontrolled firestorm of response by the community. To your point above, A is undoubtedly the (initial) aggressor, but she is also a (subsequent) victim. The former does not nullify the latter, or vice versa. Our exchange here has actually crystallized in my mind why I feel the need to speak up: it comes from personal experience. I am not trans, but growing up I had certain characteristics exposing me to some ridicule. At one point, some kids I didn't know made some clueless and gratuitously nasty threatening remarks. Friends I was with jumped to my "defense" and beat them up. I did feel a brief feeling of comfort and safety at my friends "standing up" for me, but it quickly turned to real discomfort how excessive and out of control my friends' response was. At the time, I was too confused and immature to process my feelings well, and ended up sorta losing those friends by not being appropriately grateful, but also unable to verbalize why. I'm not trying to establish an equivalence between what I briefly faced and what many trans people I assume routinely face, rather to explain why I am particularly sensitive to the pattern of community overreaction, which is what I think is what is happening here. I hope it is clear the community rejects the remark A made and the sentiment behind it; that will remain true whether or not the community leaves the door open a crack for A the individual to return vs slamming it shut and throwing away the key. Martinp (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I can't see any overreaction from the WP community, much less an uncontrolled firestorm. In the several days since Athaenara's remark, in which she has done nothing but double down and paint herself as a victim, she has (i) had admin tools removed, (ii) been topic-banned from the area within which she attacked editors based on an innate characteristic, (iii) been indef-blocked from editing (which can be overturned by a single admin, and already has been), and (iv) lost but then regained edit access to her own Talk page. She also faces a motion for a community ban. Which of these are you describing as an overreaction or a firestorm?

  Frankly, I find your comment that she is also a (subsequent) victim to be both inaccurate and offensive. In what sense is she a victim? With one quickly-corrected exception, I haven't seen any editors engage in name-calling or any other form of verbal abuse that would make a parallel with either her initial comments or her doubling down. Perhaps more significantly, I haven't seen anything akin to the beating her up that your friends did to the person teasing you in your memorable childhood experience. What on earth are you talking about? This seems like your Canadian Thanksgiving analogy, where you seemed to imagine a scenario where the elderly relative was not insulting your loved ones to their faces (at least, I hope you were not).

  I understand that you see something that feels like an overreaction to you, but I don't see anything that has actually happened that might be an overreaction. A number of editors want the assurance that any attempt by Athaenara to return to editing would be discussed by the community before it happens, an assurance that we do not have now and which a CBAN would provide. And then we have another group of editors saying they asking for this assurance is overreacting, that the door should be open a crack for her to return without an apology, without any meaningful assurance that she would not interpret her return as a private victory over "cancel culture" and vindication that she was the real victim after all. You may disagree with the validity of the concerns of the first group of editors, but even in that case I don't see how you can make her out to be "also a victim" under the circumstances. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Anyone who after 12(or however many) years as a member of this community, makes one remark, of any sort that I can imagine, and in the space of hours experiences your list (i) to (iv), plus likely several hundreds of comments being made about them, including a number expressing with great confidence exactly what was their intent in making the remark (when they were probably frustrated and angry when making the remark and quite likely not very clear about their intent themselves...), is a victim. It is their own fault, and they may also be an aggressor (as in this case), but they are also a victim. I am sorry that we can't see eye to eye on this, though rest assured I -- like I think everyone here --- disagrees with the sentiment A. expressed. I regret my comments in this thread seem to be causing you offense and/or concern (and empathize enough to recognize that if I were in your shoes I might feel the same way) and will therefore disengage, especially since I doubt anything I would say further would benefit others since opinions on this whole issue seem firmly held. Best wishes for healing for everyone from this unfortunate episode! Martinp (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  To briefly clarify our newly emerging points of disagreement: (i) it wasn't one remark, it was a sharpening and targeting of something she had already voiced in the Signpost "humorous essay" fiasco, and that she followed up in her subsequent commentary; and (ii) she didn't simply "experience" i through iv: she anticipated them in her "cancel me" comment. A decision to express long-held personal beliefs in public, in the form of a mocking attack on another person to discredit them, while taunting the community to "cancel" her, might turn someone into a "victim" if they are them doxxed, swatted, or subjected to sustained verbal abuse (all of which are happening to trans people literally all the time, by the way). If the initial aggressor simply loses privileges and then, after they have doubled down on their position, is removed from a community in which they volunteered for over a decade, I simply can't see them as being "victimized". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  If grandma said Susie can't cut the turkey because she's trans, I'd throw grandma out of my house and not invite her back next year. Levivich (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Really? I guess approaches vary. I would say right then and there, in front of everyone, "Grandma, that's a ridiculous reason to oppose!", let Susie cut the turkey, apologize afterwards to Susie that she had to deal with that (if I were the host, that is), and invite both Susie and grandma back next year. And would consider anything from grandma staying silent to grandma encouraging Susie to cut the turkey "since she did such a good job last year" as a win. In contrast, throwing grandma out of my house then and there would seem - to me - a gross overreaction. (Apologies, the analogy is perhaps a bit too frivolous given the strength of emotions about all of this. But it still represents my thinking.) Martinp (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  And so I wake up every morning and thank the Goddess I'm not Susie. Newimpartial (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've been in more than one Susie-type situation, and I can say that I would strongly favor Martinp's approach. But yeah, people can be different in these things. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  All I know is that if someone said in my presence "that 'nonbinary' lump shouldn't cut the turkey", I would not be sitting down to eat turkey with them without a meaningful apology. That's not negotiable for me. Newimpartial (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  On that subject: a lot of people would oppose if I ran for RFA, but they would all oppose because of something I had said or done, some edit(s) I had made, because of my behavior. No one would oppose because of who I am: a straight white cis-man. I never get attacked for my identity. That is my privilege. I hate it. Levivich (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, really, assuming grandma didn't immediately apologize. I actually think the analogy is pretty good, we just come to different conclusions. This actually happened in my family, except it was homophobia instead of transphobia. The homophobe was told in no uncertain terms that if he wanted a seat at the dinner table, he must be respectful of everyone else at the dinner table, including the gay members of my family. It doesn't matter how much seniority he had or whether he was otherwise a wonderful guy: if you want to eat dinner with us, you treat everyone else with respect, or else you get out. To me, the overreaction--or more specifically, the inappropriate reaction--wouldn't be throwing grandma out, it would be forcing Susie to eat dinner with grandma after grandma attacked Susie. In this case, Athaenara hasn't retracted. If she did (and, hopefully, when she does), I'd welcome her back to the dinner table. Until then: out. Levivich (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been mulling this over for a couple of days and this is the conclusion I've come to. The block was good and necessary to prevent further damage. The comment was calculated to be hurtful and will have caused great distress to members of our community. It's not the unpopular and outdated opinion that's the problem, but the deliberately provocative way in which it was expressed and used to attack a contributor with no regard for their contributions and he block was necessary to prevent a continuation of that. The desysop was good and necessary because Athaenara's conduct is clearly not comaptible with the level of trust we have in our admins. But there is no imminent disruption that would be prevented by a ban, it would be purely punitive and based on emotion. The ball is in Athaenara's court now. Let's allow the emotion to subside and if or when Athaenara wants to return, we can discuss on what terms, if any, we're willing to have her back. By the way, the "free speech" proponents might find XKCD illuminating. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  This may seem nitpicky, but could you take a moment to explain who "we" is exactly in the sentence "we can discuss"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  24 hours and an edit summary ping later, closure upcoming. Well. I'll assume it refers to the community, which contrasts with "Oppose" unless the word "can" is meant to say that having such a discussion prior to unblocking should remain optional. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm a little torn on this. Obviously her behaviour was more than unnaceptable, for reasons clear to everyone. But if she at some point successfully appeals her indefinite ban, she will be TBANned from this topic altogether, and kept on a very short leash and not allowed any further transgressions. One thing a couple support !voters said that I agree with is that her comment looks like a suicide by cop. As an experienced editor, she should've known that a ban is the likely response for such a comment, so she presumably would have been expecting to get banned. Why she did it then, I don't know. But these kinds of self-destructive behaviours can come from heat of the moment emotions, and it's still possible she'll decide she wants to apologise, and come back to normal editing, desysopped and TBANned from all of this stuff. Endwise (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  In which case the CBAN would work just fine, no? At the moment any single admin could decide to unblock without an apology. Newimpartial (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  In practise, I don't think so? I'm willing to believe Xaosflux here, who said above that The existing indef-block [...] will already be non-trivial to overcome. An admin already did unblock her and she was switfly re-blocked. Presumably(?), she'd have to say something more than "screw you guys I did nothing wrong" in her unblock request to be unblocked. Endwise (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Technically, I don't think that's true at all. An admin who unblocks unilaterally at present might look pretty foolish, but there wouldn't be anything to prevent it except not wanting to look foolish. Six months from now, it is easy to imagine an admin accepting an unblock based on a request rationale of "I will observe my TBAN and avoid further trouble" - which is nothing like an apology but which wouldn't be subject to scrutiny by the community according to any existing process. Newimpartial (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well an apology would definitely be nice, but if in six months Athaenara successfully appeals just by saying "I will observe my TBAN and avoid further trouble", keeps her head down and does some non-controversial content creation a million miles away from anything GENSEX, I guess that would be an acceptable scenario too. As long as the TBAN (and strong community admonishment) successfully prevents Athaenara from doing further harm to Wikipedia/its community of editors, then I guess that's good enough. If it's not enough, then there's nothing stopping us from revisiting the CBAN at a later date. Endwise (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that this scenario would be acceptable. Such a return to editing would necessarily have a chilling effect on the editors that she attacked, and an encouraging effect on disruptive editors who would feel (partially) immune to "cancellation". Newimpartial (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose any CBAN of former admin Athaenara. The pound of flesh already extracted is wholey sufficient redress and I ask my colleagues who advocate for more pummeling to please unclinch their fists and help with the facilitation of needed healing instead. After all, it's a far better thing that one's hands can assist, and many are in need of much; all participants have, more or less, been injured for drawing near this sorry affair! Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  While many might have been injured in this all those injuries are not the same severity. I for one have suffered no near as much as Isabella or some others despite being near this sorry affair. I ask you @John Cline to consider striking that line without which your oppose rationale still stands. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I apologize to any who may have misunderstood my comment and perhaps, therefore, been aggrieved. I honestly believe that you have misunderstood me, and before aggrieving anyone respected as much as I respect you, I'd rather not had commented at all. In saying: "All participants have, more or less', been injured ...", I certainly meant to infer that some were clearly injured more than others. Admitting that my wound is most probably among the examples of those injured least doesn't lesson the effect of aftershock vaunerability or mean that I can not empathize with those injured more. In all conceivable examples, continued decryals and insatiable bloodthirsty demands are counterproductive in leau of recouperative healing which I advocate for here and now. That said, I'll stand on my comment as given, or I'll strike it entirely; a decision I'm not committed to making until after I've given it full consideration; some time after today. In either regard, this is my final comment related to the matter at hand and I leave it for others, from here, to resolve. Best regards. --John Cline (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• reluctant Support In that (as we have seen) unblocking would be a controversial act. While I could not see such an unblock occurring, it did and will be discussed by ArbCom. Formalizing the CBAN will reduce the likelihood of anyone making the same mistake again. This is not pummeling, nor are my fists clinched. To assert that this is some sort of emotional response is fallcious in its most favorable reading. Her (bizarre) hate speech is indeed worthy of a CBAN.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Zero tolerance level hate speech is unacceptable no matter how long a user has been here and no matter what their role is/was. Zero tolerance means-- zero tolerance. And as the user is indefinitely blocked for this zero-tolerance conduct, a CBAN is needed to require unblocking be brought to the Community for discussion rather than being done as the decision of a single admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Deepfriedokra. There's already consensus for indefinite block, so CBAN would be just harmless formality to prevent any bold unblocking. a!rado (C✙T) 13:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Here at Wikipedia we are editors. Anyone who thinks that someone should not be an editor, or afforded the same regard as any other editor, because of any reason unrelated to their editing is not needed on the project. The community needs to assert this standard every time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Regretful but strong support. I acknowledge that this has been a difficult time for Athaenara, and I sympathize with her. Forced separation of a long-term Wikipedian can really sting for that user; I’d be devastated if it happened to me. That’s to say nothing of whatever the person may be going through off-wiki. If (and this is not an obligation, merely what I would personally like to see) Athaenara were to pledge to never, ever weaponize prejudices against individuals or groups again, then I could see myself possibly supporting an unblock down the road. That having been said – speaking as someone who has admired Athaenara’s previous work, but also as an LGBTQ ally, I sadly feel it behooves me to support a community ban. As many have said before me, several of whom have opposed the ban, what Athaenara did at Isabelle’s RfA was horrifying. In my 15 years as a Wikipedian, that was hands down one of the worst personal attacks I have ever seen on this site. You just can’t flagrantly disrespect someone’s identity like that – in the middle of a high-stress public forum, no less! I respect that Athaenara’s feelings were genuine, but her actions have the potential to make groups of Wikipedians feel uncomfortable with her presence, and that is one of the severest forms of disruption I can imagine. I am pleased that she has been desysopped and the topic bans have passed, but I honestly do not feel fully comfortable stopping short of a site ban here. This is a collaborative project and we must rebuke hate speech in the strongest terms. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 18:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• support I've been thinking about this for this for a few days now, and come to the conclusion to support this CBAN. Opposing someone because of their gender identity (wether at RfA or elsewhere) is simply far beyoynd what is acceptable in a project that generally allows anyone to contribute to it. The Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care suggests that the RfA comment was left with intention, and very likely the expectation that it would result in a block/ban. Secondarely, we already had one admin attempt to unliterally overturn the block, and making this a formal CBAN would gurantee that the community is consulted before any unblock. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree with the notion that 16 years of good service to the community can not be overwritten by one comment however bad it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, but leave blocked until there is a convincing agreement to do better. --Rschen7754 23:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Re: closers

This probably would benefit from a panel close. Guerillero and I are willing to do this (unless multiple other people are dying to give it a go). Also a third experienced panel closer would be a plus, email him or me. The closing can't be before UTC 1900 tomorrow, if I'm reading the various timestamps correctly. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: Do you think you should participate in the closing if you've already offered an opinion in this thread that Athaenara in her offending post was guilty of "intentional disruption"? Not a loaded question, I genuinely don't know the answer. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @DeCausa, no worries, it's a fair question, and I hope I'd not assume it was loaded. :) I don't think I'm involved w/re whether this proposal should be supported or opposed. A person stating "go ahead, cancel me" pretty clearly indicates the person at that moment knew what they were saying was controversial and had decided that (again at that moment) they didn't care but I'm not sure it actually matters much here in this discussion. That's more for what comes after, I think. For the editor's rethinking and reprocessing. In this discussion -- whether or not a block should be converted to a community ban -- I don't think it's really very important. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. From what I've seen of you previously I have no doubt that you would assess this fairly. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa, if I am assessing consensus here, I will do my best to assess it with as much neutrality as I can. I will absolutely look at it from every possible viewpoint and comb carefully through the !vote statements to try to find consensus. I will argue with the others in the closing panel to consider viewpoints other than theirs and other even than my own. I consider this a very important issue, I realize it affects actual human beings, and am serious about it. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think just one person should close this. Nothing particularly complex or that involves a lot of policy nuances. Just a lot of text to get through. I do think that this absolutely should not be NAC'd. There's already a block in place, but in general ban discussions should be closed by someone who can implement the ban as needed, and I think that's a good principle to stick to here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with what Tony says. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's not that it's so much policy that it needs multiple people, it's that IMO it would be helpful to have multiple people agree where consensus lies. People are emotional on both sides, so it needs a thoughtful closing statement (which in my experience is also often helped by an extra set or two of eyes). Basically I think a panel close is not a bad idea when a challenge or review would be more drama. Valereee (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any harm in a panel close, and by making the close more definitive it could forestall some more drama. So while it may not be necessary and should not set a precedent, the choice to do it that way seems helpful to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  As an "oppose" I have no illusions what the close is almost certainly to be. It seems obvious and not difficult to ascertain: a panel is not strictly necessary. However, I agree with David Eppstein, a panel would nevertheless help to forestall any further drama. DeCausa (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support panel close due to the emotional involvement. It should reduce the resulting drama if people disagree vehemently with the close, and give an extra degree of assurance that it was closed "correctly."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support panel close, as is often wise in these charged situations. BD2412 T 19:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support panel close - this is one of those high-profile discussions that could benefit from the integrity of a panel close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• As I've said in previous situations where a group closure was suggested, if whoever wants to close the discussion is more comfortable doing so as part of a group, sure. I don't feel the community should dictate one in this case, though. Whoever is doing the work can decide what works best for them. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed alternative sanction

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.

---

Iff there is not a clear consensus for a site ban for Athaenara, I propose as an alternative that this editor receive a three-month block, followed by an indefinite topic ban from editing any content in any gender-related article (including any article on any LGBTQ person), and from participating in RfA and other discussions relating to user status. The latter sanctions may be appealed after one year. Removal of the latter topic bans will be contingent on the editor displaying an affirmative understanding of the fact that gender identity is of no relevance in assessing a Wikipedian's fitness to hold any role in this project. BD2412 T 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as an alternative, as proposer. BD2412 T 23:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there should not be a time limit on the block here. Unless and until Athaenara shows some understanding for why what she said crossed the line so egregiously and commits to not doing such again there should not even be a discussion about an unblock. I am in favor of an indefinite, though not infinite, block. I doubt there ever will come a time when an unblock request is made that actually merits unblocking, but I can hope to be proven wrong. But a time limited block is way too lenient here. nableezy - 23:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose there should be no argument over whether she deserves the block. the overwhelming amount of supports for the full site ban should make that very clear. I honestly don't understand why we needed to make a second section? If we as a community allow this blatant violation off with anything less then what is required then we have failed to help protect others.Td^she/her 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• This proposal is weird for multiple reasons: A three-month block in place of an indefinite one? Proposing alleged requirements for lifting a ban? The community can always decide to remove the ban for any reason. As long as this has no support, BD2412, you should probably withdraw this proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @ToBeFree: So if there is not a consensus for a site ban, then there is no consequence, yes? BD2412 T 00:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  She would remain indefinitely blocked. nableezy - 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not without a community consensus for an indef block. BD2412 T 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, thats not how this works at all. See here for why an indef block and lack of a CBAN are not mutually exclusive. nableezy - 00:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why, then, is there a discussion of a site ban in the section above at all? BD2412 T 01:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  To transform the indefinite block in to a community ban. If the outcome is not in favor of a community ban that does not somehow cause the indefinite block to be lifted. nableezy - 01:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  As it stands, there is a substantial portion of participants in that discussion who are opposing even an indef. BD2412 T 02:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose an admin could try to use that as a reason to unilaterally unblock, but Id expect that to not end well for that admin. nableezy - 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Today, perhaps, but some months down the road? An unblock in response to an unblock request is ultimately within the discretion of the answering admin. Unless, of course, there is community consensus for either a site ban or a ban of specified duration. BD2412 T 02:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Id hope any admin that wanted to retain the trust of the community would bring any unblock request they thought had merit here or to AN for consideration rather action it themselves, but Ive been disappointed on the internet once or twice before. nableezy - 02:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would Support this alternative in lieu of a comprehensive site ban. A site ban is way too extreme a punishment. A topic ban and temporary block to give time for Athaenara to revisit her conduct is appropriate. They have already been desysopped, lambasted, and labeled as a pariah on multiple levels. Enough of this already. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an admin we are talking about. Maybe if it was a normal account it would be viable if giving a longer time for the ban but an admin with more then sixteen years of experience doing these things. This is insane and should be treated harshly.Td^she/her 23:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• support I support this over the original proposal. For transparency, I've opposed the original proposal. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This should not be stored behind a time lock. She could just wait out the shitstorm and then come back with her bigotry. She dared the community to "cancel" them. Oblige her. --AdamF in MO (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the indef block should stand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Athaenara needs to show that she can be a respectful member of the community, starting with meaningful acceptance of what she did wrong here. We can't know how long this will take her and so indefinite is the appropriate length of time. I support the topic bans but will support the alternative below to show that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This is seems like a reasonable solution. We have to remember that we shouldn't just completely throw out a user who once made many good contributions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  That is precisely what we should do. Why should wikipedia behave any differently than any other place. In a work place, or a social space, she would be ejected for those comments, regardless of the value of her contributions. We should be no different. AdamF in MO (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the indefinite block offers Athaenara an opportunity to address the harm caused by her conduct, and appears necessary to prevent further disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: AdamF in MO's and Barkeep49's phrasings work just fine. Ravenswing 02:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal and any time limited block. An indefinite block is the absolute minimum required for this egregious and cruel personal attack on a specific editor in an a high visibility place, and also on a group of editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Would amount to a wrist-slap. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose reducing the indef block. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Support. Sensible. Not knee jerk. After three months, see what happens. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A three-month block, following by consideration of an unblock request. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I could see this having traction if Athaenara had done anything to suggest that she accepts she was in the wrong and/or had offered any type of apology to Isabelle for her personal attack. No, we've had neither of those, only complaints about her own treatment. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support this proposal, I don't think I've ever seen a 1st time indef block for a single personal attack before. However, the scope of the TBAN proposed above should be narrowed to be equivalent to the one proposed below (the proposal to ban any edit on an article about any LGBTQ person is way too broad, just because someone is considered LGBTQ by reliable sources doesn't mean that their LGBTQ status is a significant part of that person's life (or even that they consider themselves to be part of the LGBTQ community)). I do support a TBAN as it should prevent further disruption and drama. Iffy★Chat — Preceding undated comment added 9:43, 13 October 2022‎ (UTC)

• We indef people for gratuitous hate speech all the time, it's simply that they're not usually administrators that have been here for 16 years, for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Observe ANI for any length of time and you'll see plenty. Just one editor in a single week being indeffed for a single egregious action constitutes a tidal wave of civility. Ravenswing 11:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whether or not we convert the indef into a CBAN, I can see absolutely no justification for the block to expire. If she wants to come back she should appeal herself. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indef blocks aren't infinite. At any time, she could make a block appeal that could be compelling enough to end the block. I understand there's an impetus to swing the pendulum back in the other direction from the drastic indef-and-desysop that was done earlier this week, but this isn't the way to do it. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• OpposeShe has a path towards restoration: renouncing her bigoted statements and attitudes towards trans/non-binary people. Unless and until that happens, I don't see these kinds of complex sanction regimes as worthwhile. --Jayron32 12:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any time-limited block is a non-starter for me. While some people are capable of change and significant growth, and truly and genuinely abandoning bigoted positions they once held, it happens at different speeds for different people, and we cannot know when or if it will happen here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (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.

Topic ban proposals

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

---

I will restate my topic ban proposals here separately from the siteban or any changes to Athaenara's indefinite block. If the siteban happens, the topic ban also applies on top of it. I suggest that Athaenara be indefinitely topic banned from:

• Gender and sexuality, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to all namespaces, not just articles.
• Participation in requests for adminship and any venues where a user's permissions may be changed.

She must remain unbanned and unblocked for at least 1 year to appeal these bans. Getting blocked will reset these cooldowns, with them only beginning to tick again when she gets unblocked. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Just a nitpick—I would expand the participation ban to all user status/permissions discussions. BD2412 T 01:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think we should ever make someone wait longer than a year to appeal their TBAN restrictions. A year is a long time onwiki and is the traditional amount of time (along with 6 months) that we make people wait to appeal such things. Mellohi! will you consent to this change? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49 and BD2412: I have accepted your amendment suggestions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Support regardless of whether the CBAN passes. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above. BD2412 T 02:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Bare minimum. --SamX 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: A gender issues TBAN is the route one would expect with this sort of thing. No reason for anything different. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support regardless what happens with the siteban. It's the least we can do. Madeline (part of me) 05:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the siteban proposal. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is the normal way to handle people who cannot seem to keep their opinion on a topic from becoming incivil hostility.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support a standard TBAN, there's no need to add conditions to the appealability to the TBAN that we don't apply to other users. If the user misuses TBAN appeals, the community can deal with that when it happens. Iffy★Chat -- 09:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support as second choice, after CBAN above. --Jayron32 12:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just want to note that this does not need to be a second choice. If both were passed and the community ever repealed her CBAN, this TBAN would remain in place; I presume almost everybody agrees this topic ban would be necessary for her to return. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. --Jayron32 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support as an obvious bare minimum. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Although a site ban looks likely, this is a bare minimum should she ever return to editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. Barring someone from participating in RfAs and other permission change discussions makes me a little uneasy because it feels unprecedented and perhaps not the most well-supported, but we would need to have this conversation if she ever did return to editing. And no qualms with the gender and sexuality part. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: Regarding "unprecedented", for what it's worth (as someone who will likely not !vote on this alt-proposal), at least one user has been TBANned from RfA outright. At least three other users [42] [43] [44] have received the lesser sanction of only asking questions and casting !votes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support let this not preempt additional bans however. Schierbecker (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If the CBAN passes, this should be read as support for the topic bans in addition to the CBAN, not in lieu of. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Should she ever make it past the indef, and/or the cban. (Personal attack removed) This will be a good basis for any group or admin to consider if she appeals her ban.
  AdamF in MO (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Adamfinmo, let's not talk about bring a woman to heel. Please strike that. Valereee (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee, Newimpartial, 🌈WaltCip I sure didn't mean it to be misogynistic. But since I wrote it and that's how it was taken, that must mean I fucked up my message. Sorry about that. I was wrong and I'll make efforts to check myself. Thanks for fixing it and giving me a dose of sanity. I should leave hyperbole to the experts. cheers --AdamF in MO (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Re:This will make sure she comes to heel - using misogynist language in an ANI vote isn't a good look, brah, even if you're being "ironic". Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please consider the advice of Valereee and Newimpartial. Tempers are already flaring around this whole situation. Don't make it worse with sexist (even if unintentional) language. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Adamfinmo what do you mean by "this will make sure she comes to heel"?Td^she/her 19:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  A-yup. Muphry's law, part the Nth. Sufficient discussion about offensive sexist remarks will necessarily engender further offensive sexist remarks... and so on until every last man Jack of us is eventually indefinitely banned. Someone might suggest we all go and edit articles or something, but let's not be ridiculous. --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support While I hope that the indef ban goes through at the very least a topic ban is required. It hurts my heart to see admins argue over something like this. As a previously banned user I do believe in second chances so maybe a year or two away from the site might do some good for her mental.Td^she/her 19:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support While I oppose the indef ban i do support topic bans and the topic ban along with the desyop seems reasonable. Qwv (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is an obvious remedy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- Very good idea. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support the topic bans on top of the site ban and also support an inability for Athaenara to appeal the topic bans until one year has passed since an unban and unblock. Acalamari 22:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - this needs to be closed as WP:SNOW. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  It needs to be open for at least 24 hours, per my reading of WP:CBAN. The actual c-ban itself needs to be open for 72. The above was such a snow close against that it's unlikely anyone would object, but this one is obviously going to end support, so it's best to wait another couple hours just to be on the side of the angels. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support – but on the condition it's done permanently. I wish there was some way to limit the ability for her to interact with openly trans editors on their talk pages as well. Cause I feel like that's still an avenue for bigotry. Fred Rogers taught us (most of us) as kids to accept everyone for who they are as a core message. That goes both ways. I am a very, very accepting person of all people positively with what they choose to be gender wise. I myself came out as non-binary on August 29. At the same time, I also accept that there are people in this country, and world, with a lot of hate based on the way they were raised. There are multiple members of my mother's family who are either members or supporters of the Ku Klux Klan. As a future civil rights professor, that pisses me off. That being said, I accept that people who I once respected have certainly made me accept that I have no interest in further interacting with them. To quote the Fred Rogers quote on my userpage, "We're all on a journey. Each one of us. And if we can be sensitive to the person who happens to be our neighbor, that to me is the greatest challenge as well as the greatest pleasure." Everyone of us is on this site as part of our journey in life and we all share the same goals. But at the same time, we need to be sensitive to the people who may be different from us and not use bigotry on a site where ANYONE can edit. Not if you meet criteria x, y or z based on social constructs. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • With the whole permanent thing, that's saying that a community consensus now should always override any potential community consensuses to the contrary no matter the circumstances, which is contrary to how consensus works (WP:CCC). That said, given the circumstances the Tbans--if implemented--probably have a high degree of permanency. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Valereee: Should be "appealable 1 year after the expiry of her most recent block or ban", not "appealable after 1 year". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:15, 14 October 2022 (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.

• @Mellohi! and Valereee: There is currently an incosistency between Valereee's close (Appealable in 1 year) and Mellohi!'s listing at WP:EDRC (Athaenara must remain unblocked for at least one year to be eligible to appeal these restrictions). Madeline (part of me) 12:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think a small adjustment that the 1 year shouldn't start until they are unblocked, not from "now" would do. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that the continuous unblock is also important, I got EC's trying to support this proposal, but that is in the preamble. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've added that, thanks for pointing out it wasn't clear! Valereee (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, I had to specify in the EDRC listing that the ban explicitly applies to RfA as well (the closing message only specified WP:PERM). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  RfA is a request for permissions. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee: If we're nitpicking, there's also, counterintuitively, a difference between a ban from "gender and sexuality" and a ban from the WP:GENSEX topic area... although people use the two interchangeably so often, to such an extent that (strictly speaking impermissible) DS TBANs have been issued from the former under the auspices of the latter, that perhaps it's not worth trying to sort out. I dunno. 🤷 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  By default t-bans are broadly construed to all discussion unless specified otherwise. GENSEX is "any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." One of the reasons I hate topic bans is that it's so easy for people to be on the wrong side of one. Is a typo fix at Olympic Decathlon a violation? Well...yeah, it's quite likely someone would complain. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2022 (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.

Range block required for roving IP disruption

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.

---

A range of IPs beginning with "2A04:4A43:4D..." have all edit warred with @NEDOCHAN at Michael Bisping about the subject's ethnicity, while also making frequently disruptive edits at other pages. These IPs including [45], [46], [47], [48] and [49]. The second and fourth IP also overlap at Islamic holy books, which sees another two "2A04:4A43:4D" IPs, [50] and [51], making disruptive edits. It seems very likely that this is not the full picture. Overall, major coincidence, major disruption. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I missed [52], common with the fifth IP at Graeco-Arabic translation movement, and there may be others: [53],[54]. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is Loverofediting/Whodatttt (SPI). Loverofediting was blocked for a month for disruptive editing back in February [55] and Whodatttt was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing in June [56] (ANI AN3). This also goes further than mere disruptive editing: admins should probably look at this revdelled edit to see what they are capable of. The Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D4F:CBDB::/40 range used by them was also independently blocked a few times [57]. Characteristic is that they push an Islamist POV on several pages, Fraxinetum being a pet peeve. I think that a longer range block on the /40 is warranted. Pinging Girth Summit, who has looked into this before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Eric: This is the explanation for that edit at Fraxinetum. A range block is needed. Srnec (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec: Thanks, I thought it might be something like this. Same pattern coming from Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D6F:CEAB:F81E:E2E2:34A2:8BFA, by the way. Eric ^talk 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We seem to have caught Girth Summit in a busy period, but the disruption is just continuing [58] [59]. In that last diff they are again hounding, which in combination with [60] feels quite uncomfortable. Can some admin please apply a range block? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we can add Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D7F:D7FA:E5DC:CBD3:CCC4:FF51. Should we be adding these addresses to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whodatttt/Archive? Eric ^talk 22:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Eric: both IPs you named here belong to the 2A04:4A43:4D4F:CBDB::/40 range. An IP range is a collection of IP addresses that in most cases get assigned to a specific geographic area; they can be larger or smaller depending on the number after the forward slash '/' (larger number = smaller range). When small enough, they can more or less coincide with the IP addresses assigned to one single user, so blocking that range will block most or all IPs ever assigned to that user. We have a specific range calculating tool in which you can drop a number of IP addresses, and it will give you the smallest range containing them all. The smallest range containing all the 2A04:4A43 addresses named in this report is the /40 range. That /40 range is also named both at the Loverofediting SPI and the Whodatttt SPI. It has twice been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for a month [61] but given the revdelled edit indicated above I think it should be blocked for a longer period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is also characteristic. Now thankfully blocked for 6 months by Ad Orientem after reports were made at AIV and AN3. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:42, 18 October 2022 (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.

67.80.249.131 once again

Resolved

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

User was blocked for a year in October 2021 and recently came back to make the exact same kind of disruptive edits as before (main issue I came across is the repeated removal of nicknames against the MOS:NICKNAME guideline like here, here or here). The user was at ANI twice before afaics (see first and second time) and has been warned/notified and blocked repeatedly for this exact behaviour. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Reblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

IP consistently removing content they believe is wrong

2001:8F8:173D:559C:7C74:A3AE:6A0D:FAC7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Removed Kashmir from Settler colonialism 4 times, despite reliable source. [62] [63] [64] [65]

They are citing their unsourced reasoning on the talk page as to why they keep removing. [66]

Plus this message on my talk page, which I don't really mind, but it's kind of out of line [67] WPscatter ^t/_c 08:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA about to cross bright line on reverts. Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours: User_talk:2001:8F8:173D:559C:7C74:A3AE:6A0D:FAC7#Block. El_C 12:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP on Edit Warring page

Legal threat post link: Link

Quick story: The IP 109.242.213.53 has repetitively done an edit which is wrong in the 2022–23 Super League Greece page. I reverted it and it led to an edit war (in their former IP), causing them to get blocked from a former edit warring post: Link. I also noticed that this user had made another wrong edit, which I also mentioned in the post above.

Now, I noticed that the same edit happened in 2022–23 Super League Greece page from another IP, which had the same talk page, which was a hint that both were operated from the same user. Therefore, I reported them again. Because of that, the user made a legal threat to me (in Greek), as because of my reporting them, they say that "they will sue me, as I am watching everything they do in Wikipedia and watching someone is illegal". SteliosGR (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Given their "cover up at night" comment, they're in a poor position to complain. I've also removed a lot of extraneous talkpage content. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 2600:1003:B016:C21C:0:57:33C6:2801 (talk · contribs)

see here; also note repeated attempts to change genre without prior discussion or per 'own consensus' here, here and here. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked by OrangeMike. --Jayron32 14:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Block evading Brazil IPs

• 2804:D41:B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This is about block evasion by User:PieceOfMind83 who was reported last week at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#Partial block on IP brings out registered user. The registered user was blocked, and also an IP4 address from Brazil, but the person is continuing the disruption with IP6 addresses.[68][69][70] Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the /40 range for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

• Vessels Creative Studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Orangemike has pulled TPA from that user. --Stylez995 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 2600:1003:B016:C21C:0:57:33C6:2801 (talk · contribs)

see here; also note repeated attempts to change genre without prior discussion or per 'own consensus' here, here and here. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked by OrangeMike. --Jayron32 14:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Eddienahui's attitude

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.

---

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

This user is relatively new: account created and first edit on August 16, 2022. Their first edit was to create a userpage saying: "I'm not interested in making friends. Go away and let me do my stuff in peace." On August 24, they created Draft:Pierre Ken as an article about a Japanese porn actor. It was tagged as an WP:A7 on October 14. Eddie contested the deletion, saying: "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's good enough for the Japanese wikipedia. This is only being deleted because of anti-Asian racism - plain and simple. This site has a terrible problem with any content that has to do with stuff outside of the Anglosphere. This being deleted is just another example of that." I also noticed that underneath the notification of the A7 on the user's Talk page, they said something similar about "racism". I declined the A7 but draftified it. My draftification automatically left a notice on the user's Talk page. I appended the following personal note: "Your comments on the Talk page and on your userpage are at best unconstructive. I strongly urge you to drop the stick. If you believe that the English Wikipedia is "anti-Asian", then perhaps you should not be editing here." Today, they responded: "I'm going to ignore this because it's rude and unconstructive."

That's just background to why I escalated to here: They edited their userpage, which now says: "User:Bbb23 is a Wikipedia administrator. He looks over different Wikipedia articles for hours. Instead of children, a business, or anything that will contribute to the common and collective heritage of mankind, he admins Wikipedia. And he does it for free." (I've removed the line breaks)

Regardless of whatever constructive editing the user is doing here (they don't have that many edits yet), their attitude is very concerning. Given their attack against me, I didn't see much point to my talking to them further about their problems, so I brought it here. This is a collaborative project. Not only have they made it clear that they are uninterested in collaboration, but they have a chip on their shoulder about Wikipedia and attack editors who challenge their conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google search on your username reveals multiple threads on Quora dating back several years, a multiple page thread on a site I didn't know about called "wikipediasucks", and a Linkedin article dated this year (2022), each detailing your bad behavior.

It also seems that you got your CU privileges taken away for doxxing people and hated this so much, you had a temper tantrum over it and quit for a month.

Curious. Eddienahui (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Odd contrib history. Article edits appear to be constructive. Comments on an editor's talk page appear civil.[71] However, Eddienahui starts off with a chip on their shoulder from their first edit, and compounds it with attacks on others, particularly admins in edits to their talk page and accompanying edit summaries: es:"given how many of you are fucking weebs", hostile descriptions of "average Wikipedia admin"[72][73]; also this es on an article: "...if you wikipedophiles STOP being fucking retarded". Personally, I don't think any edits they've made or might make in the future are valuable enough to keep them around with that attitude. Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see those before I replied below. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree with ThadeusOfNazereth based on their comments left on their user page, talk pages, edit summaries and here in this discussion. WP:NOTHERE applies. --ARoseWolf 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a blatant violation of the tenants of this project. At best it is an unconstructive and noncollaborative personal attack. I implore Eddienahui to remove this from their user page and only comment on the edits of others and stay away from commenting on the personal lives of editors, whether they know anything about them or not. --ARoseWolf 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine.

Just as long as I don't have to deal with Bbb23 again. Eddienahui (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Eddienahui, you decided to be a volunteer editor on a volunteer project. You can not dictate with whom you will or will not "deal" with as this is a collaborative effort where assuming good faith is not just a recommendation but a requirement. You can, however seek an interaction ban, but I caution you that there is no guarantee of results and you may or may not like the outcome. --ARoseWolf 15:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me put it simply then: I'm not comfortable dealing with someone who had their special mod powers revoked for doxxing people. Eddienahui (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's on the web, particularly on a site with a name like "wikipediasucks", it must be true. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think it's strange that our protagonist has multiple complaints going back over years when that's not the case for other prominent admins?

Anyway, I changed the user space. Eddienahui (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate that you're deflecting from the subject at hand instead of actually discussing it. Whatever concerns there may have been the user was not stripped of their administrator ability, which makes it largely irrelevant in this context. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this reply throws any assumption of good faith out the window, doesn't it? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Any assumption of good faith was already thrown out the moment this thread was made.

At this point, nothing will satisfy you people except proverbial blood.

I know how you people work - if you had wanted anything else, you would have said so already. Eddienahui (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

As illustrative as the sentence nothing will satisfy you people except proverbial blood is, it doesn't give one the impression you're here to abide by the community-agreed upon policies of the project, does it? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(草)

And I'm the ESL?

You are entitled to your feelings, Mr. Nazereth.

I'm not going to deny them to you. Eddienahui (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Given the continuing personal attacks against me, I'm not sure how objective I can be here, but I don't think the removal of the PA on the user's userpage is sufficient, particularly after having looked at the diffs brought up by Schazjmd, which are pretty damning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

WOULD THAT I COULDCAN'T THOUGH I SHOULDBUT SOME OTHER ADMINMAY BLOCK YOU FOR GOODBurma-shave EEng 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Nah, you just wanted an excuse to ban me because I hurt your feelings.

  You were always going to make this thread, whether I had genuflected, to you or not.

  Your type isn't rare. Eddienahui (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Neither is yours. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Eddienahui, none of my diffs were to comments to/about Bbb23. You've made hostile comments about admins in general and editors in general. Why? Schazjmd (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Eddienahui, could you elaborate as to why you asked this editor if they are Japanese or not? [74] --ARoseWolf 16:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Eddienahui has been blocked indef by Acroterion. Good block. Schazjmd (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've seen enough. Indeffed. The diffs brought forth by Schazjmd are sufficient in themselves for a block, and the conduct here indicates that Eddienahui has no intention of altering their behavior, so it's indef. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2022 (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.

Persistent vandalism of Lawrence Regional Airport

There is a user who has now vandalized Lawrence Regional Airport on numerous occasions. This person has used several different IP addresses, including 64.129.1.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 205.220.129.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:300:4201:6280:89d3:93b:4a56:b9dd (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.191.57.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and recently the user name CaptainCrunchWithCrunchBerries (talk · contribs). I am relatively certain that these are all the same person making these edits because all of them are ridiculous, unsourced claims that a fast food restaurant has purchased the airport. I requested protection for the page but was denied, despite the fact that the person continued to vandalize the page as recently as today. Is there any other recourse for stopping this person's vandalism? Saget53 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and article protected. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And I've place the COI warning on two of their talk pages already. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

117.249.187.3

It looks like 117.249.187.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is going down my contributions list and is reverting my edits at random. A little help please? - MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet not blocked

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.

---

• ElGranSapo2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user User:ElGranSapo2 is a confirmed sock but not blocked. Was this a mistake? RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That account was globally locked by a steward, User:Hasley, on October 3, so an enwiki block is probably not needed. Click on 'contribs' to see the lock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought enwiki ignored global locks? I recall reading that somewhere but I might be wrong. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@RPI2026F1: Global locks cannot be locally ignored, as rather than preventing an account from editing on all wikis, they prevent an account from being logged into on all wikis. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh maybe I was thinking about IP blocks then. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2022 (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.

Not sure what this is

This edit seems like a legal threat, but I'm not sure. It also uses the name of what appears to be a real person, so maybe it should be RevDeled. I copied the material to Talk:DNS root zone#Unexplained edit, so that might need to be RevDeled too. In retrospect I should've just reverted it, but now it probably needs administrator attention to be fixed properly. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Revdel'd the edits as there was clear personal info in them. That looked like someone who is, shall we say not well. Not a legal threat persay though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

IP range blocked for 48 hours for disruption as well, due to coming back and reposting the same screed elsewhere. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Goddam it, don'tpost revdel requestshere. It saysso at the top of this page.Burma-shave EEng 03:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't even rhyme! RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It does in pig latin. --Jayron32 16:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban.

Hello. Im here to request a topic ban from the Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse as per these edits.Td^she/her 16:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to set up Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary for both venues, but keep in mind that in the future, in order to lift it, you will have to go through the normal WP:UNBAN process. El_C 17:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Would a voluntary editing restriction from answering questions be a solution? I think @Thedefender35 probably could benefit from being able to open a section and ask a question at Teahouse. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee That is what i meant. I did not know whether it was possible to ban answering questions or creating them serperatly. Td^she/her 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, asking questions should be fine. El_C 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll draft it. El_C 17:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. That table trips me up. El_C 18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Td^she/her 18:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to block this vandal from creating new accounts?

User:Joseph Juke has been repeatedly harassing another user with attack pages. I have indef blocked Joseph Juke, and then blocked them from editing their talk page. This guy has been known to create other account names from which to harass the same user. Is it possible to block this person from creating new accounts? There is an option on the blocking choices, “Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address”, but it is not a live option - at least not with the tools available to me. Thanks for any advice or action. This guy is a 22-carat jerk repeatedly harassing someone for being trans. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware this is not an option. IPs can be blocked with account creation blocked (ACB); registered user blocks can't be so stopped. You may be better served contacting a Checkuser with details on this user's modus operandi and then just having them both hit the socks and whack whatever underlying IPs they're using ACB. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not the logged-in-users checkbox that's relevant (that one only makes sense when blocking ips), but the "Block account creation" one. I see they're already blocked with that selected. If that's ineffective, your only other option is to open an SPI, beg a checkuser to block their range with account creation blocked, and hope that's they're not on one of those abuse-enabling networks that spread their users out over a whole /16 or such. —Cryptic 23:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Since this creep uses repetitive copypasted harassment language, perhaps an edit filter could be written that would disallow the most distinctive phrases. Cullen328 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think blocking the phrases "Eezer the Geezer" and "John the bloke" would block most of their vandalism. (Also, lol at them thinking those terms affect me in any way.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, neither of those usernames are registered. Can you clarify? Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

They're phrases the person harrassing me often uses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting idea, Cullen! Meanwhile, I am going to take the advice of Jéské Couriano and Cryptic, and go see if I can find a checkuser who could help with this. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, let's wait and see if the "block account creation" tag works. (I had forgotten I did that - thanks for the reminder, Cryptic.) Liliana, if the creep finds another way to harrass you, let me know and I will go searching for more high-powered help then. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't call myself high-powered help given my CheckUser magnifying glass is brand new, but I have some ideas in the works for dealing with this nonsense. I won't reveal the details here because doing so will only aid the 'attacker', but any admin is welcome to email me or find me on a chat platform to ask. In the meantime, I think denying recognition is the best move. firefly ( t · c ) 14:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Alice Walker

User @Nableezy has reverted Alice Walker, which is under 1R sanction, to their preferred version 4 times in the last 27 hours. Diffs here, here, here, here. These are all reverts to the version Nableezy originally posted here. No one else has reverted more than once. I responded on talk also but this seemed like a case where I needed to report. Nableezy has been here long enough to know how this works. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting a claimed BLP violation requires consensus. You violated WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and are asking for sanctions? And also, where is the 1RR for Alice Walker? It only applies to the material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic, which this does not. nableezy - 03:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you honestly say that you would be editing Alice Walker if there wasn't ARBPIA content in it? Isn't that your primary topic area? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, The Color Purple sits on my bookshelf. Can you honestly say you would be editing it if I was not? nableezy - 03:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Although I also own The Color Purple (one seems to be unable to make it though an American education in the last two decades without it) there is near zero chance I would be editing the article without the antisemitic element. That is 100% why I'm there, my first edits on that page had nothing to do with you... Check the edit history, you're actually the one who reverted me [75]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That wasnt my question, as in other instances, you first showed up when it appeared at the top of my contributions. nableezy - 03:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Redacted by User:JayBeeEll Outdatedpizza (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Outdatedpizza: Do you think these off-topic aspersions are wise in a public forum on behaviour? How is it helping? You do not appear to be advancing an actual point, except that we should have less good faith. In that, you would at least appear to practice what you preach. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the unambiguous WP:NPA violation. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There are now multiple users reverting in a good faith claim of a BLP violation, one in which at least one admin has also said at BLPN is a BLP violation and for which an RFC has been opened. This is exactly what WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE prohibits, and Zaathras and GordonGlottal should be sanctioned for it. nableezy - 03:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. The body of the section already states in a definitive voice that the subject is expressing anti-Semitic views, there is no valid BLP concern with simply making the section title adhere to that. Zaathras (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Calm down yourself, you saw the per BLP in the prior edit summaries? You see the BLPN thread? You see the RFC? Until there is a consensus the claimed BLP violation stays out, not in. Both of you have directly violated WP:BLP, and both of you should be sanctioned. nableezy - 03:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And here is Masem at that open BLPN thread saying From the sources there is clearly no broad support to make the claim in wikivkice (this isn't like Alex Jones being a conspiracy theorist). So in mainstream we must attribute that claim. There is a clear good faith BLP dispute, and in that case both of you are violating WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE by restoring the edit. nableezy - 03:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

you saw the per BLP. Yes I saw your WP:CRYBLP action, obviously. Zaathras (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Then youve admitted to violating WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and you should be sanctioned. nableezy - 03:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There's clearly sources for the Alice Walker anti-Semitism stuff: whether it should be in the weight is not a BLPREQUESTRESTORE situation, since there is sourcing for it, and 4RR is over a bright line. Andre🚐 03:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are likewise sources that dispute it, and yes all claimed BLP violations are BLPREQUESTRESTORE situations when they are restored without modification. Also, the bright line is 24 hours. nableezy - 03:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are no high quality sources which dispute it, the only one you've provided which does is The Daily Beast which does not meet our BLP standards... So much for you being motivated by principles and not POV pushing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying this like it is manifestly true, but no the claim that a Daily Beast article does not meet BLP standards, or that the sources like the NYTimes who report it as accusations by critics dont support us reporting it as accusations by critics is a. an opinion, b. a matter for consensus to decide. Until there is consensus our BLP policy is so freaking clear on this point that it cannot be argued, claimed BLP violations stay out, not in. nableezy - 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Do they dispute it or fail to endorse it? Pick one, those are not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some directly dispute it, some report it as allegations and accusations, and some say it as a fact. But again, the language is a matter for consensus to decide. And you know how I know you know this? You never reverted back the claimed BLP violation. Tell me, is it acceptable to revert a good faith claim of a BLP violation when a BLP noticeboard thread and an RFC have been opened? nableezy - 03:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some directly dispute it? You've only named one source so far which does, what are the others? Also note the consensus on The Daily Beast is "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living person." and yet you are INSISTING on using it for just that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some editors is not a consensus. You didnt answer my question. nableezy - 03:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and for others, here is Robert Cohen, NYU Professor of Social Studies, author of a number of works published by university presses on Black activism and racism saying directly that Walker is not guilty of antisemitism. Again here. nableezy - 03:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We are discussing your conduct, not that of other editors unless you open a boomerang proposal. No consensus = not a high quality reliable source, per BLP "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Ive provided. And the conduct of all users is up for discussion here. And your false dichotomy on what sources are usable is noted and again ignored as lacking bass in policy. nableezy - 03:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You've provided a reliable, published source? What? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

One and two and three. nableezy - 03:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The first two are opinion pieces and as such can't be used for facts about BLP. The third is The Daily Beast which we've already established has no consensus that it is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces by established experts published in academic presses can in fact be used in BLPs. nableezy - 04:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Prove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Prove what? We use op-eds all the time. Nothing in BLP prohibits the use of opinion pieces. nableezy - 04:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Something which can not be proven apparently... Does WP:SPS not exist? "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Um hello, it isnt self-published. nableezy - 04:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We treat opinion pieces from subject matter experts as SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

prove it. Because if thats the case you need to scrub Barack Obama of at least 9 opinion pieces I counted, Donald Trump of a handful more and so on and on and on. nableezy - 04:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Obama is scrubbed and Trump will be soon. Got any others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably every BLP out there lol. But Jesus, I gotta admit youre nothing if not dedicated. Though you did remove Barack Obama from Barack Obama, as well as a Nobel prize winning economist talking about the economy. But do yo thang lol. nableezy - 04:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Obama about Obama isn't due without a secondary, but that was an error. A Nobel prize winning economist talking about the economy on the page Barack Obama clearly falls under BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I very much disagree with you, but if you gonna make this your hobby then take a look at Vladimir Putin and (giggles while typing this) Alice Walker for other opinion pieces used. Including for negative material. And when youre done there check George W. Bush, Charles III, Tony Blair ... nableezy - 04:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the one which is relevant to this discussion. You're not really making the point you think you are... Most articles have something wrong with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nah theres another one. nableezy - 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is not going it yourself supposed to prove how dedicated you are to the principles of BLP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, its my saying that especially if a view is from a noted expert that there is no issue using an opinion piece for an opinion in an article. I think it is astonishing that you removed Paul Krugman from Barack Obama saying entirely non-controversial things. I also think its probably a POINT violation, but hey BLPREQUESTRESTORE violations seem to be unnoticed here so whos counting really? nableezy - 05:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussion of the merits of your edits, so I'll be brief. The bloggings of individual NYU history professors are not relevant when normal RS are available, as I'm sure you know. And Cohen is talking specifically about Icke, without mention of the poem. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I provided several more sources that specifically relay this is as an accusation. Regardless, the moment I claimed a BLP violation and opened a BLPN thread and then opened an RFC the re-insertions should have ended. Absent an explicit consensus for the material it stays out. That is what WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE demands, it isnt even a debate. nableezy - 04:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1 Daily Beast op-ed and 1 personal blog do not overrule. or even cast doubt, on actual RS. As you know. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not a personal blog, it is a project of George Washington University with an editorial board that accepts or rejects submissions. And the author would meet the requirements of WP:BLPSPS. nableezy - 04:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The requirement of WP:BLPSPS is never to use them, even when written by a recognized subject matter expert. You know this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If it were self-published. But it is not, I was saying that as shorthand for his qualifications. But an opinion piece published by a third party written by an expert certainly can be used in a BLP. nableezy - 04:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get this stuff from? Why would you think this blog had an RS-worthy editorial process? This is a minor academic with a personal relationship with Walker (she wrote the forward to the Zinn book advertised at the top) posting to his blog. It is not in any sense an RS to compete with Vox or WaPo. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

cus they say so and I dont have any reason to doubt them? nableezy - 05:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The linked page says that they're soliciting opinion pieces... "Successful op-eds make an argument that takes the reader from point A to point B. They should either tell the reader something new or frame an old issue in a new way. Articles may include the author's opinion but primarily serve as vehicles for informed analysis with an emphasis on history" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont believe I ever said it was not an opinion piece. But they do have an editing process, and this is not merely his blog. nableezy - 05:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Because the work of substantive editing is labor-intensive, the editor will presume that all submissions are in final form". This is a blog-hosting platform for historians to promote their books. It obviously does not provide any credibility the historian would not have on a self-published site, because all they do is upload blog posts. It is not a WP:RS, let alone a BLP one. GordonGlottal (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good Lord, dear sir, no, I do not "admit to that". The meaning here is that the mere utterance of "I DO THIS 4 BLP!" by you does not grant you a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card to go on a 4RR spree. Your invocation of BLP policy here is wrong. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You just said you saw a claim of a BLP violation and ignored it, restoring it without an affirmative consensus for it. That is a straightforward violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. nableezy - 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I will say this for the last time - Your <handclap> BLP <handclap> Claim <handclap> was <handclap> invalid. And the way we can tell that you now know you're in the wrong is that you haven't gone to 5RR. Zaathras (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Friend, the second r is for rule. I a. havent violated a revert rule, and b. I havent made another revert as I am waiting to see if the willful violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE by your good self is dealt with. nableezy - 03:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You obliterated the 1RR restriction, as noted by the OP, that's what we're here for, to discuss your misconduct. Will check back in tomorrow. Zaathras (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There isnt a 1RR restriction for this content. nableezy - 03:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The section discusses Protocols of the Elders of Zion and "Rothschild Zionists" etc. The page has also seen sentences about her refusing to allow her books to be translated into Hebrew move between this section and the Israeli-Palestinian one. This angle is why Nableezy, who almost exclusively edits on Israeli-Palestinian issues, is interested here at all. I didn't realize there was a parallel BLP noticeboard discussion, but it sure doesn't seem that Nableezy got consensus for his changes there either. I strongly encourage all users, including @Zaathras, to avoid engaging here further, especially with the process arguments. Extended discussion in this case can only confuse the issue for admins etc. trying to look into the issue. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not claimed a consensus for my change, I have said that without consensus for the change it cannot go back in. nableezy - 03:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that the sources and prose in that section do not directly call Walker anti-semitic, only that she appears to support anti-semitism because she has shown appreciation of specific works and that her writing reflects anti-semitic aspects. Only one source, the Tablet one, suggests directly that she is (from a quick overview) and because that is a Jewish-based source, we should be careful using just a single source to say that she is anti-semitic in Wikivoice. Thus the section title being reverted to "Antisemitism and..." is directly calling her an anti-semitic in Wikivoice w/o sufficient RSes to support that. What is there is 100% supporting "Accusations of antisemitism..." and the section otherwise is wholly appropriate (though I would think consideration from a 10yr/RECENTISM aspect could help draw it into better focus), but the title is not appropriate as it against BLP. And I'm 100% certain that this difference that I'm raising is very subtle and going to be missed, but this is an essential part of how we write BLP, we can't infer what's not directly said by sources.

To that end however, because it is that subtle, I don't think it qualifies as a complete BLP violation that 3RRNO exempts. There's something wrong with how its presented and really should be fixed, and the closed-minded-ness against this possibly being a BLP violation need to consider the situation more fully, but the wording is not so clearly off and it is a well-sourced aspect. It is not like this is where we are calling her some contentious label based on one flimsy source. Trouting all around but I strongly urge the editors to consider what's implied by how the section title is presented in the current RFC on that page; it is really really easy to see from RGW-tinted glasses, and those need to be taken off to see the problem from a BLP angle. --Masem (t) 04:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO this is a silly place to debate that, @Masem. Four reverts of four different users on a 1RR (Israeli-Palestinian, this whole thing hinges on whether her anti-Zionism strays into anti-Semitism) in 27 hours. Let's discuss on the AW talk page or at BLP. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There isnt a 1RR in place for this, and nothing in that section is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Her stance on the I/P conflict is in a different section entirely. nableezy - 04:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

How can zionist conspiracy theories not be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Do I misunderstand what Zionism is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Which Zionist conspiracy theory? That is discussing David Icke and a poem about the Talmiud. Neither David Icke or Talmud are in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 04:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You're messing with me, right? The book promotes the theory that the Earth is ruled by shapeshifting reptilian humanoids and "Rothschild Zionists" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, youre messing with me. If you think conspiracy theories about shapeshifting reptilian humanoids and Rothschild Zionists is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict then you have a very curious understanding of the words Arab, Israeli, and conflict. nableezy - 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously not true. If you're actually confused, try here, where incidentally Vox (an actual RS) notably refers to Walker's "history of anti-Semitic writing" and "acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs". GordonGlottal (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My point is to explain that this is not a clear BLP violation (neither favoring Nableezy's stance or your stance) and that more open discussion (not closed minded, from what I've seen) is needed. Masem (t) 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My stance, as regards this ANI discussion, is that users cannot revert 4 times on a 1RR in 27 hours, @Masem. I am not open-minded on this issue, nor should I be, nor should you be. I agree that discussion of the merits are warranted but they belong in other spaces. Process shouldn't be used to hide lack of merit but claims of merit shouldn't be used to excuse flagrant violations. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I said "trouting all around". Nableezy thought they were acting in the right, you feel they need to be penalized for it. I see both sides could be right, could be wrong. Instead, its better to say "let's go back to the talk page to work it out." Masem (t) 04:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thinking that you are so right, even though every other editor on the page keeps changing it back, even though your sources are a Daily Beast op-ed and a personal blog against Vox and WaPo and The Atlantic, that it's OK to revert four different users on a 1RR on the same day, is exactly the attitude the rules are designed to penalize. The time for going to the talk page to work it out was 1-3 reverts ago, as Nableezy knew perfectly well. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You violated WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and for the nth time there is no 1RR on that material. And hello, I was already on the talk page. I already opened the BLP noticeboard thread. And please stop making things up, it is not a personal blog. nableezy - 05:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Whether to describe an anti-Zionist as anti-Semitic clearly falls under the 1RR. Horse Eye's Back's reverts are as such blockable as a DS action, or would be if he were formally WP:AWARE of ARBPIA, but as far as I can tell he isn't. Whether Nableezy's reverts are blockable depends on whether one buys that they fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR (and by extension 1RR). I lean toward "Exempt, but barely". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, [w]hether to describe an anti-Zionist as anti-Semitic is not the question of that section. It is whether to describe views that have in fact been decried as antisemitic, but which do not relate to Israel or Palestine in any sense, as "accusations of antisemitism" or "antisemitism" full stop. Thats it. The material on BDS and her wider stance is covered in the section Alice_Walker#Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and it is segregated there. nableezy - 04:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I... Hmm, I had a rebuttal to this written, but I noticed an odd technicality, which is that the "related content" clause of WP:ARBPIA (remedy 4, part b) doesn't have a "broadly construed" in it. Not sure what to make of that, and off to bed shortly, so I'll leave that for someone else to parse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Note that Nableezy had not yet invoked BLP, their edit summary was "npov heading." They didn't invoke BLP in a revert edit summary until they reverted another editor[76]. Nor was ARBPIA/1RR mentioned until much much later, on that point Nableezy is correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can see, Horse Eye Back reverted two different disputes once, which I didn't notice before because I was focused on the header dispute. A technical violation of 1RR but probably not intentional and he stopped there while Nableezy kept reverting other users. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is true, I didn't realize that ARBPIA/1RR would apply until well after I made the second revert. If I had been aware I would not have done that. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

  And I dont think Horse Eye's Back has done anything wrong either by the book. nableezy - 04:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• There still seem to be some pretty serious BLP violations outstanding on Alice Walker - the address of which should really be the priority here. When I checked, the section under the header in dispute still contained this opinion supporting a BLP assertion, among other suspect sourcing. This ANI thread has overlooked serious outstanding issues with the body of content in question, and is taking the matter in completely the wrong direction. This material still needs thoroughly scrutinizing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  @GordonGlottal: Please note the message on your talk where you seem to have (hopefully accidentally) performed your own second revert of related material within 24 hours. In light of the context, and your own understanding of the rules here (somewhat to be confirmed), I suggest you address this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Done already. Accidental. GordonGlottal (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Appreciated. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, this noticeboard (and administrators as a group) do not adjudicate content disputes. Our role as administrators is to deal with behavioral problems. The most obvious behavioral problem that I see is bludgeoning by editors including Horse Eye's Back and especially Nableezy. Other editors may be straying into the same territory and so I advise everyone involved to understand that repetition of your point over and over again does not make your point more persuasive, and, in the end, just makes you look bad and eventually amounts to disruptive editing. It should be clear to all concerned that Walker has repeatedly expressed some exceptionally problematic opinions about the works of David Icke that reasonable people think are, at least in part, quite friendly to and forgiving of bizarre and deranged antisemitic conspiracy theories. Bringing forth sources in her defense that do not discuss her Icke connection does not seem useful since it is precisely the Icke connection that is most widely considered problematic by reliable sources. So, I encourage the involved editors to work together to draft genuine consensensus language that makes it clear how deep and profound the criticism of the Icke connection is, without saying "she is an antisemite!" in ringing terms in Wikipedia's voice. Consensus building, please. The alternative is a series of pageblocks. which I will not hand out immediately, but the possibility should be considered by any editor unwilling to work toward consensus abd determined to dig in their heels. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you overemphasize the Icke connection and de-emphasize her own writing in a way that the sources do not, probably would have been best to not weigh in on the content dispute. Your non-content points are taken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, point taken on the amount of commenting. I find it hard not to answer people repeating the same falsehood more than once. But there remains an administrative issue here, Zaathras has reverted a good faith claim of a BLP violation while an RFC is open with there being very clearly no affirmative consensus for it. And they have declined to self-revert despite multiple users calling it a BLP violation. That still needs to be addressed. nableezy - 16:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, a user with an extensive history of edit-warring blocks, chose to revert 4 other editors on the page on the same day despite a 1RR restriction on that section. Not even slightly contrite, as you can see. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My last block was like 8 years before you made this account. And again, there is no 1RR for the page. And again, you violated WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. And again, you should be sanctioned for it. My reverts are excused by WP:BLP, yours are explicit violations of that policy. nableezy - 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We are still talking about Alice Walker? Perhaps you missed the article notice?

A portion of this article has been identified as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Users who edit the identified content: must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure, are restricted to making no more than one revert per twenty-four (24) hours (subject to exceptions below)

Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you know what the word portion means? Have you read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? nableezy - 03:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As in the portion you edited, and the policy you keep wrongly namedropping? Yes and yes. You just keep saying the same exact incorrect things so there's no more point to this. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, an admin has already said my reverts are exempt from revert rules because of the BLP exemption. Making your revert a BLP violation. Is that too hard to follow? And no, the section covered in Alice Walker is, shockingly, the section on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 23:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

With reference to the diffs given in the first comment above, under 1RR the last diff doesn't count because it's reversion of a non-autoconfirmed account. It turns out that the account being reverted in the last diff has just been blocked as a sock of NoCal100. Putting aside the BLP issues, if the reversion of a sock account is ignored, that would bring the revert count within the 3RR limit.     ←   ZScarpia   12:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Concernsavant Round 2 - User:MoisesBlake and 210.1.30.50

• MoisesBlake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 210.1.130.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Two sockpuppets of User:DodoMilton/User:Concernsavant, quacking loud enough to wake the dead. Can we get a block on the both of them for block evasion before they start posting copypasta again? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, did you mistype that IP address? That link shows no contributions. El_C 15:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I did - fixed. (I was also busy dealing with Liliana's stalker last night about the same time.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandal targeting my recent edits with a long list of words

So, there's another LTA case concerning me being targeted. This one targets my contributions to find pages to vandalize (and I expect them to target this one too). Is there anything I or other people can do? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So, the solution I thought about was an edit filter filtering a string of keywords that they use in their vandalism. Pinging Oshwah, DatGuy, Dreamy Jazz, since I know y'all are edit filter managers - here's a sample of the string of words they use. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Testing at Special:AbuseFilter/1214. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. Good luck filtering hundreds of english words, so you basically block actual people from editing. 146.120.10.138 (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You'll get tired of vandalizing eventually. All vandals do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought about this already, and it wouldn't work. Such a filter would be very trivial to defeat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and even it were a solution, the fact that it was mentioned here likely makes it no longer useful. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've suggested WP:OP to Liliana, given the vandal's claims of having a botnet and our policy on whacking zombies on sight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that myself. With the tools I have available (I'm not CU), based on the spot checks I've done I'm fairly confident that most of the IPs are residential proxies or zombie proxies. It's too late for me right now to do a run all of the IPs that have been harassing Liliana this evening, but I can try and do such tomorrow, and fill out a mammoth OP report for em. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The mammoth OP report would be preferred, since this net seems to include a lot of IPv4s and v6s. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

While I don't want to get into technical details for obvious reasons, I will say that this won't be something a rangeblock can solve, due to the nature of how those types of proxies work. I'll see what I can do tomorrow though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that to be the case, given all the disparate IPs involved. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Admin accountability and WP:SOCKLEGIT use by Geraldo Perez

I recently got into a run-of-the-mill disagreement with a Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) where I think he misunderstands an aspect of WP:NOR - not really that big of a deal in context, disagreements on interpretation of policy happen all the time between well-intended editors including experienced ones.

However, this is different. It turns out that this is an admin using a supposed WP:SOCKLEGIT and they refuse to disclose their admin account's identity to non-admins. That seems to fly in the face of WP:ADMINACCT. WP:ADMINACCT is pretty clear in that admins who breach basic policies or repeatedly exhibit repeated poor judgment are to be held accountable. It seems that WP:SOCKLEGIT is being used to put an artificial wall between this editor's admin conduct and non-admin conduct that flies in the face of the accountability required of an admin.

To be clear, I have no indication that this user has misused their advanced privileges and I'm NOT saying they did, but it would seem like the secrecy is preventing non-admins from examining the user's combined behavior and this artificial WP:SOCKLEGIT wall for an admin is inappropriate and inconsistent with our basic tenets of accountability.

I've discussed this on Geraldo's talk page and via email and it seems like we agree that this should go to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to disclose the account links to any admin who requests it, hopefully for reasons beyond curiosity. The arbitration committee has been notified and I have added a notice to my user pages about all this. I have a separate accounts for personal privacy reasons and I wish the link to remain private so I am very wary of giving out this info to anyone who asks. I believe my willingness to disclose the info to admins will be sufficient if there is concern about my actions on either account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you've self-selected a subset of the community that can examine your actions. WP:ADMINACCT includes all of administrators' Wikipedia-related conduct and doesn't let admins specify who they are accountable to. Admins are accountable to the community - period.

This type of secret separation of edits among multiple accounts is exactly what WP:SCRUTINY says is inappropriate.

If you have such a need for secrecy then you shouldn't be an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a need for privacy, that does not impact my having an admin account. And yes, I trust the well-trusted subset of the community who passed the selection process to become an admin. I believe if there is legitimate concern about my behavior an admin will be notified and be involved in investigating and in placing sanctions if needed. I believe this maintains my privacy and allows sufficient scrutiny. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also not publicly linking my two accounts falls under WP:VALIDALT-Privacy. I have followed the procedures at WP:ALTACCN including notifying the Arbitration Committee. I have maintained the required separation between my two accounts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reading this as an outsider, my concern is that while WP:VALIDALT#Privacy allows for an alt for ...editing an article that is highly controversial..., it's not clear from your replies here whether you are limiting the use of the alt to some such subset of the article space, or whether you are using it for all/majority of your general non-admin editing. Not asking you to out yourself here in any way, but some statement along these lines would be useful for gauging what is going on here. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm missing something. Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) is not an admin but has "I also have an admin account that I seldom use" on their user page which I assume is the reason for this report. The user page, and the comments above, give a very plausible explanation for the situation. I see no reason to believe an admin account has been used inappropriately, nor any reason to doubt that Arbcom has been notified about the alternate account. Give that, I don't see a problem regarding admin accountability or SOCKLEGIT. I don't see why there is a need for "some statement along these lines"—you can't get much clearer than what the user page and the comments above say. If an admin turns up at Atticus Mitchell and starts editing or commenting in support of Geraldo Perez, there might be a reason to make this report, but I think that has not happened. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) My confusion stems from how the various WP:VALIDALT instructions are combined in this case. By my reading, VALIDALT#Privacy is intended for limited editing of some (personally) controversial topic. In other cases (except clean start, I suppose) the instructions are to be very transparent about the link between the accounts. Claiming VALIDALT#Privacy as covering all non-admin actions would rather defeat the purpose of said transparency requirements. Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Geraldo Perez's user page says that I do not use that account for normal editing due to security concerns, for privacy reasons and also to prevent any possibility of my using admin tools inappropriately on articles in which I may be considered to be involved. Both "security" and "privacy" are legitimate reasons for an alt account per WP:VALIDALT, but VALIDALT#Security says that a securityalt "should be publicly connected to the main account", whereas VALIDALT#Privacy is limited to a particular highly controversial topic. A privacy alt is specifically not for general editing, and though disclosure of security alts is only a "should" rather than "must" or "shall", I would expect admins to be held to a stricter standard on this sort of thing. Admins have extra powers and responsibilities, and with that they should be accountable to the community – as it stands, if Geraldo Perez were to improperly use their admin powers against an editor they had been in a dispute with, it would be very difficult to hold them to account.

  I also think the idea that separating their identity as an admin to that as an editor might "prevent ... my using admin tools inappropriately on articles which I may be considered involved" is nonsense. It might prevent people noticing that they are using their admin tools improperly, but there is absoltely no way that I can concieve that having an alternate account could prevent such improper use.

  If Geraldo Perez wants both a security alt and a privacy alt, they should have two seperate alt accounts – one clearly tied to their main account, used for general editing for security reasons, and the other used as a privacy alt for whatever specific contentious topic they need a privacy alt for. They shouldn't conflate the two, not because I think they have acted improperly but to avoid any appearance of acting improperly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, @Johnuniq:, you are missing something. As I wrote, I have no indication that Geraldo has misused admin tools. But this admin is Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split their editing history so that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in their contributions - the literal definition of WP:SCRUTINY and one of the explicitly Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing their contributions. Toddst1 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems unacceptable to me. For example, we have no way to check whether they have used their admin tools in disputes where they were involved in. The reasons for the lack of disclosure also don't seem to make sense. If your use of the admin account would have an impact on "security concerns, for privacy reasons", then perhaps you shouldn't have an admin account? This situation comes acress as an attempt to avoid scrutiny while at the same time wearing the badge of being an admin (I mean, they could just have stated that they have another account which is disclosed to arbs and admins, without adding that that account is an admin surely?). Fram (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because you cannot doesn't mean that it can't be found out if there is a suspicion. That's the point of private secondary accounts. Those kind of accounts are allowed and admins are not explicitly exempted from that allowance. If ArbCom or other functionaries know about the multiple accounts, and if you suspect Geraldo Perez is using the accounts inappropriately, feel free to present that evidence to ArbCom or those other functionaries and ask them to investigate. Baseless suspicion based only on the existence of the private accounts is not sufficient evidence that anyone is doing anything inappropriate. WP:AGF applies here as well. I see nothing wrong with what Geraldo has done, and unless and until someone produces some evidence beyond the existence of such accounts, which Geraldo has already disclosed as existing, then there's nothing to be done here. We assume good faith unless we have specific evidence that someone is acting in bad faith. Having disclosed-but-unidentified accounts is allowed and is not a basis for assuming bad faith. --Jayron32 12:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to respond to my post, actually. They are preventing scrutiny for no apparent good reason. Obviously, if I had evidence of actual wrongdoing, I would present it, but that is not the subject of this section nor of my post. "Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project." Security: "You may register an alternative account for use when accessing Wikipedia through a public computer, connecting to an unsecured network, or other scenarios when there's a risk of your account being compromised." Having ad admin who apparently risks having their account compromised is not acceptable. "Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. " It is unclear whether the "privacy" reasons apply to the Geraldo Perez account or to the admin account. The GP account edits constantly, across many articles, so the privacy aspect doesn't seem to apply to this one. This would mean that the privacy concerns are around the admin account, which is weird. It doesn't look as if the Geraldo Perez edits, if made from an admin account, would pose any privacy issues. So the reasons for the lack of disclosure are either bogus or (if it is for security) concerning. Fram (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, feel free to contact one of the people that does know, and they can look into the matter. The point of privacy and security is that we don't need to know the reason for the privacy. If the reason for security and/or privacy were made known, it wouldn't be secure or private. --Jayron32 12:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's one hell of a double-standard there @Jayron32:. That makes this admin accountable only to other admins. That's not ok. It may be currently allowed as you say but that would be a fundamental flaw in our accountability if it is and should be changed. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What double standard? It's the same standard as I would hold every properly maintained alternate account that was following the same rules as every alternate account. A double standard would be to demand that admins somehow had less rights than non-admin users. --Jayron32 12:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not convincing at all. The point of admin accountability is that you are accountable to each and all, not that only a subset of people can check for things like "involved" violations. There's of course also the question why they would hang on to an admin account that was already tagged as retired 11 years ago, which they only use "seldom", and which apparently causes them security and privacy concerns. It's a bizarre combination of "I"m afraid to link it, I rarely use it anyway, but I still feel the need to proclaim it on my user page because..." well, who knows, because they want to impress people? Some argument from authority?" Fram (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez should publicly disclose the other account and update their user page(s) to confirm this - if they do not then they should be indeffed until they do and sent to ArbCom to desysop. GiantSnowman 12:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is, really, ridiculous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrible idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask why? GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No problems here. Perfectly allowed sock. Can we stop making adminship so miserable for people who volunteer to do it, please? If you get the community's trust as an admin but worry about privacy, yes you can use a legitsock. As Geraldo has done, it should be disclosed to arbcom to make sure you aren't misusing your tools, but that's the end of it. Others are not entitled to connect the two accounts just because you want to scrutinize someone. Yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how the worry about privacy would play here? There's nothing in the Geraldo Perez account that matches the reasons given for an acceptable privacy concerns account, so I suppose these concerns stem from the admin account. How would the privacy concerns of the admin account be made worse if the GP edits were made from that account? I don't see a plausible scenario, but are open to having it spoonfed to me. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, are you asking which part of the "privacy" bulletpoint of WP:LEGITSOCK applies? I don't read that bulletpoint as outlining the only valid privacy concerns, but rather providing an explanation of why privacy can be a concern. I mean, right at the top of the section is another (or at least differently framed) privacy issue that isn't included in the privacy bulletpoint: For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated. Perhaps Geraldo is their real name and they don't want the baggage of people being able to connect bans, blocks, and deletions to their real name? I have no trouble affording a lot of leeway to people's privacy requests. The connection has been disclosed to arbcom, and as long as they're not abusing the tools it's none of our business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I know you don't pretend that that is the actual reason, which you probably don't know (no problem with that). But it wouldn't work as an explanation in any case: if Geraldo Perez is their real name, then they could, er, not have created that account for provacy reasons? Your scenarion might work if the admin account uses or discloses their real name, but even then the vast majority of GPs edits (I obviously haven't looked at all of them) are not edits you would need your real to be disassociated from. "as long as they're not abusing the tools it's none of our business. ", bit hard to know if they do or not of course, and ArbCom is not a body which actively checks all admins to see if they abuse the tools. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

which you probably don't know - correct. And if a legit sock is doing its job, that's a good thing. if Geraldo Perez is their real name, then they could, er, not have created that account for provacy reasons? Two responses to this. First, Geraldo could be the original account. You can have other accounts when you go for RfA as long as you disclose them to e.g. ArbCom. Second, I see no reason not to interpret the policy protecting the privacy of admins as applying to someone who doesn't mind disclosing their real name for everything else or otherwise would prefer to separate the controversy from the rest of their editing. Admin actions are frequently controversial and draw the ire of vandals, long-term abusers, etc., such that IMO it is more useful to be anonymous as an admin in many cases. Hell, not having protected my own anonymity is one of the main reasons I won't do an RfA myself, so I'm sympathetic to those who do and take measures (even measures that seem strange and some might not understand, as long as there's no evidence of abuse) to maintain a comfortable level of security/privacy. bit hard to know if they do or not of course - So ask someone who does. That it doesn't allow for fishing expeditions isn't a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) copyedit to be clearer — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Geraldo account was only created when they were already an admin, not the other way around. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And they disclosed the connection to ARBCOM, which is sufficient. The whole point of privacy is that not everyone gets to know. Private information is private, and unless you have evidence of wrongdoing, then there is nothing to discuss here. If you want to know more, contact ARBCOM. They know what you need to know. They'll tell you if they are obeying the rules as expected. --Jayron32 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I'd missed that. So that leaves the second reason above (which I had updated since I didn't word it clearly, but edit conflicted). The amount of latitude we provide people to separate their activities is a fine thing to debate, of course, but I feel strongly we should be erring on the side of preserving people's privacy preferences (bonus alliteration). "But I can't go through all of their edits myself to try to find things they've done wrong" is not IMO a good enough reason to eliminate that discretion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not the reason I gave, your "but I can´t" is either a wrong quote or an inaccurate paraphrase. The issue (or one of the issues) is that we can´t find evidence of e.g an involved block or page protection without knowing both accounts. Fram (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you regularly spend time combing through arbitrary admins contribs pages looking for evidence of involved blocks or page protections, without any prior reason to suspect that is happening? --Jayron32 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY is pretty clear. Admins should not be allowed to avoid scrutiny by the community with some potentially dodgy claim of privacy.

What GP is claiming amounts to him only being subject to scrutiny by Arbcom. If that is policy, the policy is broken and must be changed. As an admin, the entire community has a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

If that claim is not policy, one of 3 things should happen:

1. GP should link the accounts
2. GP should give up the mop
3. WP:ARC should be inititated.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what WP:SCRUTINY says. If it did, WP:LEGITSOCK would be pointless. Thankfully, it has an explicit carve-out for LEGITSOCK and emphasizes alternative accounts to confuse or deceive. What is your evidence of that intent? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY says 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. We don't need probable cause to examine editors' (especially admins') behavior. The community has a legitimate interest in examining admin behavior.

The point may be that WP:SCRUTINY and WP:LEGITSOCK conflict in this case - which is my point that the policy might be broken. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that they're in conflict, but don't think it's crazy that you do, either. I disagree with We don't need probable cause to examine editors' (especially admins') behavior.. WP:AGF and all. But let's say for a moment that this was the most unambiguous LEGITSOCK: an admin who uses their real name and wants to edit articles in a controversial topic area that they don't want linked to their real name. In that scenario, you would likewise have no ability to examine connections between the accounts. Why is it more of a problem if the admin edits uncontroversial topics? The extent to which you cannot scrutinize them is the same, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: Where is your evidence that the alternative accounts were created "to confuse or deceive editors"? Again, AGF. WP:LEGITSOCK explains that there are such reasons. Insofar as such reasons do exist, and AGF is policy, unless you have evidence of intent "to confuse or deceive editors", then you should assume they have an acceptable reason to maintain such accounts. --Jayron32 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can see both sides to this. I can imagine a situation where this might be desirable for privacy reasons, and I can understand Toddst1 believes the non-admin account is violating WP:SYNTH, and wants to be able to check the person's other edits to see if it is a pattern. Two legitimate desires colliding, as they often do in the messy real world. While sub-optimal, if both User:Toddst1 and User:Geraldo Perez agree, I can ask GP for the name of the admin account and take a look for other SYNTH-related stuff myself. If I find nothing, maybe that semi-satisfies Toddst1 for now? And if I find something, since I won't reveal the name publically, I could ask ArbCom what to do? (fwiw, I'm not sure it's a SYNTH problem, so much as a subpar source problem...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have provided the info by mail to User:Floquenbeam as I have committed to providing this to any admin who asks - basically people I trust to maintain confidentiality. Feel free to look through my contributions on that account. As for the SYNTH issue that is an interpretation of policy issue that could easily have been resolved with discussion. I did explain my reasoning when asked. Also I agree one of the sources was a bit weak so I changed the article to not use that source for that data. It was not reasonable to remove everything as was done. I think the discussion on my page about the issue should be considered for context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it likely won't satisfy everyone, but for what it's worth:

1. The admin account is almost exclusively used for recent changes/vandalism patrol, so there are no SYNTH/NOR/similar issues with the admin account (I'm not implying the SYNTH concern with the GP acct is legit or not legit; it's just outside what I'm looking into).
2. Looking back for the last year, I can only find a handful of pages where they have edited with both accounts, and in all of those cases, it's been unrelated vandalism reversion or reverting unsourced additions. In all but one case, there's also been a separation of a month or more. For the one exception, the editor being reverted and the content being reverted were different. I think it's safe to say this one case is a coincidence.

I understand there are bigger, more general issue at play, so I'm not claiming it makes the general question moot. But at least it should put the specific smaller instigating question to rest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Some comments here. First, I believe this is the second or third time that Toddst1 has hauled Geraldo P. to ANI about this, after an edit or reversion that Geraldo made that Toddst1 didn't like. This looks to me to be bordering on WP:HOUNDING. (Luckily, I don't think their paths cross often, or we could have seen even more of this.) Second, I know what Geraldo's Admin account is (I figured it out – I guess I am smarter that the average bear; and, no – I do not intend to share the knowledge with anyone...), and I can confirm what Floquenbeam is saying: Geraldo P's admin account is 1) almost never used, and 2) has never crossed the WP:INVOLVED line that I have ever witnessed. Can we now get a pledge from Toddst1 to drop that ANI filings after seeing an edit from Geraldo that Toddst1 doesn't like? Hmmm?! --IJBall {{(contribs • talk) 19:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC) (Striking comments that have proven to be completely inaccurate and incorrect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC))

if the admin account is "almost never used', why is it needed? if it is not involved insofar as you have witnessed, what about scrutiny from the rest of the community? GiantSnowman 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"if the admin account is "almost never used'"..." – You well know that that is a completely different issue. The policy is what the policy is now, and admins can keep accounts they almost never use, as long as the "rules" are followed. If you want that changed, ANI is absolutely not the place to do it. The second point is covered by ARBCOM – let them deal with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

IJBall, re-read the thread. As Floq said, there are bigger, more general issue at play and your answer shows a lack of understanding even the basics here. Hounding GMAFB. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that you've now singled out Geraldo more than once at ANI. And ANI is absolutely not the forum to hash out bigger issues like this. If you were actually interested in the issues, rather than tar-and-feathering Geraldo, you would have taken the broader discussion point to WP:AN, not ANI (which is totally not the forum for "deep thoughts"). Again, I personally would appreciate a public pledge that you will stop going to ANI on Geraldo (and about the broader policy issue). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC) (Striking comments that have proven to be completely inaccurate and incorrect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC))

Thanks @Floquenbeam:. Thanks for acknowledging there are bigger, more general issue at play. This is indeed complicated and I understand why it's confusing folks.

I'm glad that you can confirm that things look good with GP's behavior in his other account and as I tried to make clear, the trivial issue we disagreed on regarding SYNTH is not why I've brought this here. It appears that one or both of these two questions remain:

1. Is there a conflict between WP:SCRUTINY and WP:SOCKLEGIT that we should sort that out for admins as a policy?
2. If not, then is GP avoiding WP:SCRUTINY that many of us feel an admin should have whether or not there is a problem so far?

Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Toddst1 here. That's not how "legit" socks work. You can have one account that, for example, writes articles and gets into content disputes etc around the Arab-Israeli conflict but doesn't edit the project space and a separate account that goes nowhere near that topic area. You can't have two accounts that participate in the community as though they were different people, even if they never cross paths. That's black-letter policy and even has its own shortcut, WP:PROJSOCK: "Undisclosed alternative accounts generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project". While I'm sure there's no nefarious intent, Geraldo Perez is unambiguously on the wrong side of policy and needs to either publicly link the two accounts or give one of them up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 discussion at Undisclosed alternate accounts seems to have consensus for some amount of project space edits that are not related to making policy. Wouldn't make much sense to prevent reports to admins, project discussions, and interactions such as this one here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course alt accounts should be able to edit the project space when their normal editing takes them there (stumbling across vandalism, nominating an article for review, wikiproject discussions, etc) but what you're doing is something else entirely, which is acting as two different respected members of the community when the policy (and that RfC) is clearly aimed at long-term editors who have an alt account with a limited range (eg editing articles about their local area under a pseudonym because they edit under their real name with their main account). In effect, you're operating two primary accounts and we have only your judgement and integrity to assure us that the two can't be taken for different people. While I'm not questioning either, you must be able to see why that would be a problem for a less scrupulous editor and therefore cannot be allowed under policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PROJSOCK is the only issue and that is a prohibition on using alternative accounts for internal discussions. I get involved in project spaces only as part of normal editing with this account. I honor the restrictions and never "...use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus." I am open to scrutiny by admins and all my edits are with the understanding they likely will be audited. I assume AGF applies here and have at least earned the trust of the community via the RFA process. This is currently my primary account, the other I have when I wish to help out on admin tasks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That you feel you are only accountable to other admins after your RFA is a really big problem. You are accountable to the community. Something needs to change. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

With an alt account for privacy I'm not required to give any information to anyone about my other account. I am just stating that I will release the info to admins on request basically because I trust them to keep confidences and to show I am willing to cooperate in any investigation. The only people who would otherwise make the link are checkusers and only as part of a sock investigation that would only happen if I broke the rules and used the accounts improperly. Strangely I could have avoided all this hassle if I hadn't given any information beyond the fact I have an alt account for privacy and ARB has the details. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam. Fram (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

1 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am amending/striking some of my previous comments here. This was brought up in the somewhat recent past, but it was not Toddst1 who did – it was User:Beyond My Ken – and he brought the issue before WP:AN (stemming from a kerfuffle that stated on Geraldo Perez's talk page). So I owe Toddst1 an apology, and am striking some previous comments... FTR, I do think WP:AN is the proper forum for something like, not ANI, and I don't see any harm to the project at all in what Geraldo is doing here. I think acting like this is a problem is silly... That said, if there's a policy issue to be examined in this case, it should be done elsewhere (likely, AN, or possibly ARBCOM), not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have one criticism Mr. Perez: why mention the alternative account at all? In electing to notify the arbitration committee of its existence and the privacy concerns mitigated by witholding public disclosure, the associated policy stipulations regarding disclosure were satisfied. As such, your decision to publish inticing half-mentions of your alternative account and admin privileges is poorly thought (at best) and does give rise to questions of judgement! The editor hours used to discuss the particulars of your manner (including my own portion) would have better served Wikipedia elsewhere. And I'd cover a dub (expecting to make book) that this is not the first such similar discussion to have occured since 2019 (the timestamp of your posting). I encourage you to consider your actions in context with your motives, and to make any changes you then see fit. In my opinion, continuing along your current path is counterproductive, verging on disruptive. --John Cline (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a reasonable take. There is at least one good reason to disclose being a legit sock on your userpage without disclosing the other account, though: just in case someone CUs you. If you have a separate account that you want to keep separate for privacy reasons, it's very important to minimize the likelihood that a CU will publicly connect the two accounts, mistaking it for some other form of socking. Having that on a user page doesn't absolutely prevent it, but helps to reduce the chance. Of course, that doesn't explain why he discloses being an admin with the other account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had the messages set up for the last 11 years on my accounts and it hasn't been an issue until now. I did what I thought the requirements for having private alt accounts were when I set things up based on my understanding of the policy then. I thought being as open about the situation as I could would head off concerns about improper use. It is still a requirement that I state I have alternative accounts on my user pages. Stating that I have an admin account appears to have been a mistake and was unnecessary. My understanding of what I need to do now is remove all mentions of that, simplify what I do state to just the facts I have an alt-private and that ARB is aware. I will continue to follow all the rules about proper use as I have consistently done in the past. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that attempting to rewrite the past is advisable as not being the Wikipedia way -- after all, we don't delete errant comments we have made and regretted, we strike them out, leaving the record of the exchange both in the history and visually available. Once the (cat/genie/toothpaste/bell) (is out of the/has been} (bag/bottle/tube/rung} you can't (put it back/unring it). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely a provision in policy for operating an "undisclosed" alternative account. While not prohibited, it is strongly advised against and the ultimate decision should by no means, what so ever, be taken lightly. Of paramount importance is the responsibility of proper account operation in light of the almost insurmountable obstacles hindering the best possible efforts. In closing, the notion that things posted on your user page must always remain , in stricken form at best, is a bazare interpretation of something unknown to me. I quite guarantee that you can modify your user page up to the effect of an entire redaction, with nothing to completely different and new information and that decision is entirely your purogitive. Good luck and godspeed in exercising the options available to you. --John Cline (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A request

@Floquenbeam: In the light of the discussion above, and this and this from February, can you please confirm that the admin who is connected to the Geraldo Perez account has never sanctioned or otherwise negatively interacted with me, especially after the February incident? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: confirmed; you have never interacted with the admin account at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your taking the time. I assume that you see -- and perhaps others will as well -- one of the problems with an announced admin alt account which is not connected to a specific admin: any time an editor is in a dispute with the alt, and wonders about their relationship with the master, they have no way of finding out except through an intermediary. Unless Geraldo Perez's master wishes to appoint and publicly announce a permanent intermediary to fill that role, the situation seems to me to be untenable and a deterrent to admin accountability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that where WP:AGF comes in? It's not necessary to worry that a bad interaction with an admin might be related to an earlier dispute. For one thing, they have declared to Arbcom and they would be de-sysoped if they are ever found to have inappropriately used the admin account to hassle someone that they had a dispute with. The intermediary is Arbcom—email them if there is ever reason to believe something bad has happened. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. - a fundamental tenet of WP:ADMINACCT. Impossible to do when their non-administrative actions are obfuscated. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

First part of quote for context: Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Since I was unable to take any administrator actions on this account, there were no use of admin tools actions to be questioned. One reason I use this account is to head off this sort of question of misuse of tools. Besides being wrong, misusing of an alternative account is a serious breech of the rules and the penalties are too high for me to consider doing that over a minor disagreement over interpretation of some policy that I was involved in discussing that would have been resolved with normal dispute resolution processes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the second sentence says administrator action, not just administrative action. You're defeating the spirit of the policy while you're debating the letter. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Context and scope of that section matters, it is about use of admin tools and holding admins responsible for their use. Administrator actions, also called administrative actions, in that section are actions about using the tools. Outside of being allowed to use admin tools, admins are no different than any other editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. Also the idea that "administrator actions" means something different from "administrative actions" in that context is nuts: both the part of the sentence before and after it are extremely clear that they refer to use of administrator tools. GP's reading is both more natural and more sensible. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You guys seriously misunderstand or have never read WP:ADMINACCT which specifically calls out Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.) none of which involve the use of tools reserved for administrators. Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The context for that section is Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee. Most of the stuff listed is admin tool misuse. Stuff that can get any user blocked or sanctioned also applies to admins who in addition can lose admin rights if it is serious enough. Included is off-site conduct which also applies to everyone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for close

As the OP, I am requesting this thread be closed. The discussion is going nowhere and if we're going to resolve this it will require either a change to one of the conflicting policies or WP:ARBCOM. It's too complicated for resolution here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Jkaharper and BLP/recently deceased people

I have serious concerns about Jkaharper (talk · contribs). Back in April 2022 they were given a final warning by @Toddst1: for BLP violations, on the basis they had been blocked twice before for such conduct.

Concerns about lack of referencing were raised recently by @Pigsonthewing:, to which Jkaharper replied "I’ve been on here 16 years and I know the score". However, they clearly do not, as today they have edited to say a BLP had died without providing a reference - and when I raised this with them, they first cited another Wikipedia page, and then just removed my post. GiantSnowman 13:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, @GiantSnowman:, you're not presenting the whole picture. I DID add a reference (which easily passes WP:RS) to the Deaths in 2022 here, so their death was referenced. Whilst I accept that I should have added it to the individual page of the subject itself as well, I think you're overreacting somewhat. I provided a source for the death so it wasn't as if I was adding anything potentially libellous or in violation to WP:BLP. There are thousands of users and IPs on here who add listings to the Deaths in 2022 page with sources, then edit the actual page itself with death details without copying the source over. I honestly don't know why you're singling me out, particularly considering you have edited constructively with me in the past, and you know that I make valuable contributions on here. On a final point, with regards to this, I didn't respond to the editor because I honestly had no idea what they were talking about. For a start, contrary to what their message says, I have never been banned on here before. Secondly, their gripe was that I supposedly didn't add a source for the birth date of Alexander Jefferson. I ask you to take a look at the edit history of that page, because I did. The editor in question scrubbed information from that page without an explanation to their edit summary, so I restored it then an edit war started. They then claimed it was because the birth date wasn't sourced in the article. Now, it was already sourced in the article (check the edit history), though the reference wasn't in the correct place, so I moved it. That was all. Essentially, an oversight on their part and a misunderstanding. With regards to your original point, in future I am going to ensure that I add a reference for the death to BOTH the recent deaths page and the individual bio, as I agree with you it's in line with standards. Why you've pulled me up on this in particular, and not the thousands of others doing it however, is beyond me. It doesn't seem fair at all given how much I've contributed over the years and I don't think pulling up a previous non-related dispute is the best approach. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I pull people up on adding unsourced content all the time - and 'others do it who why can't I?' is not the smoking gun argument you think it is. You seem to have a habit of not adding sources to the articles of recently deceased people, see this from today as well. GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PS if you had properly responded to my concerns, this would not be at ANI... GiantSnowman 17:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere above do I make the argument 'others do it who why can't I?'. I was merely pointing out that you monitor recent deaths changes to bios, and given the 1000s of users and IPs who edit pages from the "Deaths in 2022" this way, I can't understand why you're singling me out. I know the answer – you're upset I didn't respond to your message on my talk page and I scrubbed your message. I did this because several years above you were very rude to me on Wikipedia in a message thread, and used an aggressive tone. I never forgot that. On the contrary, I responded to Andy, below, because he's always been polite and helpful on here. The above example (Joe Crozier) is yet another example where the death WAS sourced on the Deaths in 2022 page (here before I made that edit. I would NEVER add a date of death without adding a source to a page UNLESS it is already cited by a reliable source on the Deaths in 2022 page. On the contrary, I have 1000s of pages on my Watchlist and regularly I'm the first user to revert unsourced death date changes. Today alone see here, here, here and here. Go through my edit history and you'll find thousands more. Anyway, as I have already said, I will also copy the source across from the Deaths in 2022 page in future now. Is that good enough for you @GiantSnowman: or are you determined to draw blood here? --Jkaharper (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block log (and these are blocks; no-one said you had been banned) reads, as anyone can see:

• 18:28, 13 December 2009 Canadian Paul talk contribs unblocked Jkaharper talk contribs (Condition for unblocking met)
• 15:18, 13 December 2009 Canadian Paul talk contribs blocked Jkaharper talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: See details on user talk page)
• 19:13, 3 March 2008 Jayron32 talk contribs blocked Jkaharper talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (BLP violations re: Gay Marriage)

Your edit summary in this reverting diff was Still unexplained. DOB is sourced. Where in that version of the article is the DoB sourced? Also, the edit you were edit warring against was explained, first time, with the edits summary WP:DOB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My misunderstanding on the first point, I thought they were suggesting that I had once been banned. With respect, these blocks were 13 and 14 years ago. I don't think I really knew what I was doing back then. We all have to start somewhere. I've collaborated with Canadian Paul a number of times on here and I'm sure he'd vouch for me. On your second point, here is the revision that you are referring to, and reference #1, the History Makers (here) gives his DOB. It was referenced at the end of the first paragraph in the section "Early life". --Jkaharper (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph - and, indeed, an article section - that does not include the DoB. Nowhere in the article at that point is the DoB accompanied by a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet 100,000s of Wikipedia articles use general referencing?? You're normally very reasonable Andy, but I don't think you're being entirely fair here. Sure, I could have made my edit summaries clearer in that instance, but I Googled the information, found the source, realised it was already cited on the page in the "early life" section that discussed his birth circumstances (albeit not the date) and restored the page. In a later edit I moved it to be right next to the DoB itself. On the contrary, the other user restored an incorrect year of birth which wasn't adequately sourced, and clearly didn't conduct a quick basic Google search, or at the very least retain the vital bio stats with a [citation needed] tag. They then left quite an aggressive and overreactive message on my talk page about it. I don't think they handled it well. The information was correct, the source was already there, yes perhaps I should have moved it a few lines up so it aligned better, but are you really suggesting I committed something there that justifies that warning? Please at least give me some credit for identifying the information was correct and should not have been scrubbed in the manner it was. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stop distracting from the issue - that you have consistently failed to adequately source BLPs/recently deceased people. GiantSnowman 20:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

[EC - and GiantSnowman is correct in what they wrote] No BLP should have a date of birth unsourced - or sourced only to a reference in a different section, if you insist - in this manner; and you certainly should not be edit warring if such an edit is challenged. It is not unfair of me to point that out. As you have a final warring for BLP issues - just six months ago - it behoves you to adhere to the "letter of the law" in this regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Already responded above saying how I will address this differently in the future. Satisfied? Jkaharper (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How so? GiantSnowman 15:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, "With regards to your original point, in future I am going to ensure that I add a reference for the death to BOTH the recent deaths page and the individual bio, as I agree with you it's in line with standards." Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

K, good enough for me. GiantSnowman 19:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

CEE Spring 2022

I need assistance regarding the CEE Spring 2022 event that took place in May 2022 (found here on Wikipedia and here on Meta-Wiki). The event was supposed to be calculated and resolved in June, but there has been no further word since then. The reason it's a cause for concern is that it was allegedly created with WMF funding that would be distributed for the event, so either there's a false claim of WMF involvement or there are unaccounted for WMF funds, both of which I would think are quite serious. I'm posting on this noticeboard because this seems to be a unique issue that has no associated forum, and no user that I've reached out to individually has been able to help. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am completely unable to help with this, however, I wanted to express my surprise and disappointment as it was this event that got me sort of hooked on to Wikipedia and helped me overlook or tolerate some of the issues that had so far kept me away from it. I hope someone can provide some clarity here. Ostalgia (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You might have an easier time communicating with someone on Meta-Wiki than here, as it seems the event extends beyond the English Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien The funding is documented at m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Wikimedia CEE Spring 2022 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright vio at Frederick Hall (actor)

Hi all. In participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Hall (actor), I discovered that half of the by-lined obituary in The Stage for Hall was copy pasted into the article in this edit. See my comment at AFD for details. Given that the article has been edited after, a simple revert can't be done. In trying to figure out the proper procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I noticed that it said something about admins and revision deletion which I didn't quite understand. Anyway, not sure how to handle the removal and would appreciate some help. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4:, I removed the copyvio and tagged it for selective revdel. If you're interested, you can install it into your javasript page: " importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js'); " . Remove the quotation marks at the beginning and end. This allows you to select revisions that contain the copyvio. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Javascript page? Is this a veteran thing I'm too new to understand? The Shamming Man has appeared. 15:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheShammingMan: You can create a javascript page that executes code. You may create one at: User:TheShammingMan/common.js but be warned, you are responsible for the code and anything it does. I see you have about 50 or so edits to enwiki, so I'd recommend more experience before you manually install js code. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't planning to set any JS code up until I see a need to, which I have not. I just wanted to know what that was in case I encounter it somewhere else. The Shamming Man has appeared. 16:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Snowflake91 reported by Sportski recenzist

Original heading: "snowflake91 vandalism outbursts" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1116393190 — Please protect this team's sourced use of third jersey garniture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportski recenzist (talk • contribs)

Sportski recenzist, this noticeboard is not intended for content disputes. Also, please don't falsely call good faith edits "vandalism" — see WP:NOTVANDALISM. Generally, WP:INSTAGRAM isn't a reliable source. If there are indeed "Numerous sources" as you claim here, then just provide those, instead. But they should to be WP:SECONDARY rather than WP:PRIMARY sources (unless official and expressly mentioned as such). @Snowflake91: courtesy ping. El_C 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sportski recenzist: please stop referring to good faith edits that remove unsourced or poorly-sourced material as vandalism, as you did in this edit summary and in the title of this thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

ok so do you know how many article links i need until its accepted, if already official social media where most photos go isnt enough; i can find numerous besides so please someone make sure he stops reverting, it wasnt good faith at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportski recenzist (talk • contribs)

@kinu, also say how many sources are needed by law if such exist, and which are they besides official social media/websites to be accepted, i can keep adding; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportski recenzist (talk • contribs)

Sportski recenzist, why are you still leaving un-indented, unsigned comments, even after I asked you to do so and provided you with the necessary links? El_C 15:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

WHEN YOU COMMENTDON'T BE LAMEJUST FOUR TILDESSIGNS YOUR NAMEBurma-shave EEng 03:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Based. El_C 07:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sportski recenzist, doubling down is unwise. Also, you've joined months ago, so it's time you start signing your user name to your own comments (WP:SIG) as well as indenting these (WP:INDENT) to align with a threaded discussion. It not reasonable to expect others to continue to do that for you — that is your responsibility. Also, please capitalize and use full stops. English is not my native language and your comments are difficult for me to read. This is not a chat room. Thank you. El_C 15:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting that Sportski recenzist is now forum shopping, as seen here and here. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, this person's IP addresses have been banned many times since 2019, including for making death threats and islamophobic comments on several different Croatian-based IPs, in addition to constant disruption and edit warring with his own perception of things, based on WP:OR and some instagram images. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Snowflake91, that is a very serious claim. Are you able to provide proof of this? El_C 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Would be hard to find it in archives from 2019 or 2020, but if someone is able to check block history for entire IP range of 93.143.78.194 it can probably find it. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

yes malay wiki has different jersey design you can check, discuss when users arrive. i wont wonder how above user cares about ip > content. kind regards to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportski recenzist (talk • contribs)

Honestly, Sportski recenzist, please read the links you've been given about signing and indenting your posts. Also, what the Malay Wikipedia do or don't do has no impact on this project: we're a separate thing. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to refer to the block log of 93.143.64.0/18. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Given this, along with the syntax and tone in some of the other edit summaries by 93.140.225.76, I wouldn't be surprised if that IP was Sportski recenzist editing while logged out. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

burma shave moment The Shamming Man has appeared. 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz making unreferenced and regressive edits

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

DemocraticLuntz is using automation to make bursts of hundreds of edits at a time. Their process has introduced referencing errors to articles, reverted previously referenced material while removing references, and updated information without providing sources.

Here are several specific examples; there are literally more than 1000 available:

• this edit
• Garden City, Missouri
• Donaldson, Pennsylvania
• Denver, Pennsylvania
• Allentown, Pennsylvania
• Wilsonville, Oregon
• Renovo, Pennsylvania

Other citation issues were raised by Jak86 without response.

Concerns about referencing were raised by Alansohn and myself without, and no response was received.

DemocraticLuntz also ignored questions from Keystone18 about their edits to census links in their many edits but no response was received.

Jonesey95 raised concerns about WP:MEATBOT due to the high rate of edits -- more than 700 in 80 minutes at a certain point last week. The response was dismissive.

It's hard to trust a user who isn't responsive to concerns when using automation that makes hundreds of edits each hour, and does so in a way that regresses content and disrupts existing prose and referencing. Because the user is not responsive to feedback and doesn't clearly demonstrate a motivation to improve their work, I'm asking that another administrator step in to help address this issue and advise about how these problematic edits can best be remediated. Mikeblas -- 14:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to make stuff up about me and whine as I try to address each complaint when I get the time [which sometimes causes new problems that I miss, which I always diligently hotfix] instead of thanking me (only the bigger places would have population data at all from other than the 2000 Census, much less regularly up to date without my hard work [77] [78] ), I can just not do these updates anymore and most US places can remain stale in terms of populations and area. It's really up to y'all. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz, whine — really? Also, why did you change the "2020 United States census to the incorrect [redirect] 2020 United States Census link?" Or did you? El_C 14:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I addressed that issue regarding the capitalization issue right when you asked! I am sorry if I don't actually respond to the talk issue, but it was addressed when you asked. See here for the diff [79] DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And yes, whine. I've spent hundreds of hours on that script and on the previous manual compilation of Census data, without which tens of thousands of pages would have extremely stale population and area data, it's whining if you're not going to give a scintilla of appreciation when you can clearly see that the edits are overall significantly improving Wikipedia! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz, you lost me. How was it addressed when I asked? The query on your talk page is dated September 27, whereas the diff you just provided is from Oct 5. El_C 15:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz, even if you consider a complaint to be without merit, you are expected to keep a professional tone and tenor. Not to be reptitive, but doubling down is unwise. El_C 15:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant it was addressed before I made any further edits (minus an apparent brief quick fix on a few pages in Pennsylvania, see a relative lack of edits to mainspace between 27 September and 11 October. [80], I have other things going on in life and can't always fix things that aren't super critical [i.e. causing big errors to pile up] immediately. But I got to it before doing any more edits other than 5 or so quickfixes DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But who doesn't have other things going on in their lives? Leaving that talk page question from Sept 27 without a response might be why these corrections weren't immediately noticed. It would have been an easy to address, though (30 seconds or whatever). El_C 15:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I generally do address (sometimes I forget to sign them) but to elaborate on other things going on ... I was sick and semi-delirious with fast onsetting COVID during that time period which may explain why I didn't respond. As to one of the complaints, there is nothing on WP:Verifiability that suggests that a specific citation to the US Census, year and location isn't a verifiable reference on its own. I was frustrated because the complaint I finally tried to (against my better judgement) address was that the 2020 Census updates were only adding footnotes in the infobox and not in the US Census Population template (against my better judgement because footnotes can't just be overwritten which makes it technically much more challenging to add them properly) and also that some of the added references had static dates rather than dynamically updated, changes there induced the most recent error. It's frustrating that people can't be happy with clear improvements to articles that clearly meet verifiability, when the alternative would have been leaving tens of thousands of pages without updated data for what would now have been decades! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your health problems, DemocraticLuntz. I hope you're back to normal now, and if not, best wishes for a speedy recovery. El_C 13:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz, I can't find you at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON, yet you're running (your own version of) AutoWikiBrowser. Is this correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a fork of it, have been running it once a year since 2015 to keep populations and areas updated DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to request permission at WP:PERM/AWB to continue running it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It's AWB to the same extent MediaWiki is PHP, are you sure this is the appropriate place to ask? DemocraticLuntz (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern is less about code similarity (which may well be low after all the modifications). It's more about causing exactly the type of complaints that are associated with unapproved or otherwise problematic AWB use. The same concerns probably led to the restriction of AWB to a manually curated list of users. It thus seems reasonable to ask of you to either gain AWB approval before running an AWB fork, or to ask for bot approval at WP:BRFA, depending on what fits the situation better. I'm active in neither areas, so I can't even say how high your chance of getting either is. I trust those who approve/disapprove automation requests at these venues, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I initially raised the question to DemocraticLuntz on why automated edits were being used that included an inaccurate link to 2020 United States census. I received no response. But I also thought then that this was part of a broader project that had been assessed for suitability and accuracy. Given the magnitude of pages impacted by this and the fact that one glaring error has already been added to a few hundred pages, it seems to me the entire process should be reviewed for technical suitability and editorial accuracy. Keystone18 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been using this script to update Wikipedia for several months longer than Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser has even existed! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really; you're missing what's practically been a page move ([81]). The first requests for the permission from non-administrators are from 2006. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Were existing users automatically given legacy status and allowed to continue without needing to request permission? If not, then interesting I guess, but not particularly relevant to anything being discussed here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The requirement to obtain individual permission or adminship is quite old ([82], [83]), making this indeed irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I saw your reply making the whole issue irrelevant, but decided to go ahead and post anyway just to make the point that even if DemocracticLuntz was right about the timing, it was still irrelevant unless the way introduction of the permission requirement had worked; was existing editors were automatically granted permission or given some sort of legacy status and allowed to edit without explicit permission (i.e. 'grandfathered in'). If instead existing editors had still had to apply for permission, with it generally being granted easily if there was no obvious evidence of significant problem, the DemocracticLuntz still needs to go through the same process. The only relevance of it being before would be part of an explanation why they did not ask for permission before making their fork. Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Before bringing this issue to ANI, I'd previously written to your Talk page and didn't receive a response. Other people tried, as well. I also consulted with other admins for their advice. I think it's great that you're trying to update articles, but the updates are often doing harm to existing content and sometimes are of debatable clarity. I'm surprised that someone would try to automate a process that's incomplete, controversial, and isn't supported by consensus. I don't think accusing me of whining or fabricating anything is particularly WP:CIVIL, and doesn't do anything to help me understand your actions. Coupled with your bitter responses [84][85] on your own talk page, my understanding is that you're going to stop your automated edits and undo the changes that you've recently made. I think that would probably be for the best, until you can build a more robust process and gain some consensus for the project. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For completeness, I reverted this edit because it introduced consistency problems and wasn't completly or clearly referenced. My reversion was manually reverted with a similar edit that also deleted an in-use reference definition. I replaced that definition, and enumerated my concerns on the talk page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this all seems to have blown out of proportion. @DemocraticLuntz makes a good point that many of these articles would never be updated to current Census counts. While I get the issue with unreferenced edits, the user seems to have fixed the issue in later batch edits like for the articles Pierre, South Dakota, Camden, Tennessee, and Yemassee, South Carolina. I may be wrong but a simple edit to the older articles updated by the user should allowed them to be properly referenced. Looking at the reference for Yemasee, SC, it was published by the Census Bureau which adds authenticity to the edits made.

I also want to underscore how helpful this code has been for editors like me. In June 2022, there were 14,000 Articles needing updating which could be emptied in 6 months if you worked at a rate of 100 articles per day. Adjusting that to the ability of a single human person who works, that's a 1–2-year job (the process would have to done again in the 2030 Census). Wikipedia in 2010 was much different to Wikipedia in 2020. Wikipedia has only been around for two full decades, so in a sense the 2020 Census was the first full census for it (considering the new town and city pages created after 2010).

After all the issues are ironed out of the code and it's approved for a semi-bot status, this could become a vital tool for 2030. Instead of these articles getting updated 2-3 years late, they could all get updated in two months after January 2030. Again, forgive me if I don't have the full picture but I hope this issue can be sorted out. Thank you and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

the user seems to have fixed the issue in later batch edits like for the articles Pierre, South Dakota. I think it would be helpful to first address the issues in previous batches of edits before making more edits. The citation issues I mentioned on September 20 are in thousands of articles. Fixing that first seems like a better thing to prioritize rather than running a new batch.

Regarding the "TigerWebMapServer" citation in the new edits, I'm not sure I understand it correctly. When I search for "Pierre" in the new citation I can't find it. Whereas I can find it in the old citation. It's entirely possible that I'm misreading the data, but could this be another error? If not, is there a more human-readable citation we could use?

I think mass automated edits should be made carefully after the bugs have been ironed out as much as possible. I don't think DemocraticLuntz was sufficiently careful or receptive to criticism. I also disagree with their edit summary "Shouldn't revert the script changes, uniformity in data >>> citation issues". Citations are needed so the data can be verified. Future editors to these pages will need to look this stuff up from a valid citation. They won't be reviewing the code for the CenPop script. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 22:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope this can be worked out, too -- but there's little hope of that because DemocraticLuntz is somewhere between reluctant and recalcitrant. Indeed, lots of articles need to be updated, and it would take a long time to do so manually. But if they're done automatically by a process that's either broken or untrusted, we've got the similar but worse problem of verifying and fixing the updates. Since the old content was simply stale (but referenced and correct), the new content (unreferenced and incorrect) is a real issue. And that's why I don't think anyone has "blown this out of proportion". Several thousand edits of questioned quality have already happened, and we don't even have a process in place to track those down.

I think Jak86 makes great poinst to that end.

Looking at the WP:MEATBOT and WP:AWB concerns and adding them to the edit rates and scope of the target, I think the reality is that this user has been using a bot for years without prior approval. Towards a good remedy for the issue of outdated and unreferenced information in so many articles, I'm all for an automated solution. But that solution needs to be something that does edits in a pattern that are supported by concensus; that are accurate and usable, and maintainable for the next turn that comes around. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I still have WP:MEATBOT concerns. This editor is simply editing too quickly, with a script that clearly has a variety of problems, and not checking their edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Apologies if it is too soon, and I realise that this may not be the main concern but I have been watching this since the start and I would like to propose that DemocraticLuntz be restricted from running their script until they have received approval from the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group or other appropriate location.Gusfriend (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. If you are running a BOT or automated editing tool then you should adhere to the Wikipedia:Bot policy.Gusfriend (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• WP:MEATBOT seems pretty clear-cut, so I support. DFlhb (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• This is practically already in place. DemocraticLuntz has requested AWB access which could, if granted, be used for semi-automated editing. They have not yet requested bot approval, which would be required for automated editing. If they do either without the needed permission, especially after an explicit permission decline, the proposed community restriction won't be needed for taking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
•  BAG/Admin note: MEATBOT says that rapid-editing should be approved by the community. As I stated at their AWB request, rubber-stamping their use of AWB (or a fork) does not (or at least, should not) give them tacit approval to use said fork in a manner that causes the type of disruption that leads to ANI cases like this being filed. While I fully agree that DemocraticLuntz should not continue use of the script until they receive approval, BAG or PERM/AWB admins do not have the authority to grant that approval - we just make sure there is approval. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure how to write my not-vote up because I do support the proposal ... but it's incomplete. Bot approval can only be pursued once DemocraticLuntz has a proposal for the edits the bot will make (including what it will change, how it will react to existing bad formatting and data, what it will add, and how it will reference its changes and additions, and probably other things ...) that reaches consensus with the community. Community approval might come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, but maybe there other more relevant communities, or other communities that want to be involved. (This is all part of the prepratory step number I. at WP:BRFA.) I'm also not sure of how cases where someone has used a bot without previous permission have been handled, but that isn't addressed in this proposal either. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MEATBOT. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wefa and nothere

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.

---

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

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok [86][87] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:

I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Wikipedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.

And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed[88]. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Wikipedia under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Wikipedia landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Wikipedia, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.

BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to."

That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.

The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.

It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.

The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Wikipedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs."[89] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic"[90]. From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area [91] [92]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I did suggest that a siteban or siteblock wouldn't be helpful, a TBAN most certainly should be on the cards. If they aren't going to voluntarily keep out of a contentious area which they have obvious issues with editing in accordance with policy on (including soapboxing on article talkpages and their own talkpage), they need a TBAN. I'd say that, in WP:ARBGSDS, they show signs of not being there to build an encyclopedia, but in others, they are definitely constructive. By stopping the distracting stuff, hopefully they will be more helpful in the areas where they are HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really struggling to find helpful edits in any area post 2018, it almost looks like two completely different editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most of 2021 looks fairly reasonable. What am I missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  That there are only 19 edits in all of 2021 perhaps? Their very first edit in 2022 was POV pushing at Soy Boy[93]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think a GENSEX TBAN is a bit tough at this point. At least give them another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I actually don't think it's a bit tough. I just really want to give them a chance to fix things themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

GENSEX TBAN: Wefa

I feel like it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other whether to move this to WP:AE or make it a community sanction, but since we already have multiple opinions expressed above, I'll go with the latter (although I do think it would still be acceptable for any uninvolved admin to issue a DS TBAN). Proposed: For repeated comments in the topic area not oriented toward building an encyclopedia, Wefa is indefinitely topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people.

Already expressing opinions above: Ravenswing (generally against), Vermont (for), Mako001 (not against), Iamreallygoodatcheckers (against), SarekOfVulcan (not against). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I'll reïterate my comment above that we've already had two DS TBANs this year for similar conduct. [94] [95] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wefa has acknowledged the issue and have been adequately warned. I have no reason to believe more restriction is needed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Give them a second chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  How is Wefa coming to ANI to say "Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees." at all describable as having "acknowledged the issue"? Or this comment, the other response to this ANI thread. It's the exact behavior that resulted in Wefa being brought here and it's this singular interest in discussion over ideology rather than sources which necessitates a TBAN. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The editor made a couple soapbox edits on one talk page. When he was confronted about it here he said that it's "basically clear" to him that he needs to stop. The quote you mentioned is Wefa explaining how they view Wikipedia and the topic have changed recently; he hasn't been editing much in the last few years. It's reasonable that he might be a little rusty and ignorant to Wikipedia standards today. There's no evidence of sustained disruption in the GENSEX area by this user. Therefore, a topic ban would be more punitive than preventative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, and he has come to AN/I to continue to show that he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but no disruption would be prevented by banning him from GENSEX discussions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  "he has come to AN/I to continue to show" isn't accurate; he was brought here, he didn't come here to continue to show anything. It'd be different if he had inserted himself into a dispute that didn't involve him. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I've read through the proceeding discussion, and some of Wefa's other contributions. I think a topic ban from GENSEX content is the right call here. To editors who believe we should not topic ban for just talk page contributions, I'd point out that actually in practice we do. To quote/paraphrase from another AE case (comments by admin Joe) where an editor was topic banned because of their talk page contributions; it is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and contributing to the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (conflating gender affirming care as mutilation of children, likening health care professionals with Josef Mengele, asserting that transphobia does not exist, denying that trans and non-binary people are who they say they are) in a way that is contrary to the UCOC and the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa lacks the sensitivity and tact required to edit in this topic area productively and collaboratively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not seeing where -- and there haven't been any diffs to demonstrate -- (a) Wefa has made ban-worthy objectionable edits to articlespace, or (b) where he's continued to make objectionable and explosive comments to article talk pages in this line. I'll reiterate my statement from above: the best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is, we are discussing a topic ban, not a site ban. It is clear from Wefa's talk comment quoted above that they disagree profoundly with both the enwiki community consensus and the consensus of reliable sources on key questions in the GENSEX topic area, to the extent that they are willing at least to make a public thought experiment about crusading against consensus reality. In this context, what purpose is served by allowing an editor to contribute to a topic area within which any contribution they make is bound to be counter to policy, and therefore disruptive? The whole point of sanctions is to prevent future disruption, is it not? This isn't about "thought crime", it is about contributing to a collaborative project. Wefa's comment - conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else - is essentially an assertion, against all the sources on the topic, that transgender identity does not exist. Editors can believe what they like, but bringing their pastafarian or flat earth beliefs into the determination of article content in this way is inherently disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, and this is the sort of thing your side is tripping over when it comes to "thought crime." That green quote does not state that transgender identity does not exist. It states that conservatives believe it doesn't exist ... which, in point of fact, many do, and there are a whole whopping lot of concurring academic and scientific sources, so perhaps you can spare us the insinuation about "all" the sources on the topic; they are merely "all" the sources with which you agree. In a field dominated in several directions by personal belief, declaring a side to hold the only settled, objective truth is at best badly premature.

  There are many subject areas on Wikipedia involving conflicting beliefs: religion, politics, history, race relations. We do not seek to impose orthodoxy: not on whether Sunni or Shia is the legitimate strain of Islam, not on which entity legitimately owns Kosovo, not on which percentage of African descent makes an American "black," not on hundreds of other contentious questions. To call the mere introduction of such a view "inherently disruptive" ... well, perhaps disruptive to a side wanting its view of things to be considered unquestioned orthodoxy, sure. Is that genuinely the Wikipedia you want? Ravenswing 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Meh, Wefa had made all of 20 edits in 2022 before this. AFAICT, ~1,500 edits over 18 years and there apparently has never been a problem before, until Sep 19, 2022, when Wefa made one offensive forum/soapbox-y article talk page comment and a second, similar user talk page comment; the sentiments were repeated a third time in this ANI thread above. Wefa hasn't edited in the past week. I don't think going straight to a TBAN for two disruptive edits (not counting ANI) is merited, particularly for an editor who barely edits. What are we preventing? I see no reason to think this problem will be repeated, and if it is, the proper mode of action is a full NOTHERE site ban (or block), not a TBAN. But for context, here's a perfectly fine comment from earlier on Sep 19, and another from Sep 11, I do not see any kind of ongoing pattern outside of two edits on Sep 19. They barely edit; most of their edits are fine; the disruption is limited to two comments posted on one day; I continue to support closing with a warning but a TBAN is too much paperwork for this. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support are we seriously just going to give this user a slap on the wrist in this topic for comparing transgender care to Josef Mengele? There is no way Wefa can edit this area in a civil or reasonable manner. Dronebogus (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• It's bizarre to see opposes based on "too much paperwork" and what amounts to WP:DENY. Not only does Wefa compares their fellow editors to a Nazi figure and denies the existence of trans people, they clearly refuse to work within our policies and guidelines and sources go against their point of view, which can be seen on this report and on this earlier discussion on a topic in the same DS area. They are clearly a net negative on this area. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  It might be bizarre if any opposes were based on the premise of "too much paperwork." Would you care to point any out? Ravenswing 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I guess she's quoting me, but I don't really oppose a TBAN, so much as I just think a warning would be better than a TBAN ("too much paperwork" == "not worth the editor time to administer"). (What I really oppose is no action.) Levivich (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Warn per Levivich, although further disruption would merit a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Tamzin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa has shown they do not have the neutrality necessary to participate in this sensitive area. Should they develop that sensitivity at a later date, they the community can always re-evaluate, but for now- they are not a net positive contribution in this area and I am not convinced they have realized what the problem even is. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support Let me make it clear that I think a topic ban is completely appropriate…if we had an active editor here. The lack of activity on a long term account suggests that this isn’t going to prevent that much disruption. With all that said, I don’t think Wefa would be able to edit collaboratively on that topic should they become more active, so I’m supporting the ban. I also want to make it clear that it’s okay to have opposing views regarding stuff like this, and a TBAN simply for different views would be invalid. However, when you express those views in a soapbox post on an article and user talk it is no longer appropriate, just like it wouldn’t be if someone made the opposite argument in a soapbox comment on a talk page. Talk pages are to discuss improving the Wiki, the comparison to Mengle is nowhere near that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above, and the fact this thread is still going with no resolution — haven't we sunk enough time into this? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above. AKK700 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose after seeing an editor above repeating "he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion" a couple of times. Since when is only one opinion acceptable in a discussion? A discussion requires people from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, being allowed to express their opinions, not just one side humming in unison. TBANning someone for daring to express an opinion that is very far from being fringe, and shared by a very large number of people violates the principle of freedom of speach, and Wikipedia is supposed to be free, and not censored. And please don't call me transphobic or anything like that for daring to oppose a TBAN based on the principle of freedom of speach, because you have no idea where I stand on GENSEX matters. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  One opinion is not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but more than one opinion is also not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, because WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX means that nobody should be giving their opinion about GENSEX issues in a GENSEX discussion. The only acceptable GENSEX discussion is one about RSes. The posts at issue here were straight-up preaching a political viewpoint. Wikipedia is free and not censored -- that's the mainspace articles -- but talk pages are not free, and they are censored, e.g. by WP:NOT policy and the WP:TALK guideline. There is no freedom of speech on talk pages. The reason I support a warning (and oppose no action) is because it is not OK for an editor to express their political opinions on article talk pages. (The reason I prefer a warning over a TBAN is because it's a first offense and hasn't been repeated since.) Levivich (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Thomas.W: are you saying that a very large number of people believe that doctors who provide healthcare to transgender people are the equivalent of Josef Mengele? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to say it HEB, but that's probably true. First, trans people aren't exactly widely accepted in the US or in the West--in some parts, sure, but a majority? Not sure. Second, think of the rest of the world. A majority of the world still doesn't accept homosexuality; I doubt a majority accepts even the concept of gender identity (as distinct from biological sex). Heck, I doubt a majority of the world even accepts interracial, interreligious, or interethnic marriage. Sad but probably true. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Theres a difference between not accepting it and thinking that contemporary doctors are in general comparable to the absolute worst that industrialized, putatively civilized, man is capable of. I will desist because dwelling on it puts me in a dark mood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  We don’t pander to cultural relativism on Wikimedia. There was one admin on Amharic WP that was extremely homophobic, as is typical in Ethiopia (where Amharic is principally spoken) and he was still banned from WM. If you’re a vocal bigot, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  lol, "pander to cultural relativism" is a funny way of saying "tolerate other people's cultures". I guess it's just your culture we should tolerate? This is why I (and others) don't support promoting NONAZIs beyond an essay. Sure we can all agree about being tolerant of people regardless of their gender identity (or sexual orientation or ethnicity), but what about... [insert list of divisive cultural issues]? This is a slippery slope. That's why our "rule" isn't "you must agree with Western values," it's WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX, as Tamzin explains below. "Bigot", like beauty, is too often in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see why I’m supposed to take seriously someone whose first word in their response is “lol” Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it's a good thing then that transgender existence and transgender health, like evolutionary biology and vaccines, are topics where WP's content is to be based on reliable sources and not on opinion polling. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can I have a link to the Ethiopian bam discussion. dronebogus.

  To be clear, this isn't about TBANning someone for having the wrong opinion. Plenty of people edit constructively in the GENSEX area—as all areas—despite having strongly-held controversial views. It's not even per se about admitting to having that opinion in a talkpage discussion. I don't think we'd be here if he'd said, in passing in a discussion, "Personally I think all of this should be illegal"; that would go against NOTFORUM, but not in a way that usually leads to sanctions. No, this is about someone using talkpages to rant about their political views. The fact that those views are divisive makes it worse; it is immaterial whether they are right or wrong. If someone were saying "All people who oppose puberty blockers for transgender youth are doing so purely out of a desire to drive them to their deaths", and then doubling down as Wefa has here, I would support sanctions there too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you Tamzin but if you read DB's comment above, it isn't at all clear that this isn't about TBANing someone for having the wrong opinion. DB is expressly saying the opposite. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I was refuting that your apparent appeal to the majority and appeal to cultural relativism to excuse (but not endorse) an egregious statement (that transgender care is morally equivalent to Nazi human experimentation). I might’ve been wrong to say “bigot” instead of “bigotry” (since it’s the offensive, extreme statement itself which is the problem here, not what the user and their opinions) Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would’ve let this slide if Wefa hadn’t brought godwin’s law into this mess; personally I find their general subject commentary grating and inappropriate but not ban worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't excused anything and don't try to turn this on me because I disagree with you. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Support due to their comments here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose We don't TBAN people just for having unpopular opinions. Jtrainor (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Artificial break

• Oppose - I find it ridiculous to consider banning a user for making a single talk page post that, as far as I can tell, does not violate any policies. I'll grant that Wefa's language is somewhat hyperbolic, but their basic view - that performing surgery or hormone injections on children under 18 in order for them to look more like the opposite sex is immoral - is a significant mainstream view, and probably even the majority view around the world. Not that I'm a fan of banning people for their views in any context, but to ban someone for holding this particular view makes no sense. And no, I don't think they disrupted anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who trivializes and ridicules gender-affirming surgery ("getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president") should probably not be offering their opinion about what forms of POV advocacy are or aren't disruptive, and it is questionable whether such an editor ought to be participating in GENSEX TBAN discussions, at least not by !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you know what "ridicule" means. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd go with the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way. Comparing access to gender-affirming surgery to being eligible to run for POTUS strikes me as both cruel and harsh. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think that comment reasonably disqualifies their opinion in this matter, not that their argument (based on opinions on the perceived reasonableness of Wefa’s views on transgender care, ignoring the fact that they’re delivering them in a WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way) was all that great. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, just the idea to put transgender care and Josef Mengele in the same sentence would justify a TBAN from all gender-related materials. —Sundostund (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• 'Oppose no serious violation, he expressed himself, let's move on instead of targeting him for his opinion.Lmharding (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the statement Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children is essentially a statement that Wefa's feelings about the topic take precedence over what reliable sources actually say about the topic, and that because editors are unable to concede that the sky is actually puce, that this is a problem with the Wikipedia community. Elaborating such solipsistic views on WP Talk pages is inherently disruptive, and people who are unable to concede that their personal reality has diverged from the reality documented in reliable sources are not qualitied to participate in WP in areas where they are unable to restrain themselves in expressing their, umm, idiosyncratic POV.
• I would ask those placing "Oppose" !votes why they think the TBAN is a bad idea - do they want to see Wefa make more such comments so that we come back here again? There is no suggestion that they are likely to comport themselves any differently on this topic in future... Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  As one of the "Opposers" - I see no problem with the way they have comported themselves, either in talk pages or in articles. We accept people with all different political opinions here, as long as they make reasonable edits, and that seems to be the case with this user. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  It probably doesn't hurt that you share their opinion about the immorality of trans healthcare. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences.

  This is not a reasonable edit - it expresses the editor's opinion that their personal intuitions, rather than a discussion of sources based on WP policy, ought to determine what NPOV means in a specific (ACDS) domain, and that because the editor is right about this, they would be justified in edit warring against consensus reality even though it could result in a community ban. (Even the editor's opinion that their individual dissent is sufficient to deny consensus to article text already represents a degree of solipsism.) This is not a reasonable edit by an editor who is able to contribute to a collaborative project, at least not in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The user was clearly making a rhetorical point about double standards, not actually threatening to engage in an edit war. Ironically, by calling for banning them, I think you're making Wefa's point even better than they could themselves: people on the other side of the argument (about Libs of TikTok, etc.) do routinely revert changes without consensus, but this user risks being banned for just talking about doing the same thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are nicely sidestepping the question, "what is the consensus among the reliable sources on this topic?", which is where the "two sides" WP:FALSEBALANCE civil POV argument goes to die. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Depends on the topic, of course. Given that this user doesn't seem to have made any bad edits to any articles, this seems like a strictly theoretical discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no reason to excuse disruptive POV rants on Talk just because an editor doesn't follow through in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tend to agree with Ravenswing's view here. I would warn them per Levivich but removing them the first time they screw up in expressing their views isn't going to result in articles written from a wide ranges of edits. If they haven't been taken to ANI in the past them give them some leeway and help them learn what is/isn't OK. Springee (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Their statements are simply explanatory toward them not being able to properly edit in this topic area. Also, what I've gathering from the comments above is that we have a significant amount of editors (at least in this discussion) that are openly bigoted toward the LGBT community. A lot of this is very mask off in showing said editors' true colors. Silverseren^C 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear from their comments here that this is not an area in which they are capable of constructive collaboration, and I think some gentle guidance towards topics they are more suited for would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Warn This is complex and I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments from the support side. Beyond the hate speech, I read Wefa's words more in terms of "resignation", someone who considers themselves defeated, but will remain unbent no matter what...one great big middle finger at consensus...but that appears to be it...I'm struck that to date, we've not been presented with evidence of disruptive activity in the realm of content creation or content discussion (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is the consequence? We are asked to support this on the basis of preventative action, but we have no evidence of acts ... we are asked to infer that these statements are strong indications of a willingness to act (whereas the words, on face value, reflect the opposite). I'd argue the subtext to Wefa's outburst is to seek to prove that no dialogue (by their definition) is possible - by being "censured" they are confirmed in their point of view. They more or less consciously recognise they cannot meaningfully dispute scholarly consensus on the issue and they are unable to dispute community consensus. So this gesture. I would support a TBAN if there was evidence of them being shown to impede content creation or content discussion. I'd note that the London Review of Books last month published a letter in the most prominent position of the letters' page from a transphobe with a cogent, critical reply. It's a fine line, but talk pages and ANI are not a school, a public library, a newspaper, a university, or a board room ... it's the engine room (or maybe ANI is the janitor's closet). We should place this in the context of the consequence of the action, not our own perceptions of the somewhat nebulous possibility of where this might lead. Yes to admonish and warn, at this point, but refrain from stepping beyond our own frameworks to provide this editor with that they seek: proof of their righteousness. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose or Warning, at the mostNo, please, no warning after this discussion, which is waaaaay enough, actually excessive. I agree with Ravenswing and Levivic. I don't see any disruptive behaviour - they didn't touch the article namespace, they just expressed their views on the talk page. Reminding them about WP:SOAPBOX would be enough as really there's nothing sanctionable here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC) ; edited 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support The issue to me is not one of hate speech or having the wrong opinions but simply whether the user is here to build an encyclopedia, and in particular whether they can be trusted to edit the topic area constructively. Therefore, to say that they have been "warned" about their comments is insufficient because it's not really about whether they'll say them again or not, it's that by those comments they have already shown that they will not be able to edit constructively in the GENSEX area. Pinguinn 🐧 07:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature: they haven't edit warred or pushed their opinions into any articles, so a topic ban would be an overreaction imv. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A TBAN would certainly be quite harsh in this instance, as this isn't a case where there's been repeated or similar conduct across several articles. Further, this has only been demonstrated on the one talk page. I would advocate for a warning and suggest that they perhaps tone down their opinions. Nevertheless, they are absolutely still free to hold those opinions and express them respectfully in a discussion, which they have been. Going on the offensive and calling them "transphobic" or other pejoratives isn't contributory--that is behavior that constitutes WP:NOTHERE, not Wefa's. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding of "respectfully" does not include comparing the other editors one is in "dialogue" with to supporters of Nazi torture, but clearly perspectives differ (the relevant sentence being, There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  And you once again show that you're trying to get rid of an editor merely because of them expressing an opinion you don't like. Which isn't what topic bans are for, they're intended for protecting the encyclopaedia from editors who have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. Which Wefa hasn't, all they've done is express an opinion you don't like, on a talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but I am generally able to express a controversial opinion without comparing those I am in dialog with to supporters of genocidal torturers, and also without threatening to engage in a righteous edit war against the admin supported ... propaganda arm that apparently dictates Wikipedia content. Perhaps my abilities in this regard are exceptional.

  But regardless of this, the purpose of a topic ban is never punishment but always to prevent further disruption. And if this editor were to put oar in GENSEX waters again, there is every reason - based on their own comments - to expect further disruption, and no reason to expect anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  They did not threaten to disrupt articles, so repeating that over and over again, in spite of having been corrected by others, is a deliberate misinterpretation by you, in an attempt to, as I wrote above, get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't see a threat to disrupt in Wefa's edits on this topic (of the form "I could edit disruptively on this to fight the cabal - but really I shouldn't have to because right-thiking people would see that I'm right") - then I can't see that you were reading the same comments I read. Also, your repeated and unsubstantiated assertion that my reading s a deliberate misinterpretation ... in an attempt to ... get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like - that's an WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA violation. Please don't do that.

  I also find it telling that you have repeatedly ignored the most basic point at issue, namely, whether it is disruptive to compare those one is in "dialog" with on Talk to suppoeters of genocidal torturers. Is that a question you'd like to take to the Teahouse, perhaps? Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't see it as a threat to edit disruptively, just a hypothetical discussion about what someone could do, just as others have pointed out previously. And you don't seem to understand what topic bans are for, they're for protecting the encyclopaedia, and prevent further disruptive editing, while personal attacks, harassment and other kinds of unwanted editor behaviour are handled through warnings and blocks of varying length, not through topic bans, especially not against editors who have never even edited an article within the very wide area the topic ban is sought for... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't think discretionary sanctions are used to prevent disruption caused by an editor's patterns of incivility that are specific to an ACDS domain - well, then, you aren't someone I would ask for an explanation of what topic bans are for. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Pattern of incivility"? Where's that pattern? I see one post on an article talk page, a post that was removed by another editor within two minutes of being posted. And one edit makes no pattern, so how about sticking to the truth? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban under WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. Like, c'mon people! He's calling trans surgeries "mutilation" and comparing doctors to Mengele! Just earlier today, someone was quickly reported to ANI and banned for posting How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? on my talk page. If that's across the line, than I have no idea how Wefa is anywhere near the right side of it. The things Wefa is saying are not and should not be analyzed as just a problem in the GENSEX topic area. They are a personal attack on every trans editor on the project. Loki (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Many people (possibly a majority of the world) would consider removing a healthy 15-year-old's breasts to be mutilation, and would have a low opinion of any doctor who performed such a surgery. Is it your view that all these people should be banned from editing Wikipedia? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So are you also pushing the conspiracy nonsense Korny? That's the exact sort of pseudoscience and conspiracy pushing that Wikipedia has WP:FRINGE to deal with. Silverseren^C 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they generalize their outrage and assert (with a broad brush apparently including patients of all ages) that "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time - yup, they ought to be banned from participating in discussions of topics where they cannot restrain themselves from deriding editors who disagree with them.

  Furthermore, the view (expressed here) that "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and ... nothing else is at odds with the reliable sources that show, in fact, that transpbobia, anti-trans violence and anti-trans attitudes are still causing the deaths of young trans people. Ironically, these are precisely the same young people that your supposed possible majority are allegedly trying to protect from mutilation. Because the feelings of those flat earthers "gender realists" are apparently of greater importance than the lives and mental health of trans youth. Ugh. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This user is talking about a full ban, not a topic ban. Neither of you answered the question, which is not surprising since it wasn't directed to either of you. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  People who can't restrain themselves from making bigoted comments about vulnersble minorities should not be editing Wikipedia, period. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. And you know this is a bullshit argument. Over 40% of Americans think the election was stolen. In the 50s interracial marriage was unpopular. At one point racism and slavery were positively viewed. What's popular is not an indication of what is correct. What you may be trying to say is that you think this, in which case you should just say that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Like I said, this is not a poll on whether transphobia is in the Overton window. It’s about a user making inflammatory comments about a subject they clearly don’t have the necessary knowledge and professionalism to participate in. Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I of course wasn't talking about the correctness of the viewpoint, just its bannability. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, a viewpoint is not bannable on Wikipedia; expressions of a view point can be bannable (as in this case, IMO, and in the recent RfA "expression of a viewpoint" pretty much incontrovertibly). Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Does it make sense to ban the expression of a viewpoint that's held by most people? (Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that that's the case here.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The number of people holding a viewpoint isn't relevant, what matters is whether or not it is expressed disruptively. If I were to write "cis people just need to sit down and shut up" that would have a disruptive impact somewhere between me stating that "I think the views of cis people are overrepresented in this discussion" (non-disruptive), on the one hand, and referring to "jack-booted goose-stepping gender skeptical thought police" (highly disruptive) on the other. Wefa's comments we are actually discussing seem quite clearly to fall on the "jack-booted" end of the spectum I just outlined, which is what makes them inherently disruptive.

  And in the hypothetical example I just gave, I don't think the question of how many people agree with me about the gender-skeptical thought police would be relevant to Wikipedia Talk page norms. Do you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would actually consider only the first of your hypothetical statements to be truly disruptive. Anyway, it seems like your views on banning are less extreme than Loki's. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this, stop strawmanning people. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who did I strawman? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this. No sealioning or playing dumb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I literally have no idea. But thanks for the insightful contribution. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This? This right here is why I called out Korny before, and got dragged to ANI over it. This kind of "polite POV pushing" needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they say it on Wikipedia, yes, absolutely! I'm sure a majority of the world believes gay sex is sinful, but that doesn't get you out of getting banned for telling other users they're going to hell. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we're sure as hell not some weird kinda democracy where we're weighing the personal opinions of every person in the world before we can do anything. Loki (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support These comments aren't okay, and I'm not seeing a clear understanding of that. If people use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to spread hatefuly views, they should expect sanctions. Tamwin (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Korny, That Coptic Guy, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Ultimately he went on an off-topic rant and has been warned about soapboxing. It shouldn't need to go any further than that, and I don't find it appropriate to ban someone for holding fringe views (if they can even be called that), especially when they have seemingly abandoned editing that article. If he disrupts the project in future we should return to this discussion, but I don't see anything rule-breaking at this juncture. — Czello 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing mainstream, science based on-wiki consensus to support for Mengele - You either get that or refuse to - doesn't break WP:CIVIL "rules"? (Backs slowly away) Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not to the point where it warrants a T-ban. It warrants a warning, which he's received. — Czello 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It warrants a ban from the whole project. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and a calmly phrased personal attack is still a personal attack. Loki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE is an essay, i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline, and thus carries no more weight than the personal opinion of any other editor on the project. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but it's a well argued summary of the implications of other Wikipedia policies. There's no policy that says I can't cite an essay as support for my arguments, in fact some essays get cited very often. Loki (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, and they often get cited as if they were policy, which I think some editors forget they're not. — Czello 07:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Frankly, it's quite sad that a couple soapbox comments have drained this much editor resources in this discussion. We need to learn to just move on. This will never gain a consensus to topic ban, and admin needs to close this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think there might be a stronger consensus in favor of a TBAN if the votes that defend Wefa on a “free speech”/“it’s just his opinion and a perfectly reasonable one in most of the world etc” basis were disregarded as invalid misunderstandings of the case. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Congratulations, your comment highlighted the main problem with this ANI case, i.e. a small group of editors who allow only one opinion, and try to get rid of everyone who does not share that opinion, by chasing them away or making concerted efforts to get them topic-banned, indeffed or burned at the stake. Your proposal that all !votes of editors who don't share your view should be disregarded is the direct equivalent to how authoritarian states are being run, with elections where people can vote only for one party... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thomas.W certainly phrased it a good deal less caustically than I might have. It is not that we do not comprehend the situation; it's that we do not agree with your POV on it. I'm not sure what about that is so very difficult to understand. "It’s just his opinion and a perfectly reasonable one in most of the world" is not a claim of free speech; it's a refutation of the premise that there is an orthodox shibboleth at stake, the defiance of which is self-evident reason to impose a topic ban. I'm not sure what about that is so very difficult to understand. Ravenswing 07:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  The view that trans people do not really exist, or if we do exist our existence is a pathology and should be treated as such, is not perfectly reasonable...in most of the world. But that is directly implied by anyone promoting "gender-affirming care=Mengele". If you or any other editor actually indends to defend "gender-affirming care=Mengele", not for free speech reasons but because it is an alternative view worth considering, I'd appreciate them doing so openly and based on sources rather than through such oblique byplay. Newimpartial (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are, as usual, misrepresenting the case, Wefa expressly wrote about puberty blockers and other gender affirmative care in children, who because of being children can't legally approve of such things themselves. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wefa's statement, there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children, is by no means limited to children. Indeed, I am unaware of any jurisdiction where "primary sex surgery" (not mastectomies) is offered to anyone under 18, so Wefa must be including gender affirming care for adults in this rant (although because Wefa never gives any sources for these strenuously held beliefs, we may never know for sure what is meant). Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That was a nice piece of creative editing. You "accidentally" omitted the rest of that sentence: ... (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children ..., showing that he was talking about gender affirmative care of children.. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, Wefa is applying the Mengele argument to all gender-affirmative care; unlike what Graham Linehan somwetimes says, there is no exception that perhaps adults can do what they want. The rationale for Wefa's argument concerns gender-affirming care of minors (though no rationale for opposing gender-affirming talk therapy or social supports has been provided), but the scathing denunciation appears to encompass all gender-affirming care. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's your interpretation of what Wefa wrote, not what Wefa actually wrote, and you can't topic ban someone based only on your personal interpretation of what someone has written. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I may be mistsken, but I think editors can actually receive a topic ban for this kind of highly opinionated commentary. I fact, I'd say there are precedents [96] [97]. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, you are mistaken, since there's a huge difference between the cases you linked to and this one, since both of the cases you linked to involved repeated posts plus multiple personal attacks, none of which fits this case. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  This case did include multiple posts and at least one personal attack (comparing one's interlocutors to supporters of Mengele). Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is getting boring, you are once again deliberately misrepresenting the case, there were not multiple posts, only one (the post on their own talk page does not contain anything that is even remotely worthy of sanctions...), and he did not compare anyone taking part in the discussions to Mengele ("gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time") (my emphasis), so why don't you stop? The only thing you achieve by continuing this silly game is to make yourself look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Once again you have eliminated key context. The quote reads:

  There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

  There are two sides depicted - those who support the Mengeles of our time and those who oppose them. Mainstream medical authorities and their standards of care, backed by the admin-supported left wing on Wikipedia, are the supporters of Mengele (my previous phrase) in this rhetoric. That isn't a personal interpretation of mine - it is the plain meaning of the comment.

  Also, I will remind you that the follow-on Talk page comment included the following:

  "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

  Now I happen to be nonbinary in my gender identity, and Wefa has just denied that I exist. Please explain to me how this is not remotely worthy of sanctions... Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  A: How you can read that quote as Wefa comparing you or anyone else who took part in the discussion ("interlocutors") to Mengele is totally beyond me, because that's not at all what the text says, and the word "support" is nowhere to find in Wefa's text, making it just a personal interpretation of yours.

  B: The majority of all people, whether you look at humankind as a whole, at the United States as a whole, or at individual states, or any country of your choice, do without doubt recognize only two genders, biological male and biological female, and if even mentioning that belief is worthy of sanctions then we are now living in Orwell's Oceania. So what's next? Thinkpol? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  A: the key words are You either get that or refuse to and the context of the excerpt we have both been taking about is Wefa's objection to his admin-supported left wing opponents on that Article Talk page. I don't know what you think Wefa's point was on that talk page, but the plain meaning of the comment is as a comment about those opposing him on the Talk page.

  B Please see Legal recognition of non-binary gender. And if US public opinion were a reliable source, we would have to credit young earth creationism as a legitimate account of Earth's origins, and the flat earth as a reasonable alternative hypothesis. According to the reliable sources, non-binary gender exists. You can mention anything you like, but asserting the non-existence of some of your fellow editors is an WP:CIVIL violation, as was demonstrated in the WP:ARE filings I linked previously. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial: I don't see this subdiscussion of ours going anywhere worthwhile, for multiple reasons, including that someone might get the idea that I'm transphobic, which I'm not, I just can't see that Wefa's edit merited a topic ban, or even worse, since some are calling for a site ban. And I can see that you feel hurt by this discussion, and I have absolutely nothing against you, and don't want to hurt you, but at the same time I can't see how recognizing only two genders equals asserting the non-existence of people who selfidentify as something else, we all exist regardless of if people accept how we see ourselves or not. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? I suspect if you took an opinion poll worldwide, you'd get a plurality backing that notion at the very least, if not variations considerably more vicious. As far as discussing the subject generally, our private opinions are not (and should not be) pertinent to the encyclopedia. You want to hear mine, send me e-mail, because where Wefa screwed up -- and for which he should properly be warned and admonished -- is in the inappropriate use of an article talk page as a rant forum. Ravenswing 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Per LokiTheLiar, this case may very well warrant a full ban from the project, according to WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and I would be ready to support it. Just to make it clear – I voted earlier to support a TBAN from all gender-related materials, due to the fact that the editor in question equalized transgender care and the experiments of Josef Mengele. —Sundostund (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning, per Levivich Paul August ☎ 02:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose bans largely per Ravenswing. I'm not seeing true evidence of disruption or evidence of likely disruption in the future. The Mengele comparison was uncalled for, but this seems was a single ill-advised comment in the context of some pretty broad and generic statements of opinion in regards to not getting consensus for their view in a content discussion. This is different to the incident unfolding further down on this page, where an admin wielded their personal beliefs about transgender topics as a discriminatory cudgel to beat down another editor without provocation. I think we should let it go with a warning. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban; support warning. This user's comments were inappropriate. But they very plainly do not meet the threshold for WP:Disruptive editing, which is the explicit requirement for a WP:TBAN. Going through the criteria for disruptive editing, I see no evidence of tendentious edits (persistent additions or deletions), failure to satisfy WP:V, disruptive cite-tagging, "repeated" edits made without consensus-building, or deliberate disregard of community input. The requirements for disruption, and therefore for a TBAN, are clearly not met, and I don't believe I've seen even a single editor make a policy-grounded argument in support. Other editors here have repeatedly failed to WP:AGF, by incorrectly claiming that Wefa compared "other editors" to Mengele, or by assuming that future contributions will be disruptive, when no evidence for past disruptive conduct has been shown (an isolated soapbox comment does not IMO qualify). I see an editor who made comments within the context of feeling antagonized or marginalized, while publicly announcing they they were renouncing editing the article; far from signalling an "intent to disrupt." DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC); edited 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ravenswing and Tom. Five minutes ago I saw a user call every inhabitant of the USA "barbaric" and "perverted" because they disagreed with the existence of the death penalty; no-one seemed to care. One reference to Mengele in a fit of anger does not a TBAN make. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the above discussion. This is not a discussion of a single edit, this is a discussion of a pattern of edits on that talk page and literally on ANI with the same disruptive political POV and zero intent to constructively discuss content. There are multiple people here arguing that it's a one-off, and I have no idea where they're getting that from. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  They haven’t engaged in any disruption in the GENSEX area in the whole month this thread has been open. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Arguing that an editor has stopped disrupting an ACDS area doesn't seem especially relevant when they have also stopped editing the encyclopedia, bar a handful of edits, over that time period. Indeed, I don't think I've previously seen the argument that a topic ban wasn't required because an editor has almost stopped editing. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was one talk page edit, one user talk page edit on the same day, and one edit to this ANI where they said they'd disengage, which they have done for a month. I don't see a pattern (and I would feel differently about this if I did). Levivich (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is a war zone of reverts by multiple editors, and ridiculously long. Fix those issues first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Instead of a repeated pattern of disruption, we have: 2 content dispute posts [1][2], 1 disruptive wall of text, the ANI notice (no section topic?) then the DS notice (???), a user talk request to uncollapse followed by a user talk protest of being accused of holding a transphobic position (LoT was by Daily Dot, but this was taken personally), and then finally a borderline response at ANI and a withdrawal of the uncollapse request 3 days later. This not vote has been open for 3 weeks; it's used up far more time than the evidence. Going to ANI as soon as an editor, who you don't want to work with, just makes one mess in a DS topic is not a good idea, and this case is a great example of that. RAN1 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Other editors (including the proposer of the gensex tban) let us know their personal opinions without being banned. I believe the deletion of the comment was inappropriate, as "POV" is not one of the justifications for deletion mentioned in WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Close

This discussion has been ongoing for a month now and has not been concluded. Can an administrator please close this? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree please close this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree. I truly believe that we'd be sending a very negative message, if we close this discussion without a proper conclusion. The time length of the discussion can't be an excuse to do that. —Sundostund (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Any close would involve a proper conclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, the message that closing this would send is that there was no consensus for any level of sanction. Which would be entirely accurate. It is demonstrably not the "conclusion" for which you were hoping -- proper or otherwise -- but on sheer headcount, supporters for a tban/cban haven't even achieved a majority. How would that "conclusion" change by dragging this out further? Ravenswing 19:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Whoever closes this, please note that WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE that several of those who support a ban give as a reason for supporting is just a partisan essay trying to circumvent both Wikipedia's disruptive editing policy and the banning policy, not a policy or guideline, and thus carries no weight whatsoever. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any sign of consensus that HATEISDISRUPTIVE is a partisan essay trying to circumvent both Wikipedia's disruptive editing policy and the banning policy - that seems to be simply your own opinion. I would also note that the expression of FRINGE views on GENSEX topics has been fairly frequently a ground for a topic ban on said topics; one example of such a ban, which was passed at ANI earlier this year, is this one. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's an essay, meaning that there's no doubt about it carrying no weight whatsoever regardless of if it is seen as partisan or not, and I see it as partisan since it tries to circumvent Wikipedia policy, and is referred to not only by editors who support a topic ban for Wefa, against Wikipedia policy (see discussions above), but also by editors who support a siteban, with some of those editors even having written it, and continuing to plug it as if it were policy even after it had been pointed out to them that it carries no weight here. And in my opinion it can't get more partisan than that, that is writing an essay that tries to circumvent policy and then using it as if it were policy when trying to get another editor banned. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Clearly you believe that editors wrote HATEISDISTUPTIVE were trying to circumvent policy and then using it as if it were policy. However, as far as I can tell both elements of this - that the essay tries to circumvent policy, and that editors are citing the essay against policy, as if it were policy are just things you happen to believe rather than being based on evidence or community perception/consensus. It has been pointed out to you that editors disruptively maintaining FRINGE views in the GENSEX domain have been topic-banned by community consensus here and at WP:ARE. Your idea that such topic bans are against Wikipedia policy is an opinion you have asserted here, but without any basis that I can recognize. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  C'mon, why else would anyone write an essay that in bold letters claims that "Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing" in direct contravention to the disruptive editing policy that says that "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia", and then use that essay to try to get another editor banned? An essay that also conveniently ignores the fact that disruptive editing according to the DE-policy requires "a pattern of editing" (just like the banning policy requires having repeatedly violated rules), as you very well know since you repeatedly claimed that there was a pattern of sanctionable posts made by Wefa, when in fact only one of them contained anything even possibly sanctionable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Editors have previously been banned for denying that trans or nonbinary identities are "real" and need to be respected, e.g. this topic ban and this site ban. Your repeated denial that Wefa's similar comments contained anything even possibly sanctionable is so flagrantly incorrect that it really ought to disqualify you from commenting on the issue at hand.

  Also a point of reading comprehension: in asserting that Expressing hateful views is a form of disruptive editing the essay by no means contradicts the policy language defining disruptive editing as a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Rather, it is pointing out that the expression of hateful views disrupts the development of the encyclopaedia. I would have thought this was too obvious to need to be spelled out, but there you go. And yes, I personally think it is safe to connect three points to draw a pattern, though I recognize that editors can reasonably disagree about pattern recognition. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  "... it really ought to disqualify you from commenting on the issue at hand". Am I the next on your list of editors to get rid of? As for the rest, you have too much imagination, and see things that aren't there, that is make very odd and twisted interpretations of what Wefa wrote, and then claim he has written things that are nowhere to find in his text (as can be clearly seen in the wall of text in the main body of this case). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Am I the next on your list of editors to get rid of?" Woah. First off I agree with Tom on the fact that stating anything other then policy as reason for a ban is extreme to say the least. But on the other hand Tom that kind of language implies that Impartial is Wikipedia:Hounding you? Reading through this thread a couple of times I was fully backing you Tom but that first statement caught me off guard.Td^she/her 19:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Whether or not a decision is made to sanction Wefa's conduct, the comment "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and ... nothing else is pretty clearly sanctionable, and is very similar to the comments for which other editors have already, in fact, been sanctioned. It also seems obvious to me that the reasoning given - that transphobia does not exist because, ontologically, trans identity does not exist - is inherently disruptive when an editor's POV is expressed in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I stated above, the explicit requirement for a TBAN is Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. Both the cases you link to clearly meet the threshold for disruptive editing, going by the criteria (unlike this one), and both also clearly meet the threshold for a sustained pattern of direct personal attacks of named users. Neither of these thresholds are met here, and as I pointed out in my comment above, no one has made a policy-based argument otherwise. Essay-based arguments obviously have no enforcement power.

  Stating that a user is "disqualified" from participating in a discussion is also pretty iffy under WP:UNCIVIL, and is an unproductive tone; let's take it down a notch, yes? DFlhb (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Tom, it takes a really scummy person to call an essay condemning hate as "partisan." You should re-think your position on things. 2601:199:417E:31D0:D4F2:E0A9:5E5C:1E77 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If it had been simply "an essay condemning hate" I would have of course had nothing against it, but it isn't, it's an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policy. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • It is perhaps worth noting that the essay says, This essay does not attempt to create any clear definition of hate speech [...] Whether speech is hateful can be assessed by common-sense application of prevailing community norms. I think that vagueness can be applied to the general theme of the essay. While this obviously limits its application, I suppose we can presume that those citing the essay are arguing 1) What Wefa did was hate speech/hateful activity and 2) This is "disruptive" to our collegial environment. I don't agree with this view as I've indicated above, but let's not miss the forest for the trees by arguing about technicalities. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

    Hate speech is an extreme violation of WP:UNCIVIL, it’s a legitimate block reason. Dronebogus (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hang on. An IP, who never contributed to Wikipedia before, comes here, on a page no IP-user could conceivably ever have heard of (ANI), purely to post a direct personal attack, and nobody bats an eye?

  This raises questions of either WP:SOCK (actually, it's the very first criteria listed there), or WP:CANVASS. DFlhb (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  just report them then. Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  A sockpuppet investigation would require me to suspect a specific account of being behind the sock, which I cannot. I defer to admins here to know what the best avenue is.

  I believe ANI is the correct place to encourage admins to block that IP account, which clearly qualifies under WP:LOUTSOCK given how obscure ANI would be to anyone not already familiar with Wikipedia. The IP's contributions plainly violate WP:SOCK (which is policy), especially the WP:SCRUTINY and the "circumventing policies" criteria; as well as WP:NPA ("really scummy person" was explicitly directed at a specific editor). DFlhb (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree the violation was relatively minor and months old; a TBAN will be purely punitive at this point, which is not the point. There is no consensus here and a lot of editors have just used the discussion as a forum to take sides on Wikipedian free speech issues. Dronebogus (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree Ironically, a discussion stemming from a violation of WP:NOTFORUM has turned into a quagmire. One substantially composed of the very thing it was supposed to sanction. There is little doubt that, even with the inevitable "no consensus" close, Wefa will be watched very, very closely, and will be unlikely to repeat their NOTFORUM scree without some very swift, well supported action, as this whole episode should serve as a final warning. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:51, 21 October 2022 (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.

Pratyeka leaving aggressive comments towards new page reviewers

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

---

I moved two articles created by Pratyeka (talk · contribs), Baomo Yuan and Nanyue Yuan, to draftspace because they were created without any sources. Pratyeka proceeded responded to those edits with this:

What is the point of this, it just makes it a pain to expand. What a waste of everyone's time. I will expand it, move it back please. I have been editing Wikipedia longer than you were out of diapers, literally. prat (talk)
 I have reverted it myself. Now I have to waste time re-creating the interwiki links. NEXT TIME PLEASE DO NOT AGGRESSIVELY ATTACK, MOVE AND DISCONNECT PAGES THAT ARE CLEARLY UNDER CREATION BY EXPERIENCED EDITORS. prat (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Besides that, they also called my draft move "garbage" as well as removed the notability tag I added to the article.

VickKiang also made interactions with Pratyeka. Pratyeka then said that this was "wasting people's time".

I at first thought that this was a newer user frustrated with their articles being draftified, but to learn that this was actually an administrator who has been on Wikipedia since 2003 talking down to new page patrollers for performing quite standard procedures was surprising. I don't think I can trust someone so aggressive towards regular experienced users to be an admin. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This should not be the attitude of a representative of this project, an Admin belittling and YELLING at newbies, why? Re-call maybe, IDK. I do know this isn't good. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

IMHO I also disagree with that NEXT TIME PLEASE DO NOT AGGRESSIVELY ATTACK, MOVE AND DISCONNECT PAGES THAT ARE CLEARLY UNDER CREATION BY EXPERIENCED EDITORS, which is inaccurate, though I should note that was addressed to WaddlesJP13, not myself. Just a note on the timeline when the NPP actions that happened- WaddlesJP13 converted the page to a draft 30 minutes after its original creation. Per WP:NPP, Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. They waited for more than 15 minutes, which might be viewed by Pratyeka as slightly hasty but not against the guideline set by NPP IMO. Joseywales1961 tagged after one hour, which was soon reverted. I then tagged two hours after creation using Page Curation, which was removed without improvement. IMO these patrolling actions probably are acceptable patrolling per WP:NPP. Waddles then retagged notability, which was again reverted, I AfDed the article afterwards. If my NPP patrolling is incorrect or hasty please let me know. Also, in the subsequent comment, the editor said Now it is populated by IGNORANT CREATURES who belive PICTURES OF GARDENS ARE IRRELEVANT, major TOURIST ATTRACTIONS are non-notable, and have NO COMMON DECENCY. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that even if I did move the article to draftspace while they were actively working on the article, it should be their responsibility to make sure the article has all its important content and/or is sourced before publishing it, or at least add an under construction tag after doing so. I've deletion-tagged/draftified many other articles (way past 15 minutes) for this same reason, though anytime I was confronted it wasn't with such an attitude. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"I have been editing Wikipedia longer than you were out of diapers, literally." – I really hate it when people do this, trying to show how high and mighty they are by their edit count and how long they've been on Wikipedia. Get off your high horse. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I hate to say it/admit it, but Pratyeka is technically correct. He did join Wikipedia almost 3 years before WaddlesJP13 was even born. 118.107.244.40 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. People shouldn't use how long they've been on Wikipedia or how many edits they have as a shield from criticism and/or trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute. WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and all that. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, now I feel old. I joined Wikipedia when WaddlesJP13 was 2 years old... Why'd you have to point that out? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a very aggressive edit summary as well. Can’t believe this is an administrator. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E10B:9E79:8159:43B6 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

__I am sick to death of deletionists and policy thumpers.__ You can have my resignation, which I previously gave but someone did not process. Good luck finding anyone else to provide leading coverage of COVID stats as it emerged (check), pioneer important articles like Bitcoin (check), fly at short notice to Wiki conferences (checl) , report malpractice within the Wikimedia foundation (check), vote for years (check) or generally put up with WAY TOO MUCH ADMIN FOR THIS SORT OF THING TO GO ON EVERY DAMN TIME I GET MOTIVATED TO ADD SOMETHING. Wikipedia USED TO BE FUN. Now it is populated by IGNORANT CREATURES who belive PICTURES OF GARDENS ARE IRRELEVANT, major TOURIST ATTRACTIONS are non-notable, and have NO COMMON DECENCY. Please accept my resignation. Wikipedia has lost its way. prat (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BN is thataway. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pratyeka: What exactly do you mean by "no common decency"? You've been belittling people over the draftification of stub articles. I've had my articles moved to draftspace before, it's not that serious. I just worked on them until they're good to be articles. Judging by your userpage history, this is your third time "resigning" from Wikipedia within the past four years. If you're hesitating quitting Wikipedia, then don't. Just accept the ever-evolving guidelines, let people do their jobs, generally treat people better, and don't come off as entitled to disobeying the three aforementioned things simply because you've been here for a longer time than most people. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

An adminstrator creating unreferenced articles in 2022 is unconscionable. Attacking hard working editors doing their best to maintain quality standards is unacceptable. Repeated rage quitting is not adult behavior. If you want to retire, do so with dignity. I have never had an article that I started or that I made a significant effort to improve deleted. That is because I do my best at all times to edit in compliance with the policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia a top ten website worldwide for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The tools have been resigned at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. CMD (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree that their actions were not acceptable. Creating a new page with no references, moving it back once it was moved to draft, objecting to correctly placed tags and doing all of that with aggressive statements is not something that fits within community standards. If they had not resigned their admin then I would supporting efforts for a de-sysadmining. Gusfriend (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe I am the "Ignorant creature" who believes 'Pictures of gardens are irrelevant". This is about Zhan Yuan, which I accepted while NPP reviewing. The article however is very short and has a gallery of 19 photos. First I tagged it with {{gallery cleanup}} per WP:GALLERY. This editor removed the tag. Next I tried removing most of the images with a suggestion that there be a link to commons, but that too was reverted with a disparaging edit summary. MB 16:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the too many images and have removed some which duplicate what is in the remaining ones and I have added the commons link. I will shortly work on improving the related page merge. Gusfriend (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftify

Pratyeka's response above is obviously far from what we'd expect from an admin and suggests there were some deeper frustrations at play. But losing a Wikipedian of nearly 20 years is never something to be just shrugged off, and I don't think the sequence of events that led up to this was ideal either. @WaddlesJP13: You moved both articles to draftspace with the canned edit summary Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace, but what made them "not ready"? Those words link to a list of rather vague criteria, none of which appear to apply to these two articles, and even if they did, they wouldn't help Pratyeka ascertain how to make the article "ready" in your eyes. Your follow up message on his talk page, also automated, says that it was because they lacked sufficient sources, but Mccapra had already addressed that by adding {{unreferenced}}. And while I'm not saying we should apply different rules to different editors, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that an admin and experienced editor was probably intending to add a citation in response to that, if you'd given him more than 16 minutes to do so? Did you have any reason to suspect that there is not in fact a "a garden in Guangzhou" named Nanyue Yuan (all the article claimed at that point)? And given you moved both articles to draft 20 minutes after Pratyeka's last edit, how did this meet they criterion that there should be no evidence of a user actively working on [an article] before moving it to draft? All in all, I would call both of these moves a misuse of draftspace, and the fact that you've draftified many other articles [...] for this same reason hardly makes things better.

Pratyeka has been an admin since 2003, so has spent the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia not having his new articles patrolled, until we unbundled autopatrolled from sysop last year. Part of the motivation for that was the suspicion that some admins had drifted away from current expectations when it comes to article creation. But another was the hope that, by re-exposing our admin cadre to new page patrol, they would start paying attention to the process again, like the vast majority of editors who have no choice but to pay attention to it. Unfortunately, most active admins simply opted to re-grant themselves autopatrolled, but this incident illustrates both dynamics well. In the "old days", creating a stub without a citation was fine. In the much-more-recent days, creating a stub and adding a citation half an hour later was also fine. And even if I think the reaction is way over-the-top, I can understand Pratyeka's frustration at the swift, seemingly arbitrary removal of his newly created articles from mainspace. If that frustration is enough to throw away two decades of commitment to this project, how on earth do we expect new editors to react to it? – Joe (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong thing to focus on wrt this incident. I think the point is that when faced with the need to adapt, a legacy user —who also happens to be an admin, though appears to have used it seldom (one block, zero protections, etc.)— should not respond to corrections with such scorn. Their comments, with the all boldface and even entire sentences in all-uppercase, are an inflammatory and uncomfortable read. Which, for me at least, doesn't amplify the message, but instead does the opposite by diminishing it.

I joined EN in 2004 and became an admin in 2005. When I came back in 2017 after almost a decade hiatus, I was making quite a few mistakes, both as an editor and an admin, but I took whatever corrections in the spirit in which they were intended. Which, creditably, was overwhelmingly encouraging; charitable to excess, even. So, I thanked whomever for the feedback and tried not to repeat the same mistake twice.

Years later, I re-granted myself the autopatrol perm because I knew about it getting unbundled (and in doing so also briefly became Gandalf). Anyway, I don't want to pile on, since Pratyeka has already resigned their sysop, and I don't want to grandstand, either. But I think this incident is more about poor temperament and a sense of entitlement that a legacy user who is also an admin can make quite intimidating to those editors on the receiving end. A problem which itself seem to stem from a refusal to learn and adapt. That is, it's less about what the specific impetus was (i.e. Draftify, etc.), but rather, more about all the rage and rage quitting. Above all else, it's just sad to witness. El_C 09:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think these were reasonable draftifications. The reviewer saw two unsourced articles, created more than 30 minutes previously, that simply said "this garden exists" (here here). And the article creator had been editing several other articles since creating them. --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion, there isn't actually a policy basis for moving articles to draftspace because they lack sources, especially when they're being actively worked on, especially when they're stubs that contain no claims likely to be challenged. And I know there's a wide range of opinions on how long is too long to wait for improvements to a new stub, but... 30 minutes? Good grief, have you never been interrupted when working on an article? Or made a cup of tea? – Joe (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good grief, not another uninformed "policy" explanation please. "Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace" The articles were recent and had potential, but unsourced articles don't meet "Wikipedia's quality standards". The move to draft was perfectly within policy. Fram (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I have, in fact. In one case the article was promptly prodded, in another it was maintenance tagged. I wrote slightly snippy "Give a guy a chance to work on the damn article" responses, but that was because both the prod and the tagging took place less than thirty seconds after I created the articles, AND I didn't walk to the tea kettle before already making sure there was at least one reliable source cited in each. Even so, I didn't throw a major ragestorm. WP:CIVIL doesn't come with a carveout of "This doesn't apply to you as long as you're sure the bastards deserve it." Ravenswing 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It's really not that much to ask to include at least one source when first creating an article. We should expect nothing less. It's not 2004 anymore, and WP:V is not optional. Moving unsourced and unverified articles out of mainspace isn't "misuse of draft space", it's exactly what any experienced editor should do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: It may indeed be too much to ask. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get Wikipedians to agree on changing something, even a single word, is like trying to herd cats, while standing on one leg, blindfolded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course I have been interrupted while editing, and I have also been carried away / pulled down a rabbit hole of other articles to the point where I forgot which article I was working on in the first place. There's nothing strange about that, and it seems a little unreasonable to expect all other editors to predict whether the editor who is now editing a different article is still working on the unsourced one, or if they have in fact forgot to do the minimum required thing and add a source. If I had had a microstub draftified in this way I'd have felt rather silly for forgetting to include a source in my new article before I started editing other articles; then I'd presumably have added a couple of sources (and rather more content) and returned it to mainspace after doing that. Look, having an article draftified is not a huge black mark against a forgetful editor. It's a service to the editor. Similarly, over-eager draftification (which I don't believe this was) isn't a capital sin either. The aim is to have policy compliant and reasonable articles in mainspace. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I'm not sure what else I would've had to add in there, the article was an unsourced stub. If the creator wanted to indicate that it was being worked on they should've made the indication with an under construction tag or else a move to draftspace is inevitable. I don't see a reason to publish an article before it has anything worth keeping. Besides, they've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years, they should've known the sourcing guidelines and the draftification procedure in the first place. If the problem was something other than poor sourcing, then I would've clarified that, but the poor sourcing is already indicated in the default message. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Good job bringing the issues with this legacy admin to light. They created Llandovery Falls this year, which says "made famous after being depicted on Jamaica's first one-penny stamp on the series Pictorial Stamps." Hey, what does the copyrighted source say? "made famous after being depicted on Jamaica's first one-penny stamp on the series 'Pictorial Stamps'." PHY-Level Collision Avoidance, "PLCA provides guaranteed maximum latency along with improved throughput and access fairness". Source: "PLCA provides a guaranteed maximum latency along with improved throughput and access fairness". Just like "reconciliation sublayer defined within IEEE 802.3 clause 148, meant to achieve deterministic performance out of CSMA/CD for half-duplex, mixing-segment (i.e. multidrop) networks featuring a low number of nodes." is rather similar to "reconciliation sublayer, defined within 802.3 clause 148, meant to achieve deterministic performance out of CSMA/CD for half-duplex, mixing-segment (i.e. multidrop) networks featuring a low number of nodes.". The louder people shout about the great work they have done and that they shouldn't be treated like this, the more likely it is that further inspection will reveal serious issues (see e.g. Doug Coldwell for another recent example). Fram (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

1. I've been here nearly 18 years. Like many another oldbie, I bristle at being questioned by and having to justify myself to relative newbies. Nonetheless, they have the right to hold me to account for my edits, and I have the duty to respond. People have been pushing the "longevity/barnstar count exempts me from having to follow the rules" garbage for a very long time, and a lot of the more painful ANI/ArbCom cases have come from this syndrome. In any event, my reaction after reading Prat's raging here and over at BN is a solid "meh, whatever." The guy's been averaging fewer than ten mainspace edits a month for the last five years. Somehow Wikipedia will survive the ragequit all the same. Ravenswing 12:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not surprised to find the editor's understanding of copyright is poor. I saw on their BN posts something about 'I recently had a great historic photo deleted by someone abusing copyright rules for a national government' and 'I'll bet nobody looks in to the deleted photo (abuse of copyright for censorship) or does anything about the constructive suggestions'. I was wondering what on earth they were talking about since I saw no mention of this here or on their talk page, and then I realised I was looking in the wrong place. Not surprisingly, this happened on commons not here [98] although Pratyeka seems fairly confused about the difference since they said [99] 'Nationalism has no place on Wikipedia' in their reply on commons. More importantly, despite their accusations both on commons and but also now here that there was some sort of abuse on behalf of a national government, I see zero evidence of that. I cannot see the deleted image but commons is of course a repository of free content and in many countries governments do retain copyright over their work. From the description, the tagger on commons seems to be correct that the tag used does not apply, I guess why the admin on commons actioned the speedy. From their comments, Pratyeka seems to think we can or should ignore copyright (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Optus blocking TPB.jpg) if it has some sort of overriding interest but of course that is not how commons, copyright and free licences works, indeed Pratyeka's comments seem to have shades of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Here on en, if this particular blocking notice was important enough we could like use it under NFCC, but not there. And while not legal advice, I suspect keeping a repository of such images would be fine under fair use in general. Note that while it's possible the deleted image would be PD-ineligible like the Optus one, that doesn't change the fact the tag was wrong, and so there's no reason to think that the speedy tagger (or the admin who actioned it) was doing anything but correctly identifying something tagged with an incorrect licence. In other words I'm fairly sure Pratyeka has no evidence of any sort of abuse on behalf of a national government and so has made personal attacks here on en about something that happened on commons. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread with a guidance to prat to take care about copyright and civil discussions? They have resigned their bit on their own; and that's to their credit.... Good faith close perhaps here? Lourdes 13:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with that. El_C 13:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not. That's textbook Super Mario effect. Resigning the bit is not even relevant here -- though glad it was done. How would we respond if a new user wrote what prat wrote? That's how we respond to prat; after all, they've been editing since some editors were in diapers. Prat doesn't need "guidance" after 20 years to follow copyright and civility, this should be closed with a warning to follow copyright and civility policies and not to create unsourced mainspace articles. After all, what is the value of 20 years experience if you're still making unsourced stubs and then biting NPPers' heads off when they draftify? I'll gladly trade that for a teenage or first-year editor who does things right. I'm far less worried about losing prat than I am about losing WaddlesJP13, and everyone else should be, too. Priorities. (Waddles, sorry you've had to deal with this and thank you for continuing to volunteer here.) Levivich (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I was plenty critical of Pratyeka in my comment above. The point, though, is that their sysop was resigned under a cloud, so I'd expect that to be mentioned in the close summary — it being the key event. The rest doesn't need to be belaboured, the resignation is sanction enough. Sure, they need a refresher on 2022 EN; and guidance towards that, yes, even after 20 years (of intermittent activity) can actually be good. Obviously, alongside that they'll need to keep their cool and not COPYVIO if they are to be considered YESCOMPATIBLE. I don't think there's much more to it than counter-scorn at this point, though. El_C 14:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

the resignation is sanction enough That's textbook WP:Super Mario effect. The resignation is not a sanction at all. The point of a warning is to document that policies were violated and further violations will likely result in sanctions. A voluntary resignation of the admin bit does not accomplish this, and should not be treated as if it were a sanction. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do I get the sense that whatever I say, it'll be another that's textbook WP:Super Mario effect? Oh well, I don't really have much more to add atm, anyway, so go for 3...? El_C 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I started this subsection to discuss the out-of-policy draftifications that led to his resignation, which hasn't been resolved at all, so please don't. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I'll reiterate again that I don't think this is the best time or the best venue to engage in that. El_C 14:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And they werent' "out-of-policy", repeating such claims don't make them any more true. If you want to claim that someone acted out-of-policy, quote the policy which they violated. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

OMG not again. Could the Draftify is / is not policy argument please be taken to WP:VPP or wherever? El_C 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, without comment on Pratyeka's edit-summaries, please do take the basic policy argument to somewhere where it can be discussed. Joe Roe makes the point that losing editors isn't great. At the moment, editing in main-space can be a bit of a nightmare. It's an environment where any newbie will find themselves sandwiched between reversion by people with ownership issues who resent intrusion into "their" area, and reversion by over-enthusiastic vandalism hunters who send passive-aggressive "welcome but please don't" messages. If they also find their new articles lingering as drafts at AfC for months, get into misguided arguments with new page patrollers, and feel that everything they write gets draftified while they're still improving it, they are likely to give up. Even the Teahouse is a grumpy place nowadays. It is much harder to criticise than to build: I notice that many Wikipedians either drift away, or degenerate into semi-admin roles in AfD, noticeboards (me!) and anti-vandalism patrolling, and stop actually contributing real text; this is sad. We have lost the concept that articles can grow from poor to good via mediocre: at the moment we simply delete the mediocre for not being good enough. There are pluses and minuses about both the "draftify" and the "improve-in-situ" approaches, and their relative merits should be discussed, but not here. Elemimele (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started a potential discussion place if anyone is interested in the general question: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Draftify_things,_or_improve-in-situ (hope it's appropriate, El_C) Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Like @Elemimele . El_C 16:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Being on Wikipedia for 20 years does not entitle one to temper tantrums or to prattle with indignity at the most basic of checks and balances. Perhaps it's best that an admin resignation was made here. Losing editors isn't great, but when an editor loses the ability for civil, level-headed discussion, that isn't great either. Criticalus (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (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.

Homeopathist

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 somebody take a look at

• Dr.V.R.Unnikrishnan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ?

They seem to be using their user/Talk page as a cv/brochure for quackery, and have recently started editing the homeopathy article lede to say it's "scientific". Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

misuse of user talk page as a webhost and advertisement. Venkat TL (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage as U5, and removed the promotion from their talk page. Unfortunately I don't have any more spare time this morning, so if their disruption continues someone else will have to handle it, or you'll have to wait a little while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Thank you. All clear for now. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2022 (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.

Paid Editors for Double Elvis

Two editors who appear to be meatpuppets are blatantly trying to force non-neutral articles into article space.

• Slazarus09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PomKiwi220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Double Elvis Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Disgraceland (podcast) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jake Brennan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Slazarus99 created the three articles. Then User:Onel5969 moved them into draft space as undisclosed paid editing. PomKiwi220 then gamed autoconfirmation, and then moved the articles back into article space. User:Timtrent nominated the three articles for deletion. There are content issues and conduct issues here. AFD is a content forum, and the podcast and the production studio appear to be notable, but some action should be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So they're admitted notable subjects? If the issue is UPE and POV writing in the articles, then tag those issue areas or the articles can be stubbed from scratch if they are written non-neutrally. Otherwise, they are on notable subjects. Taking them to AfD was clearly the wrong move if they're notable. Silverseren^C 02:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Luckily it looks like the SPI will allow the AfDs to proceed on merit, not conduct, which should help. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So I'm confused as to what happens at this point. Clearly you can see that at least for two of these pages (Disgraceland and Jake Brennan) they are of notable subjects. The third, Double Elvis Productions, was quite literally in a national publication this week. What am I supposed to do at this point? Slazarus09 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Nothing. You're welcome to contribute, which I believe you have done on all. If you have more to add, feel free, but otherwise you wait out the discussion. If you're still unblocked at the end and they're kept, you may edit them if you truly do not have a COI. I would suggest you tread carefully especially with others editing the same articles. Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Page author checking in here. I do not know User:PomKiwi220 so I can't to speak to why they tried to move the articles into article space. After receiving the first edits I have not had enough of a chance to both rewrite the articles to strip them of their POV and also disclose the indirect paid editing. In full transparency, I wrote these pages without anyone asking or prompting - and as you'll see from the sourcing they are all of notable subjects. If per user:Robert McClennon you need to take some action, please do so against me and not these pages. I am admittedly a beginner and so am still learning how to navigate things. Thanks for your patience and for not taking unnecessary action. User:Slazarus99 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slazarus09 (talk • contribs)

@Slazarus099 you say In full transparency, I wrote these pages without anyone asking or prompting but you disclosed a Conflict of Interest. Can you clarify? FWIW, I AfDed Brennan but did not act on either Disgraceland or Double Elvis as I thought there was a claim to notability. I do believe Lazarus is more likely than PomKiwi to be editing in good faith, but if the articles are in mainspace, Edit Requests should be used. Star Mississippi 03:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping fail. Now @Slazarus09 Star Mississippi 03:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Silver seren - I am bringing the matter here because AFD is a content forum. An error in the filing of the AFDs does not mean that we should ignore the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Slazarus09 - I wonder about the accuracy of your articles if you guess at the spelling of a surname that is spelled right out for you in a sig block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The conflict of interest I mentioned has to do with being a fan of the show. That strikes me as a conflict of interest but as someone new to wikipedia editing I clearly do not understand the rules.

Now that I understand what's happening I can create corrections, but leave it to you all to decide what to do. Of note though, I've tried to approach with best intentions and it's extremely difficult to catch up to the right way to do things. Slazarus09 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Being a fan does not give you a COI. Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not directly replying to the message, but why is it saying there's no signature when there clearly is one? Just wondering, cause it seems like a bug, and I'd rather make sure it gets seen The Shamming Man has appeared. 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

—because Slazarus09 is signing as Slazarus99, apparently by typing in the code rather than using 4 tildes? Slazarus09, if you want to change your username, go here to request it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for clearing that up, guess I didn't read that correctly, sorry about that The Shamming Man has appeared. 01:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I truly don't know how to do the wiki code correctly and had signed it Slazarus99 because the person who was critiquing me incorrectly identified me that way and in the process of responding late at night I miswrote it. Slazarus09 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

alrighty, just remember you can use 4 tildes (~) after a response to sign it. The Shamming Man has appeared. 02:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Got it! And I also just figured out I can quite literally click the "reply" button and it makes it super easy. See, I can actually learn this stuff Slazarus09 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Eduardog3000 edit warring to add Ukrainian regions to Republics of Russia

Eduardog3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Eduardog3000 is edit warring to add unsupported changes to the Republics of Russia infobox. These are the same notional regions that recently underwent an extensive AFD. Diffs:

Previous edit to add these as part of Russia by another editor.

Edits by by Eduardog3000:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Cambial — foliar❧ 20:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My edits addressed your stated issues with the page.

My edit notes:

Edit 1: Updated infobox to match map

Edit 2: Added source, which was already elsewhere on the page.

Edit 3: Al Jazeera: "This month, the Russian president also signed laws admitting the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics, Kherson and Zaporizhia into Russia after referendums denounced by Ukraine and its allies as “shams” with no legal consequences."

(for edit 3 I changed to a different source than that of edit 2 per edit 2's undo message)

Only edit 4 was a direct undo because I felt edit 3 satisfied requirements and your reasoning for reverting edit 3 was incorrect (addressed in edit 4's note). I wasn't aware of previous revisions when I made the first edit, but after that was undone I addressed the reasons for undoing rather than just blindly undoing over and over.

And the AFD you mentioned wasn't about the DPR's status, it was about it having separate articles for 2014-2022 DPR and 2022- DPR. The result was that Donetsk People's Republic contains information on both and recognizes it's current status as a Russian republic. In line with that as well as the source mentioned above, my changes to this page were supported. eduardog3000 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Jtrainor and XfD

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:Jtrainor has spent most of the past several years making nonsensical AfDs. Consider the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics: near unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laundry room: clear keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoloniality (2nd nomination): keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Donziger unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination): SNOW keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie's careers: near unanimous keep.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars creatures (3rd nomination): near unanimous keep.

We have to go back to May 2019 to find an AfD that wasn't an obvious keep. Most of these AfDs find the participants wondering what the deletion rationale even is.

Today, after zero edits since January, Jtrainor showed up at ANI to oppose a GENSEX Tban [100] and then two minutes later created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive with the rationale: This essay itself, ironically, is disruptive, as people have been quoting it in assorted arguments around Wikipedia as though it's some sort of policy. Time for it to go away. I find it hard to believe this user is here to build an encyclopedia. At minimum, they should not be allowed to continue nominating things for deletion. Their other recent edits include complaining people don't think LBJ is racist and edit warring over a NPOV tag. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have different opinions on what deserves to be deleted or not than other people. That is why we have the XfD system, so the community can form consensus. And I am allowed to lurk as I please-- this is a volunteer project, not a job. And given people in that very thread have been linking that essay as though it's a policy, I certainly believe it is disruptive. You are, of course, entitled to !vote as you please. However, trying to boot someone out of an entire area of Wikipedia simply because you disagree with them and not because of any actual policy violations is quite beyond the pale. Jtrainor (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but nominating them for deletion just because you don't like it is getting pretty disruptive. Until you learn how the XFD process truly works, your nominations will end in the article that was XfD'ed being kept. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Nominating things for deletion without any basis and contrary to policy, over and over again, is disruptive and you absolutely can be sanctioned for it. Your response here just further demonstrates why sanctions are needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• This does not rise to the level of sanctions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am inclined to disfavor sanctions, this just looks like an inexperienced editor not really familiar with our standards making silly mistakes. We've all been there. That said, Jtrainor's responses here could convince me to support a ban from nominating stuff for deletion if it seems like he's unwilling to learn. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call him inexperienced. Over 3,000 edits; warned about AfD nominations back in 2011. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  3,000 edits can still be inexperienced if a person is making only a few edits per month, because they often won't have the opportunity to apply the feedback they receive and thus fail to solidify their learning and lose it. That seems to be the case here with JTrainor. It's still disruptive, but not really a competence issue and easily enough fixed. I hope JTrainor notes that the community feels his nominations are often low quality and takes that under consideration before making new ones. He should also note that if the community unanimously decides against him on further nominations, it would be good to withdraw it rather than run it the full seven days. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Does the user have any form of actual content creation that they've done? Looking at their contributions, outside of said AfD nominations, they seem to primarily just remove content from articles and, even then, they very rarely do even that. Sure, we have editors who are useful to the community by only dealing with vandalism or otherwise helping out with behind the scenes stuff rather than doing any content creation. But this editor doesn't seem to be doing as such. They just seem to create pointless busy work for the rest of the community. Silverseren^C 23:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• That the editor infrequently makes bad arguments for deleting a page at some venue is not a behavioral problem. In general, their AfD stats indicate that they are "right" at AfD just above a majority of the times that result in a consensus, which I expect is lower than most long-term editors. But, frankly, making less than ten bad nominations for deletion over the past three years is nowhere near the level of the urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems that warrant an ANI discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Jtrainor was warned about drive-by AfD nominations and failing to do BEFORE in 2011, 11 years ago. That is the very definition of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support him being topic-banned from participating in XFD discussions, as his deletion rationales are untenable. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was deserved at that time given that only 5 of the 17 articles the user had nominated for deletion and ended with a consensus were deleted or redirected. If we look at the numbers post-2011, the user is still batting under .500 (13/29) on articles the user nominated for deletion and ended with a consensus, but we generally don't ban people from nominating articles for deletion unless they're doing it en masse, which this user is clearly not doing.

  The issue with this user's recent MfD nomination was not really a matter of failing to grasp what the community will sometimes do at MfD; the community has previously deleted an essay on what MEDRS is not based off of the claim that it constituted a totally bad representations of policy, so the line of argument made at the latest MfD was not completely unprecedented. The fact of the matter is that the community didn't buy the argument that WP:HID is so flagrantly contrary to established policy that it should be deleted (or removed from the projectspace), but this isn't reason to TBAN someone. While the editor should strive to make stronger arguments in the future, civilly making good-faith arguments that at least have some potential claim in precedent need not warrant a TBAN, even if they are poorly reasoned, unless poorly reasoned arguments are made on such a scale that it becomes burdensome to the project. And, frankly, we're nowhere close to even approaching that point; a TBAN is nowhere near a narrowly tailored solution here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. While it's true that some action ought to be taken in order to prevent people from abusing deletion processes, a topic-ban proposal is making a mountain out of a molehill. In the years of 2020, 2021 and 2022, Jtrainor has made a whopping five contributions to AfDs. For reference, per WP:OFD every day there are somewhere around 79 per day. Since there are an average of 4 !votes per AfD, that means that there have been somewhere around 115,000 in that period... of which Jtrainor comprises 0.004335009537%! This is not a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a rounding error. None of his !votes, that I can see, have been particularly abusive or disruptive. If you want to dig all the way back to 2006, you can make this out to be a problem, but if we pwned everyone who said something stupid once in 2006, I don't know who we would have left to edit Wikipedia. The fact that you've mentioned his comment on an ANI thread in the original post of this thread (in fact, opening your post with it) does not make sense to me either: it's not suspicious in any way for someone to go a while without editing Wikipedia, and doing so is not evidence of malfeasance. jp×g 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't be calculating the scale of someone's behavioural issues by dint of their share of the global pie of such things. We get depressingly vast numbers of conduct issues, and chronic behavioural issues occur with editors having a very small slice of them. More generally, @Trainsandotherthings @Rsjaffe you both cite the 2011 warning (coupled with the basis of this complaint) as indicative of a chronic issue. What is the nature of the 2012-2018 stint in terms of severe issues. This complaint was bought not merely in terms of someone bringing AfDs they shouldn't, but them being downright "nonsensical" - did they continue doing so in the meantime, or is this a newly (re)occuring issue?

To the subject, @Jtrainor - why did you believe that editors misusing/misciting an essay was grounds for deletion of an essay? Why did you believe that was the essay being disruptive? More generally, you say you're allowed to have different deletion positions to others - definitely a truth. One I experience. But what do you say to the complaints that your nominations are nonsensical and not even close to policy - that is, that your viewpoints aren't different valid interpretations of the rules, but just different viewpoints without also complying with deletion policy? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've seen this sort of thing in the past in deletion arguments, etc about assorted pop culture topics when people would vote delete with WP:FANCRUFT as their only reason, so I tend to be extremely leery of people quoting essays as a sole or almost sole reason to !vote for or against anything. Especially when the essay consists of content that your average person would find highly offensive to be aimed in their direction during a talk page discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Citing an essay does not mean the essay is being treated as policy. Citing an essay means "this essay explains essentially what I would explain, and I'm saving time by doing so". The essay in question cites a well-accepted behavioral guideline which does carry the weight of a rule, that days that disruptive editing is not allowed. Given that there is some room for interpretation over what kinds of behavior are disruptive, and what levels of disruption qualify for what levels of sanctions. For many editors, hate speech is disruptive enough to merit rather swift sanction. Instead of having to individually explain why hate speech does, in their opinions, raise to the level of disruption as to merit a sanction, they cite the essay, which explains it for them. They could just write a paragraph explaining it every time, but that kind of thing isn't necessary because the essay explains it as well. That's why essays exist, not to be a rule, but they can explain an application of the rules, and why a situation fits a certain interpretation of existing rules. --Jayron32 19:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is sanctionable yet. Buuuut the fact he's now been taken to ANI over his XfD behavior now puts somewhat of a stain on his record, and he'd do well to be more judicious in the future.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, you can bet I'm going to return to lurking for quite some time after this. Being dragged to WP:ANI by the kind of person that digs through a decade of edits to look for more stuff to complain about is not terribly motivating. Concerning a stain, not so much. I certainly don't view it as one, considering, as other editors have pointed out, the complaint is silly in the first place. Jtrainor (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Being wrong is not a reason for sanctions. Jtrainor is unequivocally wrong in their beliefs about many things, but we don't sanction for being wrong. We educate and explain, and if they don't wish to be educated, then whatever, but you can't sanction someone for just being wrong. --Jayron32 14:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  ... unless it falls afoul of WP:CIR to the degree it becomes disruptive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  ... No, they're perfectly competent, they just have idiosyncratic ideas. Annoying =/= disruptive. --Jayron32 17:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Look, all, let's actually talk about this without mincing words. Jtrainor nominated a popular essay for XFD, an admittedly bad nomination, and people took unjustified offense at that one nomination, then started playing detective with their edit history trying to build a case to drag them to ANI for. Please don't do this kind of thing, it's not becoming of anyone. No, I'm not defending Jtrainor for the stupendously bad nomination of WP:HID for deletion; it wasn't going to be deleted. But there's nothing even CLOSE to disruptive about this. This is a total nothingburger. --Jayron32 17:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• The opening statement that Jtrainor has has spent most of the past several years making nonsensical AfDs is a pretty big exaggeration. There's not really anything to see here. I strongly agree with Jayron32 that trawling through an editing history like this is unbecoming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, their comment about my edits to Lyndon B. Johnson is rather strange, as that has nothing to do with XfD whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (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.

Disruptive editing/ Harassment by User:PogingJuan

On 16 October, as part of NPP patrol, I redirected an article created by this user, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council to Polytechnic University of the Philippines, since I felt there was not enough in-depth coverage of the subject from independent sources to show notability. The editor had not edited in several days, and when they returned to the project on 18 October. Their first action was to use the rollback action to reverse the redirect. They then proceeded to nominate 20-25 of stub articles I had created (see their history, either through CSD, PROD, or AFD. Obviously, these were done in retaliation. These AfD's should be speedily closed, and the user should at least be warned of their behavior. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. While some of the nominations may be valid, some of them clearly aren't, and the nominator clearly didn't do even a simple BEFORE check. Merely because something is a stub does not make it deletable. I think retaliation is the likely driving force behind this conduct. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was able to find sources to support the notability of several of these AFD's. For example:

• Wheatfields, Apache County, Arizona, called a "a community".
• Vopolo Havoka, Arizona, described as a "small village".

It took me about 10 minutes to find this information, but if I was doing a proper WP:BEFORE, it would take much longer. But if you look at the edit history of User:PogingJuan, these AFDs were all made a minute apart. Are all these places notable? Some will pass WP:GEOLAND, and some will not. But targeting one editor is not nice, and the stench of vexatious AFDs is strong here. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll add to that: Wagoner, Arizona is actually a rather well known little ghost town, and I quickly found a few sources including "Ghost Towns and Historical Haunts in Arizona" by Thelma Heatwole. I also discovered it to be an important site of the Walnut Grove Dam collapse, which at least on the brightside these AfD's got me to create. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was reviewing one of PogingJuan's articles during NPP, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council, I asked them to remove one obvious puffery ("diversified") which was done, showing that they're usually open to feedback. However, looking at the page history IMHO the user has performed not ideal rollbacks. I'm not familiar with rollbacking, but after quickly reading through WP:ROLLBACK I'm afraid I have to disagree with PogingJuan's reverts. The user has repeatedly rollbacked Onel's edits with no explanation. Here the editor rollbacked a deprod, which doesn't fall into appropriate Wikipedia:ROLLBACKUSE and might potentially be a misuse IMHO (please correct me if I'm wrong), further, WP:PROD states PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time so I'm unsure if the action is entirely appropriate. Further, these diffs IMO are inappropriate usage of rollback, including rollbacking redirects, 1, 2. Unfortunately I'm a bit unsure about the use of rollback here, but WP:NPP, blank and redirect is a choice for non-notable articles, that IMO doesn't fall into obvious vandalism (criteria 1) widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page per the WP:ROLLBACKUSE page (even if the latter is plausible IMO, which isn't probably true for a prolific NPP reviewer, the editor didn't include any explanation at all for the revert). Further, IMHO it would be challenging (or perhaps very impressive and unlikely) to do a proper WP:BEFORE for the AfDs in one minute, so some of these might be hasty and rushed. Therefore, IMO a warning might be suitable for this user, many thanks for your help and time, if anything I said was inaccurate or misleading please let me know! Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• These AfDs are clearly retaliatory, clearly done too quickly to satisfy WP:BEFORE, and, regardless of whether some might (accidentally) have merit, flooding AfD to get back at an another editor is clearly disruptive and constitutes harassment, so I've procedurally closed them all. Some of them were heading towards delete or redirect, so I expect there might be some pushback there, but I think it's important to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to harassment, and have noted in the close that other editors are free to re-nominate them. I'll leave this thread open to discuss whether any further action is needed. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe, could you reconsider this mass procedural close? Although some of these AfDs were entirely without merit and all were opened for the wrong reasons, you've also disrupted a number of ongoing discussions that must now be re-opened and re-discussed, and for what purpose? To send a message to the nominator? This seems counterproductive. It would make more sense to re-open the ones that weren't headed for SNOW keep and warn the editor. –dlthewave ☎ 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I must second this. These were all mass-created from GNIS in exactly the way that has, frankly, brought on such runs of AfDs, and it's clear from the discussions so far that lots of these are headed for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

2. The elephant in the room is that it's been long-known and periodically brought to AFD that many of these Arizona places mass-created by Onel5969 are actually non-notable or misidentified content. Many of these need deleted or redirected, and prematurely closing these AFD where there's already valid delete or redirect !votes is just adding a layer of bureaucracy. I've requested on Joe Roe's talk page that they reconsider opening some of these AFDs back. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

3. Mass-production of hundreds of articles from a single database source while failing to do any additional sourcing results in a lot of junk. Already 193 articles Onel5969 made in Arizona have been deleted, with more having been redirected. Ignoring legitimate votes and continuing to put the burden on those who want accuracy rather than context-free one-liners is inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave, Mangoe, Hog Farm, and Reywas92: I realise you and others have done extensive source analysis on some of these articles, and I'm sorry that I've disrupted those discussions. However, I think in this particular case it is warranted, because, yes, it is important to send a message to the nominator that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and it's important to protect AfD from disruptive flooding, and to prevent the outcomes being thrown into doubt as fruit of the poisonous tree. If we discourage mass creation of articles without prior due diligence, we must surely also discourage mass creations of AfDs without due diligence.

As I've said, you are welcome to renominate these articles immediately. Alternatively, I won't object if somebody wants to selectively (not en masse, please) undo my closes of those discussions that could have been heading for an outcome other than keep. However on the whole I stick by this as appropriate enforcement of WP:HOUNDING and WP:POINT, supported by the consensus of editors above. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I support Joe's point. The good faith of others doesn't somehow mitigate or lessen the need to respond to the bad faith harassment that started the discussion. Starting a new, clean, discussion without bad faith harassment should (hopefully) lead to a better outcome all around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Repeated sourcing issues (unsourced, non-RS, failed verification, etc.) editing Nazi-related articles

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

Lightiggy makes many edits to Nazi-related articles and these are just the ones that I have noticed, because they are on my watchlist.

• Repeatedly added incorrect and unsourced information to Stefan Baretzki article, stating he was convicted of a different crime than found guilty of (murder). (March and June 2022)
• In Padule di Fucecchio massacre, removed content cited to a reliable source, claiming it's incorrect but not citing any source for that claim.
• In Theresienstadt Ghetto they added multiple paragraphs related to a different concentration camp. (September 2022)
• Repeatedly added unsourced content to Flossenbürg concentration camp, then when called out cited ww2db, a self-published website, and jewishvirtuallibrary, which is rated unreliable at the reliable sources noticeboard. (September/October 2022)
• On another article, added content that failed verification (that cited to mauthausen memorial) and cited an unreliable source (master's thesis). Here is their reaction when brought up on their talk page. (October 2022)

While it's understandable that editors might not immediately be familiar with reliable sources, it's expected that they would acknowledge their mistakes and rectify them going forward. Other editors such as Beyond My Ken, Obenritter, and Kierzek have posted on their talk page regarding issues with their edits. I've reverted their harmful edits to pages on their watchlist, but I do not have time to go through the rest of their thousands of edits on pages I don't watch. I don't know how to handle the situation given that Lightiggy doesn't seem able or willing to change their behavior, despite my interactions with them going back to March 2022. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this, I looked through Lightiggy's contribs. This edit [101] is just weird, adding a lot of spaces to the infobox and changing how a date is written. This one [102] just seems to extend on how the children died. Both of these edits remain current as I write this, so I don't know if they could be considered vandalism. Overall, I see a lot of edits to Nazi-related articles, which means that he is really interested in the Nazi Party. I think that we should consider a topic ban (if possible) The Shamming Man has appeared. 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the adding of spaces is an automated thing because of visual editor. I've seen it from editors before; it's not deliberate. — Czello 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I make these edits all the time. It's a lot easier to read (when editing) when the spaces are consistent between infobox parameter and entry. Our eyes do a lot better with standard whitespace around equal signs and the like. The date formatting also seems like a standard change (mdy to dmy). --Engineerchange (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, nevermind. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of these edits were due to misunderstandings.

Regarding the edit for the Padule di Fucecchio massacre article. That edit was due to a confusion.

The original statement said "Only three Nazi war criminals have ever served jail sentences in Italy for war crimes, Erich Priebke, Karl Hass, and Michael Seifert."

I was confused by this, since the the article listing Nazi war criminals who have served time in Italy for war crimes does give the names of a few other Nazi war criminals who served time in Italy, such as Herbert Kappler and Walter Reder.

Regarding the edits to the Theresienstadt Ghetto article, I listed those men since they committed crimes at in Small Fortress, which is located in Terezín, the same town where the Theresienstadt Ghetto is located. Lightiggy (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As buidhe has indicated, several of us have repeatedly tried to explain the use of proper RS to Lightiggy to no avail. This is particularly troubling since many of the Nazi-related pages this editor makes adjustments to are of a sensitive nature and require more professionalism (pardon the use of this term here, as I realize Wikipedia is open to all) and caution than most. Not sure what the corrective action might be, but this editor fully substantiates the claims hereby about the editor in question and stands concerned in much the same manner as buidhe. --Obenritter (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to this list, for clarification: ::List of Germans convicted of war crimes committed in Italy during World War II Lightiggy (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reliable sources issue, I admittedly didn't read the reliable sources guidelines until today, when buidhe warned me about some of the other edits I made. I am not sure what to tell all of you, other than that I'll make sure in the future to avoid this problem. Lightiggy (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the facts as set forth by buidhe and with the comments by Obenritter. I have mainly had dealings with Lightiggy on the List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust where they added people indiscriminately and tried to add a few others, which do not meet the criteria for the list (see its talk page). They do not seem to have a good grasp of WP:RS, nor WP:NOTEVERYTHING and especially the sub-section WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kierzek (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, if you are unsure about how to proceed, I will take a short break (at least a week or two) from editing any articles related to the Holocaust, aside from anything minor such as grammar. I will reread all of these sections regarding the rules. Lightiggy (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of reliable sources, I can't really add much discourse. But, as a passerby to Lightiggy's edits to one single page Henry Wirz and a comment I made back in September 2022 about it reflect what looks to me as a blatant ignoring of suggestions made by peer editors (copyright, reliable sources, edit summaries). There are at least 3 comments about Lightiggy not doing edit summaries (one by me), and at least two comments of acknowledgement (suggesting they'll work on it), which as far as I can see up until this incident report were flatly ignored. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User Prototyperspective violating WP:NOTWEBHOST

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

Back in early September, an article created by Prototyperspective was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As the AfD noted, the article was a clear POV-fork of other content, contained considerable WP:OR, and was otherwise entirely unsuited for Wikipedia. Some time later it came to my attention that the deleted article was now in user space, almost unmodified, as User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. I initially tagged it for speedy deletion under db-g4 - ' substantially identical to the deleted version...' but the speedy was declined (not by Prototyperspective). Given that I still considered that db-g4 applied, I then started an MfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As might be expected, Prototyperspective has argued against deletion there, as they are entitled to. It has however become apparent, initally as a result of comments made there by Prototyperspective, is that the disputed page is being linked to, by them, on Reddit. Prototyperspective has stated that "others outside of Wikipedia" [103] have been reading the page, using this as an argument for retention. That, in my understanding of policy, is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and at least arguably, given the phrasing used on Reddit, a WP:FAKEARTICLE.

At the root of this issue is Prototyperspective's refusal to accept the result of the original AfD, despite overwhelming consensus. This refusal is ongoing, and, in Prototyperspective's latest post to the MfD discussion used as an explicit justification for retaining the content: "... many others have confirmed that they think [it useful] too...its contents are relevant to discussions...the page shouldn't have been fully deleted...". [104] Since absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy legitimises employing user space as a platform for hosting fringe content for the benefit of Reddit readers, and as a means to circumvent article deletion, something clearly needs to be done. The MfD discussion is ongoing, so it probably isn't appropriate to pre-empt the result, but at minimum Prototyperspective needs to be told, in clear and unambiguous terms, that they are not under any circumstances permitted to link their user pages to social media in this manner, that they are not permitted to use social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes, and that user space is not provided for the furtherance of such disputes. Or for the propagation of the users own personal views to outsiders, whether on UFOs or on anything else. Given the ongoing refusal by Prototyperspective to accept the consensus at AfD, and what appears to be a general inability to accept that fringe-POV-fork essays on the subjects of UFOs aren't appropriate encyclopaedic content, it should also perhaps be considered whether a 'UFO' topic ban might be in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Already stated that I didn't know about WP:COPYARTICLE when I moved the page from draftspace to userspace and that this policy warrants deletion, sorry. I don't know why you think I was violating "Wikipedia is not a social networking service" there though. The MfD already points to deletion of the userspace page which I'm okay with and am not arguing against, at least not anymore. (Also I'm not 'using' "social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes", I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles and I'm doing so because these were relevant to the respective discussion and because the page was useful.) As I have clarified, in the discussion, I wasn't "using this as an argument for retention", but mentioned this to address your mentioned AfD, not to argue for keeping the userspace page (something being useful etc doesn't warrant keeping it as userspace page). Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Again: what is being done is that the userspace article is getting deleted, in line with WP policies. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying you are linking to wikipedia on social media "Because these were relevant to the respective discussion and the page was useful... So you're admitting that you wrote a wikipedia article, and then tried to reference to it elsewhere to further your own arguments. What you've done is essentially tried to borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views? GabberFlasted (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Misunderstood me there. I didn't link it to "further my arguments". It simply was useful in a random discussion I had on the net, it was a useful resource there and instead of posting a lengthy comment I just put a link to the page there.

It's completely unrelated to any arguments, and I didn't make an argument for keeping the page saying it's useful to others, everything below the ____ at the MfD was only to address AndyTheGrumps mentions of the AfD, plain notes that weren't meant as arguments to keep the userspace page and I stated that explicitly multiple times there.

I don't really understand your latter allegations, see WP:AGF, it doesn't even make sense to "borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views" if it's a userspace page, it's certainly not what I meant to do or anything I thought of or anyhow related here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) "I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles". Irrelevant, since it isn't a Wikipedia article. "Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV". Why? What has that got to do with anything? And yes, linking user pages to social media for "discussion" is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, regardless of how much waffle is used to argue the contrary. If you want people to discuss your flying-saucer-woo essay, find somewhere else to host it - there are plenty of websites that accept such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I meant you aren't addressing points in the AfD, these discussions just bloat up without discussing the actual points raised. I meant Wikipedia page there and I'm also allowed to link userspace pages. One is allowed to link Wikipedia articles in discussions. For example if I discuss pet food, it's very normal to link article pet food if it has some section relevant to the discussion instead of putting everything in the comment or copying things from the article to the comment. I already stated in the MfD that I'm currently looking for such a website and that I'm fine with that deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"I'm also allowed to link userspace pages". Have you ever actually read WP:NOT? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Proto actively trying to improve the article? Userfying a deleted page to allow it to be brought up to snuff and reinstated is a relatively uncontentious action. Or at least used to be, I may not be up on current practice but see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content (an essay not policy, but does correspond with common practice at least back in the day). --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Prototyperspective has explicitly told us, repeatedly, that the deleted article was being linked externally on social media for the purpose of 'discussion'. Not improvement, a discussion about UFOs. And no, nothing has been done to address the many issues raised during the AfD discussion - unsurprisingly, since Prototyperspective has refused to accept the result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if he's not doing anything with it (I was AGF-ing that he was seeking help from others linking to it off site) then it doesn't belong in userspace. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes for the purpose of the discussion at the external website, not the discussion on Wikipedia. Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD (so much that they can be considered solved now), I wrote that I planned to keep working on the page but that I'm fine with deletion of the userspace page anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Proto, if you truly are fine with it going away, consider slapping an author's request CSD tag on it. Would probably go a long way towards showing you understand the issue and want to adjust behavior to community norms. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD...? That response alone makes me even more convinced that my suggestion that a 'UFO' topic ban might be merited needs consideration. Absolutely nothing has been done to remove the fringe POV-pushing, synthesis, cherry=picking of sources and general vacuous crappiness of the original article. It is the same junk it always was. Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it. Not by Prototyperspective, or by anyone else. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Among the things I did was removing a newyorker reference (not reliable), removing a paragraph that had unreliable references, adding a section about the status of the field, adding more info about criticism, adding more info about Mick West, and so on. I didn't cherry-pick, I searched quite long for more refs about criticism by "skeptics" (and even more so by other academics) and iirc invited others to add more info about such or anything else they consider to be missing there. I take note of Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it and conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research', again referring to WP:RS (and WP:NPOV and even WP:FRIND which I tried to meet per WP:AGF but apparently failed(?) even so I still don't exactly know why which I asked about but okay). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: Done, added a CSD to the page.

I'm fine with deletion and as already stated at the MfD already looking for another appropriate Wiki to put this instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump: Am I to understand that there exists a policy under which it is forbidden for me to show other people my userspace drafts? I have never heard of such a thing and I am not sure what the utility of it would be. jp×g 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested such a general policy exists. I haven't. What I have suggested though is that, regarding the specifics of this case, the recreation of the article and its subsequent linking to Reddit violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. The content wasn't in any meaningful sense a 'draft'. It was deleted content only there because the article creator refused to accept the result of the AfD, and because the article creator wished to present the deleted content to outsiders in a 'UFO' forum. Prototyperspective is of course free (subject to licensing conditions, since the article had been edited to some extent by others) to post it on a blog, on another Wiki, or elsewhere. Just not on Wikipedia, in circumstances where less-attentive readers might think it is an actual, current Wikipedia article. User-space content masquerading as articles gets deleted all the time, as a matter of course, and generally there is little fuss made over such deletions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

LTA suspicion on today's featured article

Recently many TFAs are extended-confirmed locked because of vandalism caused by auto-confirmed accounts. It seems that there's someone that is dedicated enough to intentionally lock these articles up, seemingly just because they can.

Evidence: Megalograptus, Borodino-class battlecruiser, Sayfo, Second Punic War (4 most recent TFAs), and more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly so. It looks as those these were handled at the time, what else would you like administrators to do? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

We could block the range Special:Contributions/99.76.0.0/19, which seems to host most of the recent trouble. The person also uses various IP6 addresses which are blocked as they appear. Some of the sleeper usernames were registered more than a year before the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Yes, I recognise an LTA that has been active this weekend on that range. There seems nothing of merit in the editing history for many months so I've blocked for three months. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The LTA rampage is still ongoing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Details? Diffs? And what do you think administrators might do that hasn’t been done already? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Should all FAs be ECP'd due to that? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Preemptively? You can start a conversation about that at the village pump bearing in mind there's already been a discussion about the protection of TFAs. In the meantime, TFAs get protected if the need arises. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of DRN ruling, neutrality issues

There has been an ongoing dispute at the page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for some weeks, involving the insertion of POV content at the beginning of the lead by Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that is directly contradicted by well-cited other content and thus WP:BALANCE, among other issues. Initial talk page discussions yielded no progress, so the matter was then taken to DRN, at the suggestion of admins RegentsPark and C.Fred here.

Due to repeated failure to respond promptly to DRN moderator Robert McClenon's queries, in what was recognized as deliberate sabotage of the process, the moderator closed the case. His ruling was that I had the right to edit the page as I see fit, and in the event of further conflict, I would have the sole right to create an RfC if I so chose, with assistance from the moderator to ensure neutral wording; if that was interfered with, AN/I. I had no opportunity to implement this, as Srijanx22 completely ignored this ruling, creating an RfC of his own which completely fails to be neutral (textbook bad question for one, and fails to mention the sources that contradict his additions, some of which I mention here under "Sources not presented"). His stalling-out of the DRN process to failure, followed by this snatching of RfC, back-to-back, were recognized by both myself and the DRN moderator as grounds to file here.

This matter involves two discussions and a now-paused edit conflict, but going through both would help to get the picture. IMO, while the immediate concern is the halting of an illegitimate, non-neutral RfC that Srijanx22 had no right to create, which leaves out a slew of sources from the view of potential participants, the wider issue here is BALANCE regarding two opposing narratives, the determined avoidance to abide by such, and the stonewalling refusal to address it that has been a pattern over multiple discussions now. Sapedder (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the outcome of that DRN. @Robert McClenon: for clarification just in case, but I'm certain they didn't mean that you had the sole right to create an RFC; that wouldn't be a reasonable outcome of a DRN. What they were telling you was that you could go ahead and make your edits (as anyone can do) and if those edits were reverted or if there was more conflict, you could use an RFC to resolve the issue - essentially the normal way to handle discussions that have broken down. That doesn't prevent the other party from opening an RFC themselves. And at a glance, I'm not seeing what's non-neutral about that RFC - it seems to just be asking which of two versions is preferred. You can make your argument for your version (and present any additional sources you think ought to be considered) in a comment on that RFC, which is how it's normally done. Looking at your talk page, it looks like Robert McClenon's conduct concerns about Srijanx22 are more focused on misrepresentation of sources (ie. presenting them in a way that goes beyond what can be considered a good-faith disagreement or accidential misreading, to the point where it looks like they're misrepresenting them intentionally.) You should focus on that and summarize the specific ways you feel Srijanx22 has misrepresented the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The DRN case is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale.

My concerns during the mediation were about failure to participate in the mediation process, and I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was being strategically silent in order to get out of DRN while taking advantage of DRN to set up an RFC. I don't have any specific problem with the RFC, because I haven't checked the sources. I didn't check the sources because I wanted the participants to present the sources. I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was maintaining strategic silence in order to game the system, but I can't cite any guideline to that effect.

When I open an article content dispute for moderated discussion, one of the rules always is that participants are expected to reply within 48 hours. Exceptions can be made if an editor knows that they will be unable to take part due to real-life involvement, but timely responses by the editors are necessary for disputes to be resolved within two to four weeks. I had to comment on 4 October and again on 7 October that User:Srijanx22 had not commented in 48 hours, and then in four days. I thought that they might have taken a long wiki-break, in which case the case could be closed. During the period between 2 October and 9 October, Srijanx22 made one edit, that being to keep the moderated discussion open.

After a reminder, I requested each participant to present one proposal to revise the lede of the article. Srijanx22 offered two. Then, again, they did not edit between 9 October and 12 October, and I closed the case, advising Sapedder that they could edit the article, since the other party was not discussing. Either Srijanx22 did have reasons why they could not take part in dispute resolution, in which case they could have offered an explanation, or they may have been maintaining strategic silence in order to take the initiative when the DRN was closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

DRN is voluntary, and a DRN moderator can't make any binding ruling; only an RFC can do that. I don't have an issue with the neutrality of the RFC as worded. I haven't checked whether Option 1 correctly states what the sources say. I have the feeling that process was gamed, but cannot cite a guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am busy in real life and editing only to reply here. I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. He falsely claims that the RfC is not neutrally worded though Aquillon and Robert McClenon have confirmed that is not the case. I am not the one misrepresenting any sources. Sapedder falsely claims that it becomes a misrepresentation of sources if his "sources not presented"[105] when I exactly pasted the version he proposed here on DRN. Nobody is stopping him to modify on RfC.

I have my own concerns about Sapedder's history of being disruptive, assuming bad faith and making personal attacks often even after many warnings. See the evidence here.

If you don't know the subject then you can think about an editor trying to get rid of the word "militant" from the first sentence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sapedder is doing that on Jarnail Singh bhinderanwale since 2020,[106] and made 7 reverts in August - September 2022 to enforce this POV pushing.[107]

What if someone is claiming that David Duke is not a figure of the white supremacist movement because Duke denies himself being a white supremacist? Sapedder uses this illogical argument for Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale by saying "JSB disavowed Khalistan".[108]

Why Sappeder shouldn't be sanctioned? It's clear that Sapedder lacks the ability to neutrally edit this subject. He made DRN toxic enough by falsely accusing others of having a "POV" dozens of times,[109] and falsified scholarly sources to be "tertiary".[110][111] This misconduct, together with this spurious ANI report speaks of his own misconduct and should result in a topic ban from Sikhism. Out of his 750 edits, all of them are about Sikhism, especially Khalistani movement-related articles and he was admonished for personal attacks and edit warring one year ago as well on ANI.[112] Srijanx22 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. Given your lack of participation in the DRN, I think Sapedder acted in good faith to come here first rather than attempt to discuss the matter directly with you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Check again because I participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed there that RfC will be next venue. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Srijanx22: See Robert McClenon's comments above. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Srijanx22 is trying to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community) in saying that they participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed that RFC will be next venue. Ultimately, nothing was agreed, because Srijanx22 failed to participate in the DRN in a timely manner. Sapedder not only had no reason to try to discuss with Srijanx22, but could assume that Srijanx22 would not be responsive, just as they were not responsive to me as moderator. Srijanx22 had a right to post the RFC, but participated inconsistently in the DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to the initial comment: @Sapedder: There is nothing in the DRN ruling that says you have the exclusive right to open a RfC. It says that RfC is a remedy available to you, but it doesn't say it's available to you alone. I don't see anything in the RfC that renders it non-neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, the ruling reads as follows: If they are reverted, they may submit a Request for Comments, or may request my assistance in preparing a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Before I was even able to take any action, the right to formulate an RfC, including with Robert McClenon's help, was disruptively denied. Essentially, I can't make much use of the ruling as of now, besides simply making my edit and hoping it doesn't get reverted (unless perhaps if an admin can ensure this). The RfC clearly makes no mention of the sources I pointed out that contradict Srijanx22's attempted additions (like the ones under "Sources not presented" here). These sources were presented repeatedly in the talk page discussion and the DRN, and were at the heart of the matter. This could have been prevented if Robert McClenon and I set up the RfC, and the failure to include those sources for potential participants may have influenced at least one vote already, as the contradicting sources were not made known to them. As pointed out by other editors here, Srijanx22 gamed the system by collapsing the DRN through deliberate nonresponsiveness, then rushed to create an RfC that omits a slew of inconvenient sources and denies me my own given options, causing a double breach in procedure. Sapedder (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word 'ruling' to refer to my close of the DRN. DRN is a voluntary non-binding process. I have opinions, and I can offer to help. I can't stop an editor from doing anything. I find the conduct of Srijanx22 to be distasteful, but I don't think that they violated any guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Roadmap, then. The point is, it was at least a solid plan of action, complete with help from a neutral 3rd party, that could have elevated the process past the square one of constant reverting, which we're possibly back at otherwise. Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see how it’s generally “disruptive” conduct in an informal sense. However based on your report no rules were actually broken so there’s nothing for administrators to do here. Participation at DRN is not enforced in any way, and anyone can start any RfC they want at any time. The RfC itself needs to be a simple, neutral question that gets put to the community, it doesn't take any opinion regardless of who started it. It makes no arguments either way. If that was not the case here, it would be a problem, but it’s not. I agree that the RfC is neutral and valid and all interested parties should make their arguments in the responses. If a followup or parallel RfC is needed, there’s nothing standing in the way of that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Swarm, C.Fred, in that case, given the circumstances, before any followup or parallel RfC:

1. Could I make my own modifications to the current RfC (which you or any interested parties may review), mostly to include the sources and statements that were omitted that conflict with proposed content? Ignoring sources and WP:BALANCE was the whole core issue to begin with, the deliberate omission of those sources strikes at the currently worded RfC'S very purpose imo. The current RfC framing "which version is better" doesn't reflect the core issue or context, and implies equal footing between the proposals; one (mine) is just the stable, long-standing lead, and one is trying to add heavily disputed content. A better, more specific framing would have been something like "is this content suitable to add in spite of these sources?" or something imo.

2. Also given the circumstances, may I invite back any editors that may have voted to take a second look at the RfC once it includes the aforementioned sources, and review their vote in light of them? Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not edit the RfC. It is neutral, you are straightforwardly arguing that it should be made less neutral. That is not going to happen. You can make whatever points you want there and it is the community who will decide whether they agree with you. Yes, you may invite interested parties as long as it does not appear to be gaming the RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I mention this because the user prominently presented their sources, then highlighting snippets from them in bold in the RfC, while permitting no such opportunity for the ones mentioned earlier, as a mod-assisted RfC would have. That's not neutral. Neither is failing to mention that my "proposal" is in fact just the long-standing lead, and that this is a conflict over adding a sentence's worth of disputed content, not two new versions. Regardless, as permitted, I will just invite back relevant parties for a second look. It will not be gamed to death like the DRN was. Sapedder (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

User:OliveYouBean

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.

---

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

Today, I got an email from another user to keep me from engaging in polemics with that type of user. I was offered to report the matter to the administration immediately. So, I did that.

At the beginning I will say that I assume goodwill, however, actions by User:OliveYouBean have the hallmarks of trolling, edit-warring, and even signs of vandalism in article of Adelaide.

User pushing new changes to article (also using edit-warring - per Wikipedia:edit-warring, 100% clear reverts, without partial reverts or attempts to compromise). New changes are actively discussed on the talk page. The user doesn't even try to apply Wikipedia:CYCLE (if there is new edit, later is revert by other user = first must to be discuss and consensus to new changes).

The user appropriated the article. I added content to article sources - this user deleted it with destricpion of changes "rev edits by subtropicalman, there is no consensus for these changes and discussion on the talk page is still ongoing". However, when he added disputed information and incorrect sources to intro - I have no right to remove it.

User enter new disputed changes in intro without any consensus. There is a suspicion of breaking a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population. User pushing text about this to the first paragraph of the article and intro of article [113]. He write in destricpion of changes: "rv, there is no consensus for these changes", however, there is no consensus that this text is in the first paragraph of the introductory part of the article. We are dealing here with extremely perfidious trolling and misappropriation of the article. The user either does not know what he is doing or deliberately creates such manipulations to stuff his POV.

Further offenses

User OliveYouBean restore in the intro a text with an aboriginal name [114][115]. There is no consensus on the use of a name of city center as the name for the entire Greater Adelaide. According to the discuss and per many sources, Aboriginal name apply only for the centre area. This name is added to Adelaide city centre [116] by other user, with whom there was an earlier discussion. User OliveYouBean stil restore this in the intro, without consensus, against sources.

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - templates have been inserted correctly. The content of Traditional Owners in the introduction to the article is still debatable (still under discussion), and the sources have also been questioned. Verification of the sources showed that they are inconsistent with the content of the article and a breaks rule of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is clearly explained on the talk page. The sources do not show what is written in the article. User OliveYouBean deleted templates twice (including [failed verification]) [117][118]. In this case, we are dealing with vandalism - deliberate deletion of correctly inserted templates.

The user on the talk page did not follow the comments on the sources, and even proved that he was breaking the rules of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. User inserts different sources from different cities to create a larger area together, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia rules - Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research.

These are serious offenses. It does not matter that someone may have a different own opinion. Each user must obey the rules and guelines of the Wikipedia.

User OliveYouBean appropriated article: removes my content with sources from article without consensus, he himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove without consensus.

User OliveYouBean inserts incorrect content with the Aboriginal name of the city center even though the matter was clarified in the discussion and the content was moved to corerct article of Adelaide city centre by other user [119].

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - among others, a template about the defectiveness of sources.

The user is unreformable, he conducts a discussion by means of edit- warring, removes content with sources without consensus, himself inserts content without consensus wrong sources. Removes bad-source templates. The user is not willing to compromise. The user broke a number of Wikipedia rules within 2 days, including all of Wikipedia: Core content policies. It is doubtful that it would be possible to continue further discussion without his POV-pushing, vandalism (remove templates, remove data with sources) , and without edit-warring.

I am asking for help in this matter. I cannot solve this problem myself. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading talk:Adelaide, seeing OP’s prior blocks, and reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Subtropical-man disruptive editing suggests that an Australian Aboriginal curvy stick is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the issues on this topic. The Aboriginal issue is very extensive and very controversial. There have been several lengthy discussions on this in several articles (mainly about the largest metropolises in Australia), after which other users felt that Aboriginal names should be removed. In one discussion there was no clear consensus, however the consensus was tending to include aboriginal names, but only to which there is no doubt, and if the sources clearly state what area they cover. This does not apply to the Adelaide article as the sources clearly indicate that the Aboriginal name only refers to the center. Aboriginal name was entered into the article of Adelaide city centre by another user [120]. Everything was cleared up and it was ok, but the user:OliveYouBean decided to put this name back in the first paragraph of the article's intro, although the name does not apply to Greater Adelaide (which is what this article is about). That's one of the issues on this topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As previously noted, that I am helpless with such disruptive users, who based own changes on their own opinion (POV) instead of Wikipedia rules and then I am bitter and annoyed, because Wikipedia does not provide the appropriate tools to counteract such disruptive activities. This time, after good advice from two users (including the advice of one administrator) I decided not to get involved dispute with this type users (who are overtly and deliberately breaking the rules to push their new changes), but to ask for administrative or mediation assistance. So, I did that. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You missed my point. You are the problematic person here and a WP:BOOMERANG is indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I come from this from a neutral point of view, but I want to note this is a consistent behavioral pattern from the user in question, judging from the more recent ANI Dispute regarding them that I created and you participated in. Sam Walczak ^Talk/_Edits 17:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just seen this now. Firstly I'm not a dude so please use she/her, not he/him. Sorry if I was doing something wrong, I'm still relatively new to editing. I saw there was some back and forth on the article and a discussion on the talk page, so I thought I should revert back to the version before that started happening while there still wasn't a consensus. I tried to contribute to the conversation on the talk page (providing sources to show why content was relevant to the lead). I probably shouldn't have reverted the second time because it seems like that escalated things. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OliveYouBean, it is not "just" about two reverts. Here are serious allegations.

• You have entered content with an Aboriginal name that is incorrect and has been moved to the correct article (twice).
• You deleted templates that were correctly inserted by another user (twice). You are not allowed to delete templates until the problems are corrected or there is consensus that the problem no longer exists.
• You have restored the faulty sources, manipulated. You broke the rule of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• You made clean reverts, complete reverts, not considering that you reverted several edits done on a few issues (each with a description of changes, explaining exactly what is being changed). Without any attempt to improve the lyrics or looking for a compromise. This is typical Wikipedia:Edit warring.
• You removed the content along with the sources from the article without consensus. Typical appropriated article: you removed my content with sources from article without consensus, you himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove it without consensus.
• You breaks a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population (Aboriginal people) who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population (1.6%). Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all, you pushing text about this (from fourth paragraph of intro of article) to the first!!! paragraph in the intro of article. This is extremely non-neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: what actually happened, as anybody will see who follows the links you provided, is that OYB made a grand total of two edits to Adelaide. First one that reverted a number of edits by you; you reverted most of it back to your preferred version; she then made a second, much more minor edit to the article, to which you reacted with extraordinary aggression. You posted a diatribe to the article talk page accusing her of all kinds of violations, gave her a "last warning" for edit-warring (!) containing the same attacks as on the article TP, reverted her edit with an aggressive edit summary, and immediately started this ANI report without waiting for a response from her. To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks. I agree with rsjaffe that your conduct has been unacceptable, especially since you have already had warnings and blocks for failing to assume good faith and to be civil. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bonadea, you wrote "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks". This is doubling attacks? Listing a few problems is an attack?
• My report here was about 7 issues, but she just wrote about the reverts, omitting any other explanation to other problems. I reminded this user what it was about in several points[121]. I did not use any profanity, I did not use any personal attacks. My comment above complies with Wikipedia rules.
• I listing problems is not an aggressive changes or "attacks". One of my questions: why she was removing templates like {fact}/{Failed verification} from the article? Can I ask such a question? That's the simply question, but some of you think it's an attack or incivility. I have presented a few complaints against the user, and await an answer to each of them. I created a report here, not because I want to punish user: OliveYouBean or block she, I only expect mediation - a person (like admministrator) who will help solve the problem and keep order. A person who will protect the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates. A person who will verify the sources and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. If Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is wrong place for such requests for mediation, please link to the page where such a request would be a good place. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  First, this is primarily a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Second, the only thing here actionable at ANI is Subtropical-man's behaviour.

  The comments being made by Subtropical-man have included:

  • Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all. Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title.
  • because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity. I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually.
  • Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro.: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago.
  • Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing.

  I think a TBAN should be an option here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but how would you feel if someone wrote: I think a 'TBAN for any comments in ANI for User:Mako001' should be an option here. Why? you manipulate quotes, you analyze quotations out of context, you carefully analyze each word by user (with intermediate knowledge of English) to find any problem, you not assuming good faith (per Wikipedia:Assume good faith), you are not wondering about "what the author wanted to say?", that's why you even accuse other users of racism. See how easy it is to write such an opinion? The rest of the explanations in the comment below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think here some users forgetting completely that even if there was a dispute (on the content or not), there are two sides. Some users here treat unusual comments by one user for something worse than the vandalism of the other user. I think there is time to clarify the matter. I also remind you that my English is "intermediate" in terms of quality, so it may contain grammatical errors and you should consider "what the author wanted to say". The most was written by user Mako001, so I will mainly refer to his comment.

• Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all - Mako001: "Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title" - please explain what the problem is?
• because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity - Mako001: "I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually" - quote taken out of context. Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? The information about Kaurna people in the introduction to the article is just a curiosity, it was not these people who built the city and currently they constitute 1.8% of the population. There is no mention of larger groups of the population in the introduction to the article, so we even have here presumably a POV rule violation. There is nothing racist here.
• Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro - Mako001: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago - again you don't understand the context. I wrote only about the issue of entering "traditional owners" to the introduction of the article. In the intro of article, there should be no data controversial, debatable, unclear. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible (or even confusing) for most people in the world. I don't mind adding such information to the section in the article.
• Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section - :Mako001: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing - here maybe I have actually used an example that is too abstract. Is it wrong? Does it break Wikipedia rules? I have been taught that abstract examples stir the imagination, so the listener looks at the matter from a third perspective. The above text was supposed to stimulate the imagination that even if this group of people will be recognized as gods, such data will not be entered in the intro, but in the section (for example Religion) - these are standards of Wikipedia. To intro of articles about cities in Wikipedia, no data is entered about the faiths of a certain group of the population.

and here's the problem. The user Mako001 takes the quotes out of context, does not understand what the author wants to convey, and suggests TBAN based on a misunderstanding of the situation. ..and what did this user say about the unlawful deleting "sources" templates by other user ? - nothing! If there should be an opinion - then I am asking for neutral opinions from neutral users, the user Mako001 has proved to be extremely biased. Besides, I wasn't looking for opinion here, but for help. I was looking for a person who will protect (do not confuse with Wikipedia:Protection policy) the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates because one user deleted the source templates twice. A person who will verify the two sources in the article and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. Do I require a lot? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: ANI is not a place for you to discuss article content issues. You do that at Talk:Adelaide; you did in fact open a discussion there, but you are misrepresenting other editors' contributions to that discussion and their article edits – so far, nobody has agreed with you, and if there is a consensus it is against your removal of content, which means that your repeated arguments about edit warring and WP:CYCLE are at best disingenious.

Above, you say Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? No, the discussion was started by you because you proposed to remove information that had been present in the article for more than a year. You have been removing the info, and when it was restored you moved it down a couple of paragraphs; your edit summary here contains personal attacks against an editor who had simply restored the version that you wanted to change, and that is unacceptable. It's inconceivable to me that you do not see that you attacked OYB there, as well as in this very ANI thread. You need to apologise for your attacks and make more of an effort to assume good faith. You also have to stop restoring contested edits while there is ongoing discussion, particularly if you are the only editor who is arguing in favour of one side – this unblock discussion is relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, regarding the discussion: I used an unnecessary word of "inserting" in explaining the matter. The point is that do you understand that the discussion concerned information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? This is what I ment. About the context in which I wrote it. And yes, I started the discussion, but that's good because there is place for discussion. In my description of changes I have included very key words that should turn on the red lamp, for example: Breaks the ... Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removing templates inserted by another user. Sources = failed verification, suspicion of ... Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS). I can see nobody cares, it is not important to break Wikipedia rules, it is important that someone too boldly wrote about it!?!?

Also, I want to inform you very kindly, that version by user OliveYouBean and your restored version[122] contains content along with manipulated sources (the content does not agree with the sources), which I informed about both in the discussion and in the description of changes. You got involved with the case of article of Adelaide (not only in ANI), but you didn't check any problems with breaking Wikipedia's rules, you only attack my person... and this is unacceptable. It is clear that you regard any of my remarks on OliveYouBean as an attack (for example, your words: "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks" (sic!?!)), and it's inconceivable to me that you do not see you do exactly the same to me. I would also like to inform you that you are currently very aggressive towards me, and totally break Wikipedia:Assume good faith, especially since you not only ignored the erroneous sources, you even deleted the correctly inserted templates ([failed verification][dubious – discuss]) added by another user[123].

I would also like to remind you that my new changes did not remove the content about Kaurna people, but as you mentioned above - only moved the content "down a couple of paragraphs" (still within the intro of article). It is one thing to delete the content, and another to shift the content. Users don't need to ask for permission or seek consensus to move the content down three paragraphs.

After thinking about it, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, sorry for too blunt words. Maybe I should be more calm during writing a description of changes in spite of such a clear breach of the rules by other user. My bad, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mako001, it feels like subtropicalman has made some statements about Indigenous Australians that are at best ignorant, like using the word "Aborigines" (in this edit summary), a word which is considered offensive. I'm not sure if this is a language issue because I noticed on their user page that they're not a native English speaker. I'm trying to be generous because this may just be that they don't know how their words are coming across. I did ask them not to use that word and they haven't used it since then.

On the other hand, I didn't realize they'd had previous blocks. bonadea is right that they're definitely misrepresenting the situation on the content dispute in terms of where the consensus sits. While technically they haven't broken WP:3RR they have tried to make changes to the same effect six times (I think I've counted right: [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]), each time removing the same content from the lead paragraph (sometimes putting it elsewhere in the article). The last time that they attempted to make this change was the edit summary where they accused me of trolling, edit-warring, vandalism, WP:SYNTHESIS, and breaking WP:CYCLE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V (an impressive list of crimes, I am surprised I was able to commit so many wrongs in just two edits). It feels like while they're following the letter of the law, they're not exactly following the spirit of it. OliveYouBean (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remind you once again that my English level is ~en-2. My level of English does not allow me to communicate easily. I use a translator a lot because I only know a limited number of English words. The translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word "Aborigines"[130]. Maybe it is worth writing to Google to improve its translator. Second thing: in the beginning I deleted the sentence about Kaurna people, but then I looked for a compromise and only moved the content from the first paragraph of the intro to the fourth paragraph of the intro. These are a completely different kind of change, move is not deletion. Third thing: As I wrote above, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, and I apologized for that.

However, I regret to recall that the problem of sources still exists, and you don't feel responsible at all, you did not apologize for removing the template informing about the wrong sources. Is this the way ANI should look like? Everyone carefully analyzes my edits to find any problem and... I reported the problem of break the Wikipedia:Core content policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) and no one reacts and no apologies? This is supposed to be a neutral approach to the matter? Attacking a single user and doing nothing about the reported problem? In order not to waste time and prolong unnecessary discussion, I have a simple question mainly for users who have spoken here before (but also to other users): what are you going to do about the problem of sources in this article breaking the two fundamental policies of the Wikipedia? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That question concerns article content. Article content is not discussed at this notice board. The fundamental policy violations have in fact been committed by you, Subtropical-man, in that you have been aggressive in discussions and edit summaries, calling good-faith edits "vandalism" ("my bad" is not an adequate apology), and edit warred against a budding consensus on the article talk page. You promised not to edit war when you were last unblocked, you know. If you have been using translation software, that might partly explain why you have problems with the policy based arguments made by multiple other editors in the talk page discussion. But that also means you should absolutely not make any claims about expressions being "incomprehensible to many people", and it is yet another reason for you not to edit war against the emerging talk page consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 12:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I do not agree with first half of your opinion. This is page of "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents", I used this page to report incorrect actions in an article, first of all about remove templates that inform about incorrect sources, as well as to break two Wikipedia policies in relation to these sources. As mentioned above, I was not asking for a penalty for the user OliveYouBean, but for a response to the problem. Is this page used only for reporting conflicts between users? It is possible, however, that another page would be better for this report, for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I do not know. Second: "The fundamental policy" is only three: Wikipedia:Core content policies, the rest are just additional rules and guidelines. I have not broken any of these fundamental Wikipedia principles, on the contrary: here I am discussing the respect of these principles in the article. This is just a correction to your text. Third: you wrote: "my bad" is not an adequate apology" - I apologized twice, not just using the words "my bad". Please read more carefully. However, I partially agree with the opinion that due to my poor English, I should try to be more reserved in discussions. I think that with the help of translator I understand most comments, but I must admit - not everything. Sometimes I have to guess what's going on. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here. I'm not doing anything different to the other users who have reverted your edits or engaged with you on the talk page. You're accusing me of breaking Wikipedia's policies and introducing new content to the article, but I've just restored the article to the stable version as per the consensus on the talk page. Is there a reason you've singled me out in particular here? Is there something in particular I did that none of the other editors have done? It doesn't feel good to be accused of vandalism and edit warring when I'm just trying to follow what other editors are saying. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• OliveYouBean, you wrote: " I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here" - basically because when I was doing this report (8 October 2022 UTC) you were the person doing the reverts. I don't know any other explanation. Personally, I don't have any negative feelings towards you. This was a reaction to the current actions in the article. You wrote: "'I've just restored the article (...) per the consensus on the talk page" - not exactly. There was no consensus on the Aboriginal name used in the article. On the contrary, it was explained that the name referred to only the city center and not all of Adelaide, so this information was transferred to Adelaide city centre by other user[131]. So, you have restored the wrong content in your edit, twice. Moreover, you deleted templates inserted by another user twice, also without consensus, which is a serious violation of the rules. So, you restore old version with one wrong sentence back and deleted two templates, so your change naturally can be considered harmful to Wikipedia. I would like to remind you that the issue that is currently being discussed in Talk:Adelaide is the removal of the sentence about Kaurna people from lede of the article. Maybe that the discussion showed a greater consensus for leaving this information in the article than for deleting it but your "restore version" only move information about Kaurna people in the first paragraph of lede, in my version it was the fourth paragraph of lede. So, your "rollback" has changed almost nothing in this regard. Your edit made three changes: introducing one wrong sentence to article, removing templates about defective sources, and moving content about Kaurna people from the fourth paragraph to the first paragraph. I recognized your change is harmful, and since you continued undoing, I reported it here. As for the use of the word of "vandalism", it is generally a matter of interpreting the term "vandalism". If someone deliberately - for example - removes source templates from an article (against discussion and without consensus), some users may consider it vandalism. De facto the only thing that divides a destructive change into vandalism or non-vandalism is the intentions/good faith of the user that makes this edit. It's easy to forget Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I was nervous at that moment so didn't think about assume good faith. I used this word incorrectly, it was my mistake and I apologized.
• I would also like to point out that your changes were not exactly the same as other users because my changes have changed over the course of the discussion. Your edit made three changes, which two of which are wrong. So you can't say that you was doing exactly the same thing as the user before you. Editions was similar, but the result was slightly different. The user in front of you undone my other changes and you undone others. However, it is the responsibility of the user who restores the stable version to take into account indirect changes, e.g. inserting templates. You tried to do something similar to another user, but did not notice that this user may have made an error. Even if you want to restore the content that complies with the stable version, it is your responsibility to check everything and made edit it 100% correctly. Not knowing the rules and making a mistake by another user do not justify you to make a wrong change by you. Also, I would like to inform you about an important sentence in Wikipedia:Stable version, I am quoting: "Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning". So, intrusive restoration of the stable version is prohibited in the Wikipedia.
• In conclusion, we both made mistakes. I hope we both learn from this discussion to prevent similar mistakes in the future. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I've got three points and after that I'm going to stop responding here because I don't think this conversation is going anywhere and this isn't the place to discuss content disputes.

Firstly, "There was no consensus on the Aboriginal name used in the article. On the contrary, it was explained that the name referred to only the city center and not all of Adelaide, so this information was transferred to Adelaide city centre by other user[132]." You're right that the name refers to the city centre, but the consensus of every user except for you was to include it. If you disagree, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here.

Secondly, I was fully aware of the changes I was making when I did my reverts, which I explained on the talk page. You're again claiming that my changes were against consensus, and you're saying that they were harmful. Ok then, talk about that on the talk page. Again, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here.

Thirdly, you are right that I was using "stable version" incorrectly. I should have been saying that I was reverting to the consensus version. That's my mistake, I'm still not 100% on all of the vocab here. OliveYouBean (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• OliveYouBean, you wrote: "Secondly, I was fully aware of the changes I was making when I did my reverts, which I explained on the talk page. You're again claiming that my changes were against consensus, and you're saying that they were harmful" - once again you did not understand what I am writing about. I'll explain it one more time, one last time. I understand that you wanted to restore a piece of text (about Kaurna) that was supported by a stable version or consensus, however, you must have restored the text (about Kaurna) along with the templates about sources. Even if you wanted to restore deleted text (about Kaurna), you were not allowed to delete templates. You could have pasted the templates manually. That's easy, just copy the template code (like {{Failed verifi.....) from the left window (my previous changes) and paste into the right window (your stable version) - see link. Wikipedia is not only about automatic reverts, many changes are done manually. Just use the [Show preview] button before saving, enter the template code and save. Simple.
• You wrote: "I don't think this conversation is going anywhere and this isn't the place to discuss content disputes. (...) Ok then, talk about that on the talk page. Again, that's a content dispute and the conversation belongs on the talk page, not here" - I fully agree with you. Overall, the topic of this discussion is exhausted. The rest of topics is content disputes, for that the place is in Talk:Adelaide. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@OliveYouBean @Bonadea If you look at the diffs that I have provided below, Subtropical-man is well aware that they have been using a racial slur for months and continue to do so. They have been asked not to by several people, including an Aboriginal Wikipedian. Them pleading ignorance based on their translator is simply false, as they have argued before that they should be allowed to use this word and will continue to. Poketama (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe @Sam Walczak Poketama (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Further discussion is here: Talk:Adelaide. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical-man

per Wikipedia:BOOMERANG

I have only had time to skim this discussion. With a disclaimer that I've had extended disputes with them, I believe Subtropical-man should be topic banned.

•The most obvious reason for this is that they extensively use the racial slur 'aborigine' in their edits and refuse to stop. They have been doing it for months with many, many people calling them out on it. They have argued in the past that they should not have to stop using this word, so their statement here about it being a machine translation error is false. They are well aware that it is a slur. If I was using the n-word on talk pages because my translator did it I would be swiftly stopped. Examples: (search for 'aborigine') https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=1089970651&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth&diff=prev&oldid=1080133107&diffmode=source (in edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&diff=prev&oldid=1114342636 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1105523833

•They have no connection to the topic or Australia, but have extensively commented on it over this year and repeatedly deleted Aboriginal names and content from articles. They do not contribute to articles on Australia besides deleting this content.

•They take an extreme viewpoint that information about Aboriginal people is "useless" and irrelevant because they are not relevant to modern communities. This is a prejudiced viewpoint, its hard not to see it as such. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth&diff=prev&oldid=1080136308&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1105751414 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1106040401&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OliveYouBean&diff=prev&oldid=1114796848 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide&diff=1112101164&oldid=1111986176

•They have continued to make edits that go against an RFC that they contributed to but did not agree with the outcome of, as noted in this diff where they dispute the closer. (The closer noted the RFC supported the well-cited inclusion of Aboriginal placenames in the lead of articles) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poketama&diff=prev&oldid=1105513669&diffmode=source

•Due to their unfamiliarity with the topic, they often make ignorant deletions based on 'lack of evidence' when there are citations and it is a well known fact. For example most people in Sydney or Adelaide learn which Aboriginal people are originally from the region in primary school. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1106042422&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelaide&diff=prev&oldid=1114691260

•They also take quite a combative approach to discussion and have been asked to not do this in the past and been taken to ANI recently, and blocked last year, but continue to do so. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subtropical-man/Archive_1#Unblock https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1097143966 (in the edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&diff=prev&oldid=1104910497 Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane&diff=prev&oldid=1114276927 Poketama (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling all of this, I wasn't aware that there was a broader context to what was going on.

With regard to the use of the word "Aborigine" that's incredibly frustrating. For them to blame it on using a translator here even though they've previously tried to argue that it's a normal word they should be allowed to use is disingenuous at best.

I have been trying to assume good faith about the content dispute, and it seemed like it boiled down to a referencing issue (hence their accusations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS), but after I added a reference which pretty much spelled out exactly what the article says they still tried to insist the referencing wasn't sufficient. The fact that they've done this on multiple articles before makes me think they either a) don't have the understanding to edit in this area or b) are trying to push a POV that Indigenous Australians aren't relevant.

I would support a topic ban. I can see in their block log that their unblock has the summary "with a short leash ... per commitment to adhere to WP:3RR regardless of other editors' behavior [133]". I think there could be a basis for another indef block because they have been belligerent and edit warring since this unblock, but unless there's issues with their editing in other areas I'd rather just go with a topic ban.

Also @Poketama: could you please sign after the diffs? I was a bit confused who had posted this at first. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is both a) and b). They continually make nonsensical arguments because they don't understand the topic, don't have English fluency, and don't read the article, but they also are explicitly pushing their POV (as they even say on this thread they do not think Aboriginal people are relevant).

This discussion is a good example of their bizarre behaviour. Poketama (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow... it's so bizarre to see them make the exact same arguments two months ago that they're trying to make now. This diff in particular is almost word-for-word the stuff they've been accusing me of doing, accusing people of breaking WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. OliveYouBean (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• First case. As I mentioned, I use the translator for most of the longer comments. I don't have time to correct correctly translated words that are used around the world. Sometimes, when I have more time and I remember that there was something about these people, offended at the word "Aboriginal", then I correct the word. So I have also used the preferred word many times.I don't use the word Aboriginal on purpose, I just have more important problems - e.g. that the grammar of the sentence is correct and that my comment is understandable to other people at all. It with every sentence translated in Google Translator I have to change the correct (normal, not offensive, non-vulgar) words because they may be offensive to someone!?! This is absurd. I wonder if there was a tradition in Poland that it is forbidden to write about Poland in English language because it is offensive, would English Wikipedia remove all articles about Poland because it is offensive to Poles? I doubt it! I would also like to remind you that these names were used in Wikipedia by many users - which Poketama knew it very well: [134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]. So, many users used the name of "Aboriginal", but since I am opponent the changes made by user Poketama, when I use that word of "Aboriginal" , must be "slurs"!?! Very clever Poketama, very clever.
• Second case: most links (like [161][162] etc) by user Poketama mean nothing. Poketama believes that if I make any argument that the information in the introduction to the article about the Aboriginal tribe who did not build the city and constitute a fraction of the city's population is redundant, he considers it an ethnic attack or something and that I attacking these people. Please take into account that I am from Poland and I see the problem of Australian articles from a third person perspective. I can see that Australia's current policy of honoring Aboriginal people is currently affecting netral Wikipedia.
• Third case: user Poketama pointed out that I may be non-neutral on this topic, but the truth is that it is user Poketama who exhibits cleary POV behavior, inserts massively Aboriginal names (including debatable ones) into the introductions of articles about various cities and other places, as well as information about Aboriginal tribes. I remind you that not to the section on history, but to the intro to the article.
• I would also like to point out that in the two big discussions (in Perth and Sydney) I was right - the controversial passages from the article were removed by consensus. It's not that I'm lonely and only I have that opinion.
• I would also like to point out that user Poketama used a personal attack accusing me of using "slurs" in name of this section of discusion ("Subtropical-man's conduct and use of slurs). Occasional use of a name from Google Translator which may be offensive to a certain group of people is not "slurs". I change the section name to neutral. Also, do not forget that because you have created a thread against another user (with whom you have a conflict), while you create of your actions which may be break the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles), as well as the motive: the desire to get rid of the user who noticed this problem - it is fully justified that you to be subject to Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. It is not unusual to have information about the historical inhabitants of a place in an article on a city.
  2. Why are you continuing to double down on using slurs?

  Poketama (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1. My English is not good, but please stop pretending you don't know what's going on. I have repeated many times in discussions, I do not mind added informations about Aboriginal peoples in articles, e.g. in the History section. I am only opposed to your mass insertion of this information to intro of the article.
  2. Where? please give me a quote. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

     Aborigines is a slur. It's "Aboriginal Australians". Levivich (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

     I think the word Aborigine is complicated, hardly used, and outdated; Capital A Aborigine is better than aborigine, or Aborigines, or aborigines. But it’s not a slur - and only offensive depending on its context,

     These are the slurs that will get you into trouble with the whole of the small country town (with an awesome football team) I am from; It’s the country – everyone is related to everyone 😊.

     Hmm. The Amnesty article does not say offensive or slur

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Australians#Difficulties_defining_groups is ocn

     ‘Aborigine’ is generally perceived as insensitive, because it has racist connotations from Australia’s colonial past, and lumps people with diverse backgrounds into a single group. You’re more likely to make friends by saying ‘Aboriginal person’, ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander’.

     But this Aboriginal lecturer disagrees and thinks it's theatre

     https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/dillon---political-correctness3a-an-impediment-to-reconciliati/3731552

     In reality people have lots of different opinions Article about young creatives

     “Even though they require capital letters, consider these words adjectives. For example, try to avoid just saying ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘an Aboriginal’. You should always follow with a noun, for example, ‘Aboriginal person’ and ‘Torres Strait Islander people’. Do not use the outdated term ‘Aboriginie’.”

     Reconciliation.org.au)

     "Ensure that the following terms are avoided when describing/referring to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as they can perpetuate negative stereotypes:  ….. Aborigine …."

     Indigenous X

     “Aborigines has largely disappeared in favour of Aboriginal people/s (except for a few older people who haven’t kept up with the times and a few racist commentators trying to make the point that *checks notes* they are cartoonishly racist).”

     So, to the style guides

     1. Amnesty style guide states Indigenous Peoples Always capitalise the word Indigenous when referring to Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal when referring to Aboriginal Peoples. Distinguish between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Use ‘Aboriginal person’ or ‘Torres Strait Islander person’ if referring to a singular person. Do not use the nouns aborigines, natives, islanders or indigenes
     2. The Guardian Aboriginal (only use as an adjective, never as a noun. Never “Aborigine”) Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander peoples (not “people”)[
     3. Australian Government Style Guide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Using ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ is most often considered best practice. ‘Aboriginal’ (and less commonly accepted variants such as ‘Aboriginals’ or ‘Aborigines’) alone is also not inclusive of the diversity of cultures and identities across Australia, for which reason it should be accompanied by ‘peoples’ in the plural. Similarly, as a stand-alone term, ‘Aboriginal’ is not inclusive of Torres Strait Islander peoples, and reference to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be spelt out where necessary.·The acronym ATSI should be avoided as this can be seen as lacking respect of different identities. First Nations and First Peoples Other pluralised terms such as ‘First Nations’ or ‘First Peoples’ are also acceptable language, and respectfully encompass the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and identities.
     4. ABC (National Broadcaster) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander references Always upper case Aboriginal and Indigenous in reference to First Nations people or cultures. Avoid using Aboriginal as a noun. Avoid Aborigine outside of quotes. Where possible, describe people the way they wish to be described. This could be a specific community or language group: a Yuin woman, a Bundjalung elder. It could be also more general: the Torres Strait Islander woman, an Aboriginal man. Avoid regional descriptors (e.g. Murri, Koori) unless it’s a stated preference. In collective reference: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, First Nations communities, Indigenous people, etc. See entry First Nations, Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Torres Strait Islanders are a distinct group and should not be described as Aboriginal or TSIs.
     5. (Left Wing  Political Insider News letter (good read)] Aboriginal Australians should be identified by their country or language groups at first mention if known, eg a Wiradjuri-Yorta Yorta man, a Noongar-Badimaya woman – or take your cue from how they identify themselves. The term “Aborigine” is outdated and offensive; Aboriginal should only be used as an adjective. Indigenous Australians is an umbrella term that covers both Aboriginal people from the Australian mainland and Torres Strait Islanders
     6. BBC Style Guide Aborigine Means indigenous; earliest known inhabitants of a particular country. Use a cap (Aboriginal) if the reference is to the indigenous Australians; otherwise, aboriginal.
     7. Style guide: The Age, SMH, AFR, Brisbane Times, WAtoday Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people There is a wide  diversity within Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, which includes a broad range of nations, cultures and languages. Opinions often differ on the most appropriate ways to refer to people. When talking generally, terms such as Indigenous Australians (always capital I for Indigenous people in the Australian context), First Nations people, First People/s or First Australians  may be used.Aboriginal people is acceptable when not talking about Torres Strait Islanders.Do not use the outdated term Aborigine, which offends many people. Black in reference to Indigenous Australians is also considered offensive by many. It should not be used as a noun. Adjectival use should generally be avoided but is allowed when it is considered and respectful. When writing about individuals, respect their preferences. It is often best to refer to some one by their language/cultural group (a Wurundjeri man, a Warlpiri woman .Others may prefer to be known by a regional term, such as Koori (plural Kooris) in Victoria and parts of NSW. Some elders may use Aunty  or Uncle  as a term of respect. Aunty Joy Miles would become Miles  on second reference. Use lower case for elder, traditional owner, stolen generations

     That was a fun dive. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I find your shifting stance on the offensive term "aborigine" to be rather troublesome, and honestly it, along with the overall super-combative tone, is inching towards the basis of a topic ban proposal.

March 30, defends right to use the word - "I wrote about used word of "aborigines". Maybe in Australia it is a taboo or similar, but in the world this word is widely used, it does not break any Wikipedia rules, no one has the right to stop me from using the word of "aborigines"... and this issue can be considered closed. Of course, the topic of the use of the Aboriginal name in the article may still be debated."

May 26, acknowledges the word is problematic, asks for alternatives - "Note that my native language is Polish. I have English at the intermediate level. I don't have time or desire to learn rare words, so I use a standard and neutral word from the dictionary. In any dictionary, 'Aborigines' is a normal word. But ok, how do I write about Australian Aborigines in a single person? Aboriginal person? Other?"

Aug 20, still using it - If there is to be more information about aboriginal clans (which has no meaning for a modern city), we must to add information that the Aborigines constitute only 1.7%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the population of Sydney and the majority of the Australian population are of British origin." (and more, search for the term in the page)

Oct 5, still using it - next trolling by user Poketama, Moved this isformations from intro to history section. (Brisbane#Early history). Poketama, please stop pushing all information about the Aborigines to the introduction of the article.

Zaathras (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I think your examples spoil the full picture of the discussion thread. In the last quarter I was very active on this topic, and despite the huge amount of comments in various discussions, I only used the name of "Aborigines" maybe a few times. This is certainly not a sufficient reason to talk about topic ban concerning Aboriginal peoples at all. Besides, Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of the word "Aborigines" to Australian Aboriginal peoples. Maybe it is worth changing the rules of the Wikipedia first and then "to order and punish"?!? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have any general opinion on this (as yet) but I find the criticism They have no connection to the topic or Australia, but have extensively commented on it over this year and repeatedly deleted Aboriginal names and content from articles somewhat bizarre. Is it being asserted that having a "connection to a topic" gives an editor an entitlement to edit it. If anything, the opposite is preferable. Could you clarify the point you were trying to make? DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Having outside input is great and helpful when the user has knowledge of the topic. Subtropical-man does not have any knowledge of the topic so they continually make basic mistakes and need correcting (which they usually ignore), as well as using slurs. It's a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. Poketama (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  knowledge of the topic? WP: COMPETENCE? I have a question, how much knowledge about Aboriginal people do need users to see that you are massively added content about a selected group of people (who did not build city and are 1.9-2.9% of the city's population) to the lede article? No additional knowledge is needed to verify the POV. You favor Aborigines because that is where Australian politics is going, and you cannot understand that Australian politics should be applied to Australia, not to neutral Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, favoring one user-selected group of people is contrary to POV. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  You favor Aborigines..., there you go again... Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Zaathras, This Google Translator is starting to terribly irritating me. In general, in the discussion, I have problems with the word because of his fault. If the translator translated correctly, there would be no problem with that word at all. As soon as I saw the error I corrected it [163]. It is inconceivable that in the 21th century translator translates to text that may be offensive to some people. This is work of Translator: [164]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Block needed Bludgeoning plus inveterate use of racially-charged language.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: Seriously, disputing the existence of native title is not considered acceptable in Australia. Persistently using a term which they have been told is offensive is not acceptable on Wikipedia. And I don't buy the "translator did it" thing either. Google (and any other translator) will not give you a slur or even somewhat offensive word as the translation of a non-slur or inoffensive word. They are using 'aboriginies' deliberately. Why, I even had to override my autocorrect to type that word.

  Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, on second thoughts, let's see if a TBAN works. That would be more suitable here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sympathetic to the proposal, but it's not clear (to me, at least), what the proposed TBAN would cover (Australia-related broadly construed?). FWIW, there's a vast and easily accessible literature on the appropriate terms to use when discussing the peoples of Australia's first nations [165] [166] [167]; repeatedly claiming otherwise appears as WP:IDONTGETIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that anything related to Indigenous Australians (including Native title in Australia and Traditional Owners) should definitely be off-limits. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Subtropical-man: Can you please explain how your translation tool was able to output the word "aborigines"? Specifically, what tool did you use, and what word (in Polish presumably) did you put into it? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001:, as I wrote in the previous discussion thread, I use a Google translator a lot because I only know a limited number of English words. The Google translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word of "Aborigines" - please see: [168]. Interestingly, in the Polish language, the word of "Aborygeni" applies almost always to Australian indigenous peoples, it is not a wildcard word. As an example and proof I will give description of the word of Aborygeni in the most renowned Polish encyclopedia - Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN. So, Google Translator automatically translates the Polish word of "Aborygeni", which only applies to Australian indigenous people, as word of "Aborigines", which is offensive to this group of people. Even (in the earlier discussion thread) I wrote, and I quote: "Maybe it is worth writing to Google to improve its translator". I guarantee that if the Google Translator would automatically translate the Polish word of Aborygeni" to English "Aboriginal people" - this thread of discussion would not even exist. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  The Google translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word of "Aborigines"

  When you know the word you're selecting is going to translate into an offensive term, and continue using that word, you cannot simple claim it's a translation tool error. You are choosing the input term while knowing the output will be offensive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  However, it is worth paying attention to one key matter: even if I neglect corrections after translator work, it does not mean that I intentionally and deliberately insert an offensive word just to offend someone. This is a key difference! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bullshit. You have been told REPEATEDLY that it is offensive, so the onus is on YOU to NOT type that word into the Wikipedia. You are responsible for what words are included when you hit that big blue "Publish Changes" button below, so if you do it after being told, then yes, you are being "intentionally and deliberately" offensive. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please do not use swearwords.Secondly: You did not understand point what I was writing about. You don't make a distinction between two things: obligation and intention. Neglect corrections after translator work it's a completely different act than "intentionally and deliberately" inserting offensive words for one purpose: to offend other people. In order for you to understand that these are diametrical differences, I will give you a real-life example:

  1) the driver who has been asked to drive careful several times, hit a pedestrian

  2) the driver deliberately ran over a pedestrian to kill

  The first driver will be accused of causing an accident due to careless driving, the second driver will be charged with murder. So it is clear that depending on the intention, the classification of the act changes. It was never my intention to deliberately offend Aboriginal people. I even wrote about it few times before. I was inserting content from the translator without proofreading caused, inter alia, by not attention to detail and haste, but never out of wanting to offend these people. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Do not utter this racial slur on the Wikipedia again. That's all there is to it, and if you can't understand that, then WP:CIR must be considered. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I understand. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I think a TBAN would be sufficient. There are multiple ANI threads about Subtropical-man, his edit warring, and his aggressive discussion style, going back as far as 2012. In 2015, one of these threads was closed with the comment "Final warning: Anything remotely close to a personal attack or canvassing by Sub-Tropixal Man[sic] will lead to a block next time." In September 2020, STM was indef blocked for personal attacks in connection with LGBTQ topics, and was unblocked in June 2021 after a commitment not to edit war or blame other editors. Six months later this sub-thread from December 2021 includes requests for a TBAN from AfDs after multiple personal attacks and a failure to assume good faith in pornography related article discussions, but there was no consensus there. This thread from July this year reported that STM had attacked another editor after an edit that had to do with administrative divisions of Malta(!). That again ended without any sanctions, but with yet another strong caution, "Just stick to the issue at hand and leave all the personal commentary out." The current thread shows very clearly that STM is not capable of doing that.

The problems with STM's behaviour also include WP:IDHT. Taking the use of the word "aborigine" as an example, STM has claimed to have an extensive and thorough knowledge about English, such as "in the world this word is widely used" (30 March 2022), "I don't have time or desire to learn rare words, so I use a standard and neutral word from the dictionary. In any dictionary, 'Aborigines' is a normal word." (26 May 2022), "It may be clear to Australians, but not to the rest of the world." (21 Aug 2022) – and to have a very poor grasp of English, to the point where they use translation software, e.g. here, 15 October. This is a WP:CIR issue; being incapable of understanding that one's own personal knowledge gap might not be universal, even when multiple people from different parts of the world have explained that it isn't, is a lack of competence, plain and simple. A little higher up in the discussion, there's another IDHT moment, where they returned to the content discussion over and over again, despite being asked not to discuss content at ANI.

If there is consensus for a TBAN and against a block, I'd suggest a topic ban on Australian topics, broadly defined, and a civility restriction with the understanding that any new personal attacks would lead to a block. --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

--bonadea, I do not agree with your opinion. You were too negative towards me from the very beginning discussion. I would like to remind you that initially I had problems with canvassing and edit warring. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. The last problem is my tone of the speech, but this has improved significantly compared to what the ANI concerned in 2020. I agree with some of the people here, and I think that I should focus even more on improving my speech style. Regarding your TBAN proposal, your proposal here is also a large abuse. There is no substantive basis for imposing on me a TBAN for whole Australia topic. Problem here is with the Aboriginal peoples, there are no problems here with any other Australian issues. If you can't write a comment without prejudices to a given user, without aggressives... at the same time breaking Wikipedia:Assume good faith as well as insulting the user by using 3-letter abbreviations of his username - then you should abstain from commenting. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it a bit ironic that you would accuse people of not assuming good faith given you seem to have accused so many people of vandalism and bias. "If you can't write a comment without prejudices to a given user ... then you should abstain from commenting." is good advice, and I think you should follow it. Things probably wouldn't have escalated to this point if you'd stuck to discussing a content dispute on the talk page instead of accusing editors of breaking every policy and guideline under the sun and taking things to ANI.

Personally I only favour a narrow topic ban on content related to Indigenous Australians, but you really need to change how you talk to people you disagree with. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: I apologise for abbreviating your user name – it did not even occur to me that it could be seen as an insult, and my only reason for doing it was to make my post briefer. I won't do it again, since you dislike it. The best way to avoid acting on any unconscious prejudice is to include evidence in the form of diffs, which I did in order to show that this has been a long-term issue within different areas of the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 17:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

--Bonadea, ok, however, your diffs have no chance to show one key issue - improvement in the behavior that occurred in two old problems: canvassing and 3RR, and partial improvement of the third. I still have to work on the third problem - however, this does not mean that there is no improvement compared to 2020. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support block outright until or unless they make a DEFINITIVE commitment to stop using the ethnic slur mentioned above. After that, topic ban from Australian and Indigenous peoples of Australia topics, broadly construed. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Zaathras, while the issue of the Aboriginal people is debatable in my case, the issue of the general Australian theme is not. Please explain why you are agitating for TBAN for the whole Australia topic. Wikipedia is not democracy or pure voting. Your votes must be documented by arguments. You have not given a single argument for TBAN for the entire Australian topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your general demeanor and attitude when discussing this topic is disruptive and dismissive, best of you find something completely removed from the topic area to focus on. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also, it is worth pointing out that virtually all larger Australian geography articles relate to Indigenous Australians. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support block 1st choice, TBAN 2nd choice - A block per WP:CIR is my first choice for two reasons: (1) anyone using a machine translator to edit here does not have the requisite English fluency to edit the English Wikipedia, and (2) per bonadea's links above, it doesn't really matter what topic area Subtropical-man edits, they seem to be unable to do so without being seriously and repeatedly disruptive (probably because of the lack of English fluency, AGFing). Levivich (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Levivich, over the past 12 years, I have made thousands of changes to articles, and my changes were conform to standard English. It is one thing to have long discussions in English with multiple users (and support yourself with a translator), and another to make small changes to articles with no need to use a translator (smaller changes less content = more time to use correct English). My English level is sufficient for many less complicated edits, and even for creating simple articles (like Hilton Valencia, Malta Freeport, Sport in Barcelona, Gibraltar Cable Car and almost 100 others). So writing about Wikipedia: Competence is required it is offensive to me and largely untrue. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Supporting a block mainly per WP:CIR issues but statements like You, Australians forget where you are. I've noticed it before. So maybe I'll explain: English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an Australian encyclopedia. [169] demonstrate some real civility and WP:NPA problems too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• Block and TBAN: Block for now, but TBAN from the topic of Indigenous Australians (see below for formal proposal of TBAN). If they wanted to, they could easily have stopped using 'aboriginies' ages ago. It's not that hard to reverse translate 'Indigenous Australians' (or anything besides 'aboriginies') into Polish, and then check that it stays the same when going back the other way. Simple. But no, they want to argue that causing death by reckless conduct isn't murder. Yeah, sure, but both are criminal. At this point, a CBAN is starting to seem like it might be appropriate, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

TBAN for Subtropical-man

I see that consensus seems to be increasing for a block, but a block can be easily appealed (they've done it before), and then we'll be back here again. I therefore propose that User:Subtropical-man be indefinitely topic banned from anything related to Indigenous Australians. This would remain even if the block recommended above is successfully appealed. To make it clear, this is the minimum that I support, and stronger sanctions may be appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Note:Similar proposal made by Bonadea, but split off to here since consensus for a block (not a CBAN) is approaching, and it's best to keep them separate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Repeated use of ethnic slur despite months of warnings and editing against consensus on the issue of aboriginal names. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support however, amend TBAN as: "all issues, broadly construed, related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and South Sea Islanders." --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  South Sea Islanders too? (Indigenous Australians covers the first two, and TBANs are, by default, broadly construed). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn:Pinging, re: South Sea Islanders? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001: South Sea Islanders are technically not Indigenous Australians, but peoples of the South-west Pacific who were removed to Australia as forced labour. Given the nature of the problem, my view is an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn: I was more wondering because I hadn't seen any issues with South Sea Islanders, but maybe I wasn't looking closely enough? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001 I've not dived into the editing history, I'm basing my view on what I've seen presented here. I think it is simply prudent to do this; I would not like to see this editor move into a matter related to South Sea Islanders and claim, potentially with merit, that it is not within scope of an Indigenous Australians TBAN. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn: Generally, TBANs should only be imposed where there is a prior history of disruption. Since the disruption discussed here has not gone beyond the topics of Indigenous Australians, Native title, Traditional Owners etc. it doesn't seem appropriate to go past that. Does that make sense, or is there something I'm still missing? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the bare minimum considering they haven't really shown they can be civil or constructive while editing in this topic area. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  OliveYouBean, which doesn't mean I could be in the future. Besides, are you looking for a constructive discussion? I would like to remind you that you ignored such a discussion (Talk:Adelaide#Traditional Owners) when during the discussion you lacked arguments about your new erroneous sources. Instead of improving the source, you are here and try to block the user what has a different opinion than you and which defend fundamental Wikipedia policies. It is sad that such situations there are in Wikipedii, and even in ANI :( Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but arguments for TBAN are against Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

• I want to inform, but the TBAN proposal in this case is without rational and substantive arguments. How can you be sure that I will continue to use the word "Aborigines" in Wikipedia after this discussion? You absolutely don't know it. It's just guesswork and... divination against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As mentioned before, the penalty policy in Wikipedia is not based on punishing, but on stopping further such editions. Wikipedia:Blocking policy say: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals)". I stopped used word of "Aborigines" during this discussion (a few days ago) because I see a serious sanction is looming and also because I understood that I was behaving disgracefully, that I was ignoring the Google Translator problem. I have decided to stop using this word because I see that further use of the word will no longer be tolerated. Below, I have officially declared that I will not use this rude term, both because of possible sanctions but also to willingness to improve behavior. Earlier (a few yeaurs ago) I had problems with canvassing and 3RR. I have improved my behaviorin this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So these are not empty words.
• So here we have a statement of improvement arguments about improve my behavior about canvassing and 3RR before.

On the other side we have typical divination, that I will use a naughty word in the future, who breaking both: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Idea of TBAN has been discredited in this case. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify this to make sure I'm understanding your argument. You think this would be against policy because WP:CRYSTALBALL means we can't predict people's future behaviour? OliveYouBean (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support – My eyes are about to roll out of my skull. The bludgeoning here and at other places does my head in. I don't know what about this topic makes Subtropical-man do this, and I'm not sure I want to know. I'd also support a indefinite block. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• OliveYouBean, a few years ago I used canvassing. There was one long action. Although other user wrote me a warning on the user talk page, I continued and didn't want to stop. An administrator has blocked my account. Although blocking an account is not nice, I fully understand the administrator and I think he had no choice in this situation. In this situation, the administrator followed the Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
• This topic is completely different.It was only in this discussion that I learned that using the word Aborigines can have consequences. After the matter was fully explained, I decided not to use that word anymore. And before that, I even apologized. I stopped such activities and declared improvement. So in this situation, we are talking about past deeds that are no longer being done now, much less in the future. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

New proposal

Statement.

I was surprised that it got so complicated. I created a thread in ANI because I wanted to report irregularities, but... I am being judged.

I would like to remind that a few years ago I had problems with canvassing and edit warring. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. So I can improve my behavior.

The my last problem is my tone of the speech/comments, but this has improved significantly compared to what the ANI concerned in 2020. I agree with some of the people here, and I think that I should focus even more on improving my speech style to less aggressive version. Also, I used word "Aborigines" several times.

It was never my intention to deliberately offend Aboriginal people. I even wrote about it few times before. I was inserting content from the translator without proofreading caused, inter alia, by not attention to detail and haste, but never out of wanting to offend these people. Yes, I did get information from some users that "Aborigines" is a rude word but I didn't think it was that important. That's why I downplayed / belittle it. Sorry. Please accept my apologies.

Now, after reading the arguments in this discussion, I know it's important. I will try to never use the word "Aborigines" for any person anymore. I will also try to use a less aggressive tone of speech, including avoiding longer discussions until my knowledge of english will be better.

Previously I did improve my behavior (canvassing, 3RR) , and it will work this time.

I think that TBAN for any topics of Aboriginal people is unnecessary. I not only will to never use the word "Aborigines" for any person anymore but I will try to avoid this topic of my own free will.

I am willing to improve my behavior. However, I propose for me a block for one month because despite everything I feel remorse for my actions.

Please accept my proposal. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Sure, I see a commitment to improve, but this isn't the first time you've made such a commitment, only to go back on it (the civility thing in particular). Your defence of using "aborigines" (after it had already been made very clear why you shouldn't use it) is not very convincing. Someone told you that it was offensive, and yet you continued to put the Polish word into the translator that you by then knew gave "aborigines" as the output. When multiple editors are telling you the same thing, and you choose to ignore them until a serious sanction is looming, that is not a good sign. Given that this is basically 'one month off and then nothing', after repeatedly pushing fringe views against overwhelming consensus and some seriously careless (even outright reckless) use of an automated translation tool, this is not a realistic sanction. In addition, it would not be a preventative block. It would be punitive, so this is not a legitimate sanction. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - You wrote: "When multiple editors are telling you the same thing, and you choose to ignore them until a serious sanction is looming, that is not a good sign" - not at first, but later yes. As mentioned before, the penalty policy in Wikipedia is not based on punishing, but on stopping further such editions. Wikipedia:Blocking policy say: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals)".

I stopped used word of "Aborigines" during this discussion (a few days ago) because I see a serious sanction is looming and also because I understood that I was behaving disgracefully, that I was ignoring the Google Translator problem. I have decided to stop using this word because I see that further use of the word will no longer be tolerated. Never before I was not threatened with sanctions for using that word. In this situation (in this discussion), the form of things completely changes. These two reasons above can disprove any of your arguments for TBAN, because your arguments are against Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I have officially declared that I will not use this rude term, both because of possible sanctions but also to willingness to improve behavior. I would like to remind that a few years ago I had problems with canvassing and 3RR. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. So I can improve my behavior. The facts are that. My arguments are not supported by empty words. Therefore, I regret to inform you, but the TBAN proposal in this case is without rational and substantive arguments. How can you be sure that I will continue to use the word "Aborigines" after this discussion? You absolutely don't know it. It's just guesswork and reading tea leaves against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Today, I made a statement, I quote: "I have officially declared that I will not use this rude term, both because of possible sanctions but also to willingness to improve behavior" and a few years ago I had problems with canvassing and edit warring. I have improved in this regard. I have never used canvassing anymore and I have never broken the WP:3RR anymore. So I made a mistakes and was able to improve my behavior in two issues. So here we have a statement of improvement arguments that I was able to improve my behavior on some points before. You, however, only have guesses (that I could go on using the rude word) and a noticeable lack of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to vote to support your own proposed self-punishment. The fact that you proposed it implies you support it. Zaathras (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Poketama

per Wikipedia:BOOMERANG

User Poketama who exhibits POV behavior, inserts massively Aboriginal names (including debatable ones) into the introductions of articles (mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles) about various cities and other places, as well as information about Aboriginal tribes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brisbane&type=revision&diff=1112693447&oldid=1112602158

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darwin,_Northern_Territory&type=revision&diff=1112248319&oldid=1109284219

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geraldton&diff=prev&oldid=1112880603

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&type=revision&diff=1113437701&oldid=1112930251

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boonwurrung&diff=prev&oldid=1107503584

etc

The link changes look good (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adelaide&type=revision&diff=1113437701&oldid=1112930251). I would like to point out that many users should not be fooled.

User added sources are often manipulated. The perfect example is Adelaide: [170]. Evidence of the manipulation of sources is now provided in Talk:Adelaide#Traditional Owners.

Also, I also remind you that many Aboriginal names (even if there is some source) are incorrect or disputed, as can be read in the three large discussions on this topic Talk:Perth, Talk:Sydney and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Often the names only cover the center, or only refer to names from one tribe, while other tribes use a different name for the same place. There are many problems, and the problems are vast. The user knows it very well, because he participated in many discussions on this topic (including those related directly to its changes).

There has been a lot of discussions about the changes made by the user Poketama, some serious and some less serious e.g. Talk:Boonwurrung#Point of view or Talk:Brisbane/Archive_6#Meanjin_(and_other_spellings). However, waiting for the next changes of this user, which he is trying to push his Aboriginal texts into every possible article is tiring and takes a lot of time for other users.

Needless to say, for the Poketama user, all other users who have a dissenting opinion than Poketama, they are reported to ANI. Today, user Subtropical-man, previously User:Skyring / Pete: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1110456560

Main problems of user Poketama:

• mass insertion of information about a selected group of people into the intro of many Australian articles is typical favoring one group of people and subject to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• added manipulated sources, some just break the Wikipedia:Verifiability, others also Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS).
• Wikipedia:Personal attacks against User:Subtropical-man and User:Skyring / Pete, various prejudices against User:Subtropical-man and User:Skyring / Pete and also breaking the rule repeatedly of Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna spend much time disputing this. I use quality sources, when Aboriginal content is not backed up by fact or verifiably disputed I don't add it (for example, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide do not have the Aboriginal name in the lead sentence because they haven't been verified as widely used by the Aboriginal community). It's not a case of NPOV because there is a large amount of content on other cultures on these pages and I try to add to it when I can, what Subtropical-man is disputing is a sentence or two of Aboriginal content in a page full of European history.

I have not reported everyone to the ANI who dissents from me, there are quite a few users who have different or opposite opinions from me but work in good faith and collaborate to make the articles better. I and a lot of other people have spent a lot of time trying to work with you.

The Adelaide example you are providing as definitive proof of manipulation is based on your misunderstanding of English and the topic, you are disputing whether a source says 'traditional owners, traditional custodians, First Peoples, whatever' when these are all interchangeable terms with the same meaning. Poketama (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. In the Perth and Sydney articles, there was consensus do not to use Aboriginal names and in Brisbane other users have pointed out to you about problems with aboriginal names for this city. It is not your goodwill - as you write above, it is a consensus (among others) against your idea to include such names in every intro of Australian article. It has been proved in these articles that these names are too problematic and debatable. It was decided to include additional information (explanation) in the Etymology or History section, because there is no place for such debatable issues in the intro of the article. However, you were not impressed by these two consensus, as you insert controversial information about Aboriginal peoples in many intro's of articles.

Second: as already mentioned in another discussion, "Traditional Owners" is a legal concept (legal definition, in the act) and traditional custodians (colloquial term) is not a legal concept. They should not be used interchangeably. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

* @Subtropical-man: I do not accept your English is not my first language excuse ; your vocabulary is large (Polemic, Etymology,). You are only achieving local consensus if that. Don't assign motives to other editors "Clever, Poketama, Very Clever" . I suggest that you don't take part in any consensus building to sort out the various issues below,

• @Poketama: Looking through your edits you have engaged in good faith especially with @Laterthanyouthink. Whilst reading though the Australia draft style guide I Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1 that you had worked recently for Reconciliation Australia. The {COI} doesn't bother me, except to say its the First Nations, so thereare a plurality of reviews and individual preferences, and even the best editors may not be totally aware of all there own POV (As an example, I suggest that describing non-Aboriginal history as European History should be avoided)

• With the Australian Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum due soon, the amount of conflict is bound to increase., so would you be willing to quickly work towards a consensus on Australian project page , on agreement on acceptable names for Indigenous/First Nations, acceptable references for Aboriginal Place name equivalence, weight in standard phrases for lede, deceased et"

@Goldsztajn: No way to Topic Ban 'South Sea Islanders" because they might do something, or at least until ORES gets pre-cog.|BTW there is no Australian South Sea Islander topic, only Category:Australian_people_of_Melanesian_descent , and Category:Oceanian_Australian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 October 2022 (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.