User talk:MJL/Archive 28

(talk page stalker) Don't mind us, just go about your editing.

Dee

Hi, my article did not get published because there wasn't enough inline citations. I was hoping to find an editor who can help me rewrite the article to standard. Am still finding my footing here so am new to the wiki does and don't.

I Would love to ping you but I don't no how to do that either. Please I need help.Dee 06:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Duthperod: No worries. Let me review your email and get back to you in a bit. In the meantime, may I suggest playing The Wikipedia Adventure? It is a fun game that teaches you all about how to edit Wikipedia. Also, to ping someone, read Help:Notifications –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, will be awaiting your feedback. Dee 10:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Duthperod: you seemed to have gotten lost in trying to reply to me lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: lol, I really don't no how I got here. Thanks for helping out on the article, should I resubmit the article?Dee 19:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Duthperod: Nah, I'd hold off for a bit. Trim the article down to only stuff that is directly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source per WP:V (Help:Citing sources)). Then resubmit when the article only has the content that is absolutely necessary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, your signature doesn't link to your user page. You might want to get that fixed. Try pasting this code in your preferences: [[User Talk:Duthperod‬|Dee]] To get the following result: Dee

And then be sure to check the box that says Treat the above as wiki markup.
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I have trimmed down the article and added references. Please do help me go through the article again to see if I still have to work on it before submitting it. Dee 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dee Before I start, I noticed that a lot of the article has minor problems that are somewhat easy to notice. If you go to your preferences by clicking here, then check the box next to Display links to disambiguation pages in orange you'll see that a lot of your links are actually to disambiguRation pages.
While I just made a few minor corrections, I'm afraid there are some issues that still need to resolve that I am less able to commit to being able to help you with. Glen Allen Grubbs seems to have played a role in Saudi Arabia–United States relations similar to Erik Prince. If you want to check out really good articles to get a sense for how Wikipedia really structures its content, I spent some time searching for a good article to use as a model or guide, and the best I came up with was Vannevar Bush or Wesley Clark.
The important thing is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability and No original research. If you want help finding sources, I can certainly help with that. However, right now it isn't clear to me exactly where you are getting most of the information from. On Wikipedia, even opinions should be cited or qualified to meet WP:NPOV and WP:OPINION. Sorry I can't be more of a help. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks a lot for your feedback. I certainly will like it if you help with the sources.Dee 08:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@@MJL: Hello, I have worked on the disambiguation page you talked about and added a few source. Please help me check if I can resubmit the article.Dee 10:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop, or at least slow down

I know that you're enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia, but in the last couple of weeks I've seen you add unnecessary comments at BN, PERM, and AN, to name a few. If you have something relevant to add to a conversation, by all means do so, but random "witty" comments regarding inactive admins, people you think should be admins, etc. should be left to those individuals' talk pages. I know there are others out there that seem to have a penchant for adding banter to even the most serious of conversations, and most of the time it works, but yours come across as simply an attention-getter without any real substance. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: My apologies. I've stricken one of the recent comments that I believe you are referring to. The other I take it is this which is now archived. I'll refrain from making such types of comments in the future. Sorry.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't necessarily mean to say that you have to stop completely, but just consider that off-topic banter is best saved for special occasions ;-) Primefac (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Well... you caught me when I am especially sensitive to this sorta thing. Normally, I'd just add it to the Wall of Shame and keep it mind for the future. Not the best timing! lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies then for the poor timing; never fun going through a crisis of faith. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi MJL. If you'd hear me out for a minute, I'd like to elaborate on what Primefac said above, because I think the message perhaps hasn't gotten across. I can see that when you get involved with administrative discussions (the ones I'm thinking about are principally at AN and AE, and now at ARBCOM) you are trying to be helpful. The trouble is that the disputes you have inserted yourself into have a long, long, history, and have taken different turns as the culture of Wikipedia has evolved. You've approached those disputes with a decent knowledge of policy, but you haven't been here long enough to be familiar with the histories of those conflicts. Fundamentally, arbitration, and really every dispute resolution process, is meant to ameliorate conflict to the extent that we can all get back to productive editing; so a naive application of policy simply isn't sufficient. You need to let people more experienced with those situations deal with them. Here's a suggestion; stay away from all discussions at the admin boards except for those that involve conflicts you were a part of (and really this advice really applies to everybody on Wikipedia). You're neither the first nor the worst offender in this regard, so please don't take this personally; but if you keep your participation at AN/ANI/AE/ARBCOM to situations where its required, I think you'll find editing Wikipedia to be a happier experience. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I've received this style of advice in the past (check the Wall of Shame). My approach to administrative boards has now morphed into thus:
  (1) I only go to them in order to report disputes which I am involved or need action on.
  (2) None are in my watchlist, so I occasionally check back in to see how my report is doing.
  (3) This means that sometimes another thread will catch my eye, and I might throw in my 2 cents naturally or otherwise react accordingly.
  (4) However, at the end of the day I'm only on that board for as long as my report is active.
  (5) You'll notice that in the case of my most recent one, the report has been sitting there for days.
  In general that is how I participate in drama discussions. I found out about the Eric one on WP:AN because I was about to post there asking (yet again) for an admin to close the report already (it's not particularly complex, and it probably has only taken so long because I'm rather long winded sometimes).
  
  However, this is where you lose me. I already had a dispute with Eric and Cassianto on Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games that has barely been acknowledged. I have been given no relief from the community nor any other admin, but I have been told that my dispute has already been settled (confusingly enough for me- because I don't recall when this was).
  Therefore, by your own advice I needed to escalate this dispute.
  You may also notice I have gotten more involved with the content processes here. It's highly doubtful that I would never run into Eric again with that being the case.
  I felt insulted and ridiculed but my concerns were being swept under the rug. I saw a user who chronically engaged in this sort of toxic behavior and a community not willing to do anything about it besides make excuses for him.
  I really don't care who he is or what he has done for this community. I shouldn't have to read a novel of his life story to find out he's "not such a bad guy." (not quoting you but a general sentiment). If you belittle or insult other editors, you lose your editing privileges. It's irrelevant to me, as it should be, how things used to be on Wikipedia in terms of acceptable conduct. Eric's conduct pretty severely falls out of the realms of what is acceptable today.
  I mean, please defend this. What point was there in that question besides to make an obvious jab at me? I simply questioned a source and offered suggestions to alternatives. Eric almost instantly made it personal.
  I've been here all of 8 months, but even I know (1) Eric will come back and (2) he's going to keep acting like this until he stops getting special treatment.
  This is not okay and needs to stop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an apologist for Eric by any stretch of the imagination, and his behavior on the talk page you link was inappropriate. But, this is such a long-running problem that even admins struggle to deal with it. If Eric's unpleasant to you, stay civil (which you did) and if he persists, take it to ANI and leave it at that. ARBCOM is a stop of last resort; therefore, it looks as though you either didn't do enough to resolve something (ie take your personal complaint to ANI), or you've been hanging around the fringes of the dispute at Moors murders and elsewhere. I'm not making accusations: I'm telling you what your behavior looks like.

More broadly, though, I'm not just talking about this request, because you're making this conversation about Eric, but there's more going on here. I'm talking about the fact that you've gotten involved with several discussions at ANI, ARCA, and elsewhere, that you were not remotely involved in. You've made more statements at the arbitration pages than most admins. There's a reason very few people ever run for ARBCOM, and still fewer are good at it; it's a toxic environment, and not one for relative newbies to hang around in. So, for your own peace of mind, stay out of there unless you absolutely have to. Or, to put it another way; avoid step (3) above. And, coming back to incivility; it is essentially impossible to deal with civility issues in a situation where both parties hands are not clean. In this case, Talk:Moors murders was a mess, and a lot of stuff that followed was a direct result of that. This dispute, at this time, is not a hill you want to die on. Keeping your sanity on Wikipedia is a lot about finding things that are genuinely enjoyable, and a lot about picking your battles. Focusing on content is the right thing to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: See response below about overpresense on arb pages. If I'm not mistaken, you have just said I should have filed a par-for-the-course AN/I report on Eric Corbett. I'm just so taken aback by it. What should I have expected the result to have even been? Do you know what the advice I was given by multiple administrators at the time was? Just drop it. I was told to stop wasting my time. So what did I do? I looked the other way.
The interesting thing about me is I am really easy to understand. Step (3) is how User talk:Dicklyon ended up in my watchlist. Bish posted there, and (as I said at AE) I learned of the Moors Murders dispute for the literal first time. I seriously had no way of knowing otherwise. To sum up: my recent AN/I report --> AN/I browsing --> Commenting on Dicklyon's thread --> post to Dicklyon's talk page --> Add to watchlist --> Dicklyon gets involved in AE --> Bish posts about it to Dicklyon's talk page --> I notice. If you look at all the threads, you'll see my pretty transparent hopping from one thread to the other (I'd fetch you the diffs and links, but it's 1:32am as of this moment for me).
I suspect a similar pattern emerged for Boing! in making this edit, so that's why I didn't say anything to them about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

We're going over ground we've already covered here...I am not in the business of defending Eric Corbett. I don't need to see the links, because I don't doubt your motives, nor am I suggesting that you're stalking EC. I'm asking you not to browse ANI, because good things rarely come of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, good things came of them browsing AN/I when they helped calm down me and that mega-thread. Tell BMK not to browse AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I understand why you say that, but to an extent Vanamonde is right here. The charge against me is that I am an incompetent/drama-monger because I filed the case request. If I truly wanted to be in a position to help user's like you, I'd have kept my head low, make some content, and go through RFA in a year. I've pretty much knowingly threw that away by filing this case request and escalating this dispute. Also, I fixed my pronouns for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Right. But I really don't believe in the plural as a way to get gender neutral. What's a mother to do? Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'll give you a free pass to refer to me as she then (it's only a pass for you tho). That way I know you are at least trying to accommodate my gender identity without being offensive. To clarify, certain folks have referred to me as a he in an attempt to bait me, but I know you are not trying to do that. So long as you don't refer to me as your spokeswoman if I'm your spokesperson; I can't see that as being an issue. If anyone gets confused, just link them this diff. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll try to remember. I know Darkfrog24 didn't want us using/disclosing their gender, but especially didn't like he. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Guðrún Björnsdóttir

On 12 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guðrún Björnsdóttir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Guðrún Björnsdóttir, a 20th-century Icelandic politician and women's rights activist, was at one time a milk vendor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guðrún Björnsdóttir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Guðrún Björnsdóttir), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: Thank you so much Maile!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Connecticut

Thank you for quality articles such as Tufan Erhürman, Guðrún Björnsdóttir and List of Connecticut weather records, for tagging Connecticut-related articles, for work Draft:Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, for checking articles for creation such as Moira Millán, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2265 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: It's a great thought, but Tufan Erhürman had no involvement from me. The true creator of that gem was Sportscorrection.
Either way, I have literally ALWAYS wanted one of these!!!
So thank you so much! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I see now that yes you created the article but as a redirect. I just discoved the tool articles crated but should check better ;) - Anyway: great content additions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am a friend of Eric Corbett, so am biased and won't appear in the arb request for which "o dear, not this again" is what hopefulyy the arbs also think. He wrote a fair share of today's featured article, did you know? He was the first to oppose loosing one of our best editors, see also: "WP has a strange way to restrict those who help the most (Pigsonthewing, Fram, Eric Corbett ...).". Perhaps simply withdraw that request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That really is excellent advice, Eric's content work is really the gold standard we should all be working towards. ClemRutter (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@ClemRutter and Gerda Arendt: I don't doubt your sincerity, but the most disruptive thing I could possibly do is start a request and change my mind midway through. A few individuals have already commented that they feel it should be accepted, and that generally means that I am unable to withdraw it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Should I say thank you that you don't doubt my sincerity? - I haven't called a user disruptive, ever, and wonder why you should use that term. I haven't called someone to ANI, and never will, - I only went to ANI once, to achieve talk page access for a friend. I don't expect anything positive to come out of arbitration, ever. Sorry, arbs. The wisest thing seems still to be to withdraw the request, - let those who carry grudges be disappointed, - better than the friendly ones disappointed ;) - Further reading: "I know from personal experience how difficult it is to see yourself being discussed for weeks on end, often unfairly, without any effective redress, so keep your chin up.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat Gerda advice and say that the advice was to protect you from being dragged into the murky world of ANI spats- I have seen no long term good come out of any of them- as they always degenerate into recriminations. Some of our most illustrious content creators have left after producing awsome articles and been harried about some trivial language disagreement. With more experience you will see how this all fits into the global pattern- come and join us at a meetup and discuss the full story. I checked out the WP:WikiProject Frisia project that you say you are interested in - there is certainly a lot of work to be done there. z.B. Baltrum seems to be a mainly a translation that needs to be Anglicised, Langeoog needs referencing and a lot of work... it is a better use of our time to contentrate on content creation rather than participating in long term feuds-- that does gain respect. ClemRutter (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you know that Precious is the prize from the cabal of the outcasts? You may guess who was an early proud member (2013)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I gotta keep better track of my talk page messages. @Gerda Arendt and ClemRutter: I should probably clarify that when I earlier said something about disruption, I meant that other users would find it to be disruptive if I was to withdraw the case. Regardless, I'm sorry you both feel that dropping the dispute would have been wiser, but I still have hope that good will come out of this case. Im theory, it is just as likely to mean the complete removal of all of Eric's restrictions as it is to mean anything else.
Alas, ClemRutter, I am woefully behind in my giving back to WP:WikiProject Frisia. The truth is I don't know a lot about Frisia, but I just liked the userbox a lot. London's also a bit of a trip for me, but you are welcome to come to Connecticut any time! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever been to arbcom restrictions? Have you seen some working. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't think they work any more or less than any other form of editing restriction. I feel like, if you believe Eric's sanctions to be problematic (I know I don't particularly like the RFA one because people always ask him questions he can't reply to), this case will give you a good opportunity to argue why the don't work. Such a forum to do so was previously unavailable to you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe so little that I don't go to arbitration, - my time is limited, I don't get to the articles I want to write. Arbitration absorbs time better spent elsewhere, and if you know of one restriction that was beneficial let me know. I'v seen the one for Pigsonthewing and Joefromrandb. - I believe in amnesty. Look for "stroll" there. Then, 2015, I asked a young admin who had blocked Eric to apologize (not for the block but for bad faith assumptions), and he did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the line "an infobox (of any kind) will make information more accessible to our readers than we can say with our extended prose"! It's what I keep saying for years, core of the cabal values, but when I said so it's been called disruptive ;) - It makes some writers unhappy, and do we want that? - I am a friend of Eric, but that doesn't influence the "terms" I am on with you (see comment below). I just tried to make you understand better. In Precious #24a, I mentioned "without petty restrictions" (easy to find, top of the listing), and I find most of these restrictions petty and childish, and the process of "enforcing" them humiliating (been there ... because of infoboxes). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Southwest PGA

@MJL::Thanks so much for looking at the edit of Southwest PGA. I did take the first reviewer's comments and edited the copy so it didn't read "a bit like an advertisement" and changed it pretty well. I also provided examples of other golf organizations (USGA and the PGA of America. Very similar especially other PGA Sections like Illinois PGA). That doesn't even have any ref's, which I went back and added. Regarding the reliable sources, they are straight from the PGA of America, which I think everyone would site as reliable. I can look for other articles but I think the PGA would know how many Sections thay have and it's pretty well documented. Regarding the Chapters of the Southwest PGA, well the same. Can you let me know your suggestions for what you saw or were you basing it off the first reviewers comments becasse there weren't any ref's in there when they saw it. I did edit it and added. I just wanted to get this one up becasue I spent a significant amount of time on the Arizona Open page and it came out really well and that Southwest PGA adminsiters it. Really appreciate your assistance MJL! Bmadrid19 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bmadrid19: You have caught me on a great day!! Basically, there are several other problems with that draft article (even assuming I looked past the reference issues). The entire lead section was copied from their press release (which is woefully not okay).^[1] Further, several claims were unsoured altogether (now tagged). I added a source for you, but there are still numerous problems that exist for the article. Please address the copyright concerns first. After that, I'm willing to let the primary source concern issue slide assuming you have enough WP:Reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, I'll pass the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^🍰 15:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:THANKS MJL. I'm so happy you're having a great day and thank you so much for the suggestions and assistance. It really does help. I will get on those items today and get it all ready for you and hit you up to take another look. Hope youre awesome day continues and talk shortly. Thanks again. Youre awesome!Bmadrid19 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:Ok, MJL now give it a twirl. I edited the copy so no more copyright issues. Added ref's as you suggested. I think I covered everything you suggested to me, which I really appreciate it. Can you give it a look and see if it's good to go and if so, approve. Thanks again for all your assistance.Bmadrid19 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL:Hey MJL, I know you were busy but did you get a chance to see my changes per your suggestions for the page? Would appreciate it if you can take a look and if good to go since I did everything you noted, to approve. Thanks and have a great day!Bmadrid19 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bmadrid19: Hi there! I'm really sorry for the dealy. I might be able to get to this tomorrow, but recentlysomethingh has come up that has been tragically dominating my time here. I hope you'll understand. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: No problem at all MJL, totally understand and it's no rush at all. Of course take care of your priorities and what you need to. Whenever you get to it is great and really appreciated. All the best with you and thanks again!Bmadrid19 (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2019 (UTCTC)

Eric

Well, if what Eric Corbett has just said about scrambling his password in your ridiculous ArbCom request does actually happen, I'm disgusted at that outcome. You've admitted that you don't know much about what has gone on, you've admitted not knowing how to frame the case, and you've actually instigated a request against the wrong person. You will indubitably have upset a lot of people. My suggestion to you is to lie low and definitely keep well away from any of the main noticeboards until you have more experience - that's WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE and all such similar pages. I have a memory that I've seen someone ask you to consider this before but, if so, you clearly have ignored them. If you continue to ignore and you continue to make inappropriate contributions to such noticeboards, I'm pretty sure that someone will propose sanctions against you because you have already effectively painted a target on your back with present displays of procedural incompetence etc. You most likely can recover from this situation if you rein things in and stick to improving articles, which is what I hope you will do. Yes, we're supposed to treat everyone with respect here but this place is a reflection of the real world also: respect is earned and lost. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: I never admitted to not knowing what was going on. I have admitted to being an unwilling victim of Eric's unsavory rhetoric. I also said that arbcom can change the frame of the case; not that I wanted them to or was unsure of how to frame it. I am sympathetic to the arguement that Eric is being harrassed, and I have respect for SV and anyone else trying to make that arguement. Do not mistake my sympathy for agreement.

I actually didn't ignore the advice of SN and others. I went on to contribute positively and make several articles. However, my legacy as a drama-monger proceeds me. I'm fine with that. I don't edit Wikipedia to make people like me; I edit Wikipedia to work cooperatively with other people including those who downright despise me.

The thing is.. I could've just simply made a report to T&S, so Eric could quietly be Fram-banned or whatever we're calling it. I'm a "new editor" who willfully admits to being in over their head, so I'm an easy target for anyone looking for one. The safe thing for me to do would've been to report to T&S. I mean, few admins were taking my concerns seriously. This being the case, I still chose to make a public case in the spirit of self-governance.

I have a clean block record, never knowingly insulted anyone, and am in the middle of my first GAN. The idea that I deserve to be the one blocked, when my best days are still ahead of me, is sort of absurd. That isn't on you, Eric, or anyone else, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As for staying off the noticeboards, I'm only on there when I have a routine report to file. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem pretty sure T&S would have accepted the case. After everything, I'm much less sure. At any event, the matter was being resolved by the community (I even undid my own close so that the discussion could continue). It has only been a day or so — why not let the community try to deal with whatever issues you wish to raise before involving the Committee? The user has (or had) a set of restrictions which were being enforced at AE —with some disagreement— but enforced nonetheless. Anyway, I'm just not seeing how an Arbitration request was needed, but all the reasons that it wasn't are now made more obvious. El_C 19:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Based on my report alone? I doubt T&S would accept a case, I agree. However, I think, more likely than not, they've received other credible reports before. Mine would've been just one more to add to the pile, I guess.
I also didn't file the arbreq based on that one thread alone. It's just the latest in a series of threads we keep coming back to. I agreed with Guy's comment there that people were just digging in farther and farther. Something about Eric's current sanctions are not working. My suspicion is that comments like this are part of the reason why. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the impetus for filing the request — well, that's just not right. Which you're failing to address. El_C 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Besides my admitted personal frustration with the process, the discussion was going nowhere that would lead to consensus from my perspective. Many participants were of the belief that the issues was already settled while the other half held no such notion. You can't have a proper discussion when that many commentators are not seeing any ongoing problem while the rest are furiously disagreeing about what that problem even is supposed to be. The alternative to a full case request was ARCA, but that setup does not lend itself well to these sorts of complicated disputes.
I guess it is only proper for me to ask, though: where did you, as an uninvolved admin, see the conversation going? I'll fully concede if I missed something that you otherwise saw there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What you keep failing to address is the following. EC, who I've been critical of in the past, has done nothing wrong, in this instance — yet, you think opening an Arbitration case about him was the right call at this time? Sorry, but that's just perplexing to me. I have no idea where the discussion might have gone. That's the point: you cut it short after only a day or so. El_C 20:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: My apologies again for not noticing the reply. You might take value in the response I had above to Vanamonde. It explains my recent negative experiences that still remained unaddressed from my perspective. The conversation was a long ways from there, though. The fact there was an ongoing discussion about baiting Eric in the Moors Murders controversy while all Eric did was bait me on Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games (making things personal, throwing insults my way, using the wrong pronoun to refer to me, and questioning my purpose on that very talk page) is simply troubling to say the least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The safe thing for me to do would've been to report to T&S. No, the safe thing would have been for you to do nothing. It isn't just admins who are having problems with what you do but also a tranche of very well-established non-admins, many like myself with more than 10 years' experience here. Why do you think none of those people were prepared to take it to ArbCom? - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: the safe thing would have been for you to do nothing Yeah, that is pretty much always the case when dealing with incivility. However, that doesn't make the problem simply go away. It just means you've accepted it. If it is not abundantly by now already, I'll say it again: I don't accept it. It's silly to suggest I should plan my experience here around users who just can't show basic decency to other people.
To your other point, I sort've knew that plenty of other users were ready to file. However, be them admins, superusers, or tenured editors; I am just within my rights to file as they are. I'm not sure why anyone would want to file.. because I mean... that's just absurd to desire going through this process. I knew going in that there would be calls for my head on a pike. I just figured it was worth it, and I said to myself: At least this way the person most at risk is just me rather than someone else more important. I'm willing to put myself at risk if it means the possibility of making the project better. The most we have to lose is me this way; and that isn't much, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make yourself out to be some sort of putative martyr. And no-one has suggested you should plan around people whom you consider to be incivil, just like I wouldn't suggest you plan around people who are plain incompetent. As for "sort've" knowing that other people were ready to file, well, I'm not sure how you knew that and am pretty sure from experience that the AN thread would not have ended up with an ArbCom case request put forward by anyone with a bit of clue. But do as you wish - you'll just find your time here limited and painful, again speaking from experience. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues at play

The issue with your case request, in my view, is that the arbitration committee had exhausted its available options when it required that enforcement of its sanctions of the editor in question had to be done by request on the arbitration enforcement page. This was intended to ensure that the request was evaluated by uninvolved administrators in a more structured environment than the incidents noticeboard. If this mechanism isn't working, then the question is what is getting in the way? I do think there is a problem with expecting new editors to file arbitration enforcement requests. I think the forthcoming discussions on handling behavioural complaints to be initiated by the arbitration committee may open up new methods to deal with complaints, and so this is a better context in which to place the question of enforcing Eric Corbett's restriction, rather than a separate case. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It will likely be a rehash of the old RFC/U. People are putting the cart before the horse here, anyway: more often than not, Eric's outbursts come as a consequence of passive incivility/baiting. This is precisely the sort of nuanced thing about which MJL hasn't got a clue and it is precisely why the AN thread was opened. If MJL carries on like this and is still editing without restrictions in six months I will be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Who knows what form may be agreed upon by the group of editors who like to participate in these types of discussions, if any. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I've seen one of the arbs talking about it being in RFC form but perhaps they meant that the discussion regarding what to do would be in that form. In any event, there is literally no option available which would prevent the sort of stupidity that has just gone on and, indeed, is still going on. There will always be people with festering enmities, always those who are snowflakes, always the clueless and also the disingenuous etc: systems are there to be gamed and/or abused. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the further discussions are supposed to be in RfC form; it's unknown what participants will be able to agree upon for the any new complaint-handling procedures. Clay Shirky wrote about managing interpersonal issues in "A Group is its Own Worst Enemy"; it eventually becomes too cumbersome to manage these disputes through a wisdom-of-the-crowd process, and some kind of hierarchy is put in place. That obviously can lead to other inequities, so it's a choice as to which set of problems is a bigger obstacle for the community. Beyond a certain size, the community either has to live with the problems of hierarchy, or get smaller. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Supportive commentary

If it helps any I think you did what is best and what was likely to happen anyhow. Might as well get it over with and fix the issue. Keep up the good work and I am sorry to see such a response from others. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sand

Stein

Ian

A plumb

-EEng

M has been handling the predictable backlash with sandsteinian aplomb. – Levivich 00:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng and Levivich: Thank you both. It's certainly been an ordeal, and I'm glad to have any editor recognize how intensive this has been. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is difficult for you, and that you may not want to continue conversation about it, but I want to make sure you saw my message up above; I hope we can have a productive conversation about the points I raise. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Surprisingly I did not see it (nor did I see El_C responded to me or that Bmadrid19 posted here). I generally should advice against people posting in sections like that because I immediately check the bottom of the talk page first (especially during more turbulent times like this for me). I'll check it out in a bit. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you knew the backstory (which you do not, for reasons already stated) you would understand PME's motivation, and Levivich would be well advised to assume that much of what I've said to you also applies to them: new-ish and far too much involvement outside of articles. Kudpung's note below is from a far more rational place, him being someone who has actually had past issues with Eric but also much experience. As for how to read talk pages, well, the History tab is your friend: it is not uncommon for several threads to be active simultaneously. An aside: are you aware that Jimbo Wales once told someone to fuck off or something similar? - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Newbie Wikipedian: "Gosh, the article editing environment is so toxic, I can't possibly work like this!"

Veteran Wikipedian: "Before you can complain about that, you must first edit more articles." – Levivich 14:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Veteran Wikipedian: if you seek toxicity, you will find. If you stay away from and do not watch the drama boards, your chances of hitting it are very low. You and MJL have both got up to speed with policy *very* quickly and you've both spent far too much time commenting on issues instead of getting on with what this place is supposed to be all about. Compare the proportions of my edits to those of your own (Levivich; MJL), and bear in mind that I do in fact routinely work in a pretty awkward niche area of the project. And bear in mind the sheer number of people who disagree with you and advice you to pull back etc. A. E. Housman: Three minutes thought would have told him he was wrong, but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time". - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Okay now I am curious. What does if you knew the backstory (which you do not, for reasons already stated) you would understand PME's motivation mean? What is my motivation? PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You can take that to my talk page and people can watch it there, PME. I'm not going to see this thread derailed in the same way that MJL derailed the Scottywong AN thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If you stay away from and do not watch the drama boards, your chances of hitting it are very low. False. Actually, it's impossible to avoid. I would know, I just made an account eight months ago. I'm in a better position to evaluate what Wikipedia is like, in 2019, for a new user, than you are. And let me tell you: it sucks. It's impossible to avoid drama. Remember: I was called a sock every time someone disagreed with me on something in my first month here. Even by an admin. A checkuser. Nobody gave a shit. Nobody. I got sucked into the drama; I didn't go looking for it. But now that I'm in it, I'm going to help change it. I don't want other new users to have the same experience I did. That's why I'm involved, and will stay involved, in site-wide civility issues. The toxic environment has got to go. And with all due respect to all of you 10-year/100,000-edit editors, it's you folks who made it this way, or at least allowed it to become this way, so forgive me for not taking your advice. Your (plural) complacency and tolerance of incivility is what I'm fighting against, after all. – Levivich 15:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I should think the reason people thought you might be a sock or returning user is self-evident; indeed, I suppose I sort of referenced that by noting above that you quickly got into both the drama and the policy - your level of knowledge of the backroom stuff is extraordinary, as is MJL's. Staying here to "fight" against anything is a poor reason to stay. I note that both you and MJL are saying fundamentally the same thing, ie: you're on a campaign and prepared to soak things up/take the flak for the greater good. If you honestly believe that as pretty much newbies, you're here for the wrong reasons. We've seen this time and again with relatively new contributors and invariably it ends up badly, while the "system" doesn't really change much at all. If you should know anything of the institutional history here it is that the issue of civility/incivility has always been and will always be a thorny one, if only because of cultural differences. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Case in point, Si, I'm much more supportive of MJL escalating against EC over incivility than I was about you escalating against Rama over a page undeleted against consensus. Your escalation was much faster (within the hour) than M's. You may feel that your escalation was justified in the end given the arbcom result. Well, if arbcom accepts this case and modifies the sanctions, will you feel that M's escalation was equally justified? At bottom, I can't agree with you that Rama undeleting a page merits going to ANI within the hour and Arbcom within two, but EC's treatment of MJL doesn't merit escalation at all. I see this as a vast, possibly unbridgeable, ideological divide between us: you, too often in my view, value pages over editors, text over people.

You say I should edit more articles, but look for example at our engagements at Draft:Clarice E. Phelps. You revert within minutes when I or others add something. Because God forbid there should be something in a draft you don't agree with–excise it immediately!–but you don't seem to care at all about how your instant-reverts make me or others feel. Surely you know the feeling of spending your free time researching something, writing a stupid sentence and citation template, and publishing it, only to have someone revet it instantly with some trite edit summary? Some might call me a San Fran snowflake for expressing these feelings, but hey, it's the truth. Valuing text over people is the root of the problem here. Valuing text over people is what happened to EEng at Talk:Moors murders... nobody blinked when EEng's edits were called a "mess" that needed to be "cleaned up", or a "bloodbath", or (later) "shit, all of them". Again, it's valuing text (with a bronze star) over people (trying to improve that text). That's how it's been for a long time here, from what I can gather, and that's why there's never been 5,000 active editors. I'm going to help us break that record, and I think M will, too; you just watch, but better yet, join us. Help make this an enjoyable place to volunteer, and not a place where we shrug off people tearing into each other. – Levivich 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't escalate the Rama thing to ArbCom - someone else did that and it was on point with the admin board thread, which MJL's escalation was not. Ther's a good reason he is being criticised by people like GoldenRing and Iridescent in that case, people who most certainly do not fall into the alleged coterie of Eric Corbett. Oh, and we should value text over people: if you want to sing kumbayah, you're on the wrong project. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

... we should value text over people ... As I said: an unbridgeable ideological divide between us I know I won't change your mind on this, but I am going to work to make this a more enjoyable place to edit, so more people do it, which is what is needed to get the job done. 3,500 active editors will never finish this encyclopedia; we need more than 10,000; and the only way that will happen is if editing is something that is fun, not something to be endured. Nobody should have to go through what three editors of vastly varying experience levels went through at the three talk pages I linked to in my arbcom statement. That's what this is about. Obviously, you're going to think that those reasons are the wrong reasons, but I think they're all right. – Levivich 16:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, text and people would be on a similar basis but this is an encyclopaedia, not a social club or a venue for people with special needs etc, so text comes first. Your notion that this thing can be "finished" is deluded, sorry, and being fun to edit is not a policy. Furthermore, what you link in your case request statement is nothing new - it has been dealt with and you conveniently ignore what Eric has to "endure". It's not a philosophical difference, this: it's the difference between someone who understands the limitations of this place and someone who in the real world would probably end up with the pejorative "social justice warrior" tag. I'd rather you and MJL stayed and contributed to developing the content but if you can't do that, I'll shed no tears when you're gone as and when that happens (and it will). - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Interesting perspective you have there. This whole dispute started for me while I was trying to contribute content at Cotswold Olimpick Games. I spent 5 minutes reviewing the article's sourcing, 10-20 minutes vetting a replacement source to add, and then hours of my time justifying my position to two folks who (to put it lightly) treated me like dirt. I followed the advice given to me of just staying silent about it until I saw it was happening to other editors. Despite the fact Eric & co. objectively wasted my time by tag-teaming over a discussion about sources (by bringing up personal issues and the like), it's supposedly dealt with already? When did Eric apologize.. like ever? When were we given indication he won't just do this again if he ever came back? If Wikipedia truly is about content more than people, then why go through such lengths to defend keeping an editor like Eric around? It's nonsensical. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I just want to know how you managed to review all of the article's sourcing in five minutes. You're a fucking superhero doing all that in five minutes, just incredible. Nick (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: It really doesn't take an expert to see which source is used the most in the article and to Google the author's name. I stopped there after seeing her credentials. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: You didn't do any further research then, had you done so, you would have found that Haddon and her book have been referenced by Martin Polley (an Olympics expert) in his book "The British Olympics: Britain's Olympic Heritage 1612-2012", by Peter Radford (former athlete) in an academic article "The Olympic Games in the Long Eighteenth Century" and by Richard Wilson (a Shakespeare expert) in his book "Worldly Shakespeare: The Theatre of Our Good Will". The book formed one of the sources used by Jean Williams (another sports historian and academic) in an academic article entitled "The Curious Mystery of the Cotswold ‘Olimpick’ Games: Did Shakespeare Know Dover … and Does it Matter?" in which Williams attempts to answer the question of whether Shakespeare knew Dover (though doesn't necessarily agree with some elements of Haddon's work). Did you discover this during your research of the sources ? Nick (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: You seem to have gone into discussing a good faith content dispute. Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games is the proper place to discuss that matter. I'm not interested in defending my position about a nuanced take on sourcing in the same place new editors go to ask for help on getting their draft articles published. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What does I'm not interested in defending my position about a nuanced take on sourcing in the same place new editors go to ask for help on getting their draft articles published. actually mean ? I'm confused, but I'm fairly certain that I'm asking YOU, on YOUR talk page, what YOU did. That's why I specifically asked Did you discover this during your research of the sources ? Nick (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: It means that I respectfully do not appreciate the implication that it was absolutely required to do that all right out of the gate. The purpose of my review was just for its own sake and self-improvement at identifying reliable sources. The result was a generalized concern posted on the article's talk page. We both know I didn't do the in depth review (in the span of five minutes) required to find the information you have asked about. I reviewed her bibliography (books on cats) and employment history (the Daily Mail).
There's a lively discussion happening here. Your insight would obviously be appreciated more so there than here. I hope I have articulated myself as to be clearer this time, and you have my apologies if I wasn't before. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ARCA, etc.

Editors continue discussion at MJL's talk page. ("It's less of a pile on and more of an intervention.") – Levivich 21:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• MJL, I don't really want to pile on in what is now a long(ish) thread, but I strongly agree with Sitush's opening post. Many people 'have been an unwilling victim of Eric's unsavory rhetoric' - myself included, but you are trying to run before you can walk. You need to do a lot of research before you start an Arbcom case - you do not have the important institutional memory that some of us do. I have been a busy admin for over 8 years but you have nearly half as meny postings to noticeboards already as I do. To state a mantra of mine: "We are here to build an encyclopedia. Anyone who joins the project with the purpose of policing it, has joined for the wrong reasons." Check your preferences and ensure you have notifications turned on - you will then always know when someone has added information on your talk page or pinged you somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Kudpung: It's less of a pile on and more of an intervention.
  I mean no offense when I say this, but I feel you underestimate the amount of research I actually did do here. I dug through all the most recent relevant arbitration cases. I found that the most effective statement to base my filing off of was Jcc's in Civility in infobox discussions which in turn was based off Mike V's evidence section in The Rambling Man.
  I was also pretty fully aware there would be calls for my head on a pike in response to this filing. However, I weighed the potential benefits the community would receive by having a structured intervention from arbcom over the personal risks I put would be putting myself in.
  Personally, I've also started to notice myself getting consistently drawn to arbcom related proceedings in areas I am not previously involved. It's been something I have been meaning to fix about myself because it has begun recently mimicking the AN/RFC issue I was having a few months back. I am aware of that problem, and you should be seeing less of me there in the near future (except obviously when I'm already involved).
  As for the preferences thing, it's set correctly; but people kind of overload the page sometimes to a point it isn't obvious who's just posted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm going to sound like a dick, but I hope you understand that this spectacle has very likely vanquished your prospects of ever becoming an admin (which I assume is why you've been so keen on inserting yourself into high-profiles affairs at every opportunity, this year). EC has a lot of friends and ArbCom has a lot of bootlickers, and you've made fast enemies out of them all. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Juliancolton: Lol, no you are fine. I literally said in the case request I have never really been admin material. I generally only knowingly "insert myself" (so to speak) in conflicts for which I feel could use my perspective: Eastern European ethnic disputes and gender related controversies. My success has been admittedly mixed, but it was never part of a grand plan to eventually become admin. It's just me being me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Institutional memory is a pretty poor excuse for castigating someone for not just taking abuse on the chin. The fact that someone relatively new to the project understands that no one has satisfactorily dealt with the conduct of an editor for years is probably a good indication the community's response shouldn't be "you're too new to understand this." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  That assumes that they are new to the project and are not being manipulated by other experienced people who bear grudges etc. I'm not sure about either, as I have intimated above, but in particular it concerns me that they apparently knew that other people were considering using the Scottywong AN report as a coatrack for a generic and out-of-process attack on Eric Corbett, and that they thus decided to be the sacrificial lamb. It is ridiculous, and how did they know? I know SJWs when I see them and, sorry, I don't have much time for them and they're a bane on this project for the often-limited time that they are allowed to run their campaigns. We're not an advocacy site, we're not a social network, and we're not a support group for people who feel inadequate in some way. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'd say editors who write attack pages about people they're in a dispute with are a bigger problem for this project, but there you go. The idea that Wikipedia isn't a support group when it has bent over backwards for people like Eric for years is an amusing notion. Other editors sock and get banned, Eric gets a crowd of people upset that we shouldn't bend the rules for him, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. And I was right, wasn't I? And that SJW ended up being thrown out and has recently reappeared to confirm that they're even more of a political activist than then. Please also note that I have not supported Eric blindly and that my objections on this occasion are related to the baiting which the AN thread consensus agreed had occurred. And another person regarding whom I received a block was also turfed out soon after for reasons related to the block. You're out of your depth. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Sitush and David Fuchs: If we have begun rehashing WP:ARBGGTF, then I will give Sitush the credit he deserves: he was not the worst actor in that case. The only mistake the committee made was treating Carol Moore any differently than Eric Corbett. I admit, though; I am biased in this affair. My real life identity has serendipitously factored into opinion because of off-wiki knowledge I have about Carol Moore due to her and I sharing similar politics. I'll just leave it at that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sitush, you know I'd like to think of myself as a SJW, right? Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, and most of us are in some form or another. But we don't actually make it our "life's work" on Wikipedia - it is not the be-all, end-all of being here. Eg: off-wiki, I am constantly ranting to various bodies, asking for change so that deaf people receive equitable treatment. MJL, since you mention GGTF, I'll say it again: you have a phenomenal institutional knowledge for a relatively new contributor. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Sitush: I fail to see the implication. I filed against Eric Corbett once at AE, but his sanctions were not enforced. Now I have filed a case request against him, so why wouldn't I read up extensively on how previous ones went? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  JzG and Mendaliv both called for an arbitration case to be opened, so it's not hard to see how someone might jump to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to open a case. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the concept of stewardship, but I think some are overbroadening the idea to solely focus on the feelings of the editor acting as the steward, thereby excusing a lack of engagement. I appreciate there is a hard balance to strike. Even in the easy case where an editor is making the text worse with all edits, it can be onerous to explain why. But most of the time editors aren't 100% perfect or flawed, so some edits will be better than others, and I know it's a lot of work for the interested parties to sift through all of the changes to isolate the good ones. It's unfortunately a structural problem: for all the ballyhoo around crowdsourcing, it's really hard for multiple people to write something together. Going through cycles of an editor providing a draft and others providing feedback works better. But this means slowing down collaboration to accommodate the interested parties, and it becomes harder to sustain interest. isaacl (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. Do you have the diffs because I did ask MJL earlier. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  See the first two comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bored now. I apologize for not going through the history to dig out the diffs, but at least the comments are right after the heading, so they're easy to locate. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ah yes, thanks. Although I'm not sure that JzG was wondering about a case framed against Eric Corbett, and Mendaliv is Mendaliv. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• MJL, you know I won’t hold back if I think you’ve screwed up. Let me be clear: what we see above isn’t normal. Bringing something to Arbcom prematurely or without merit normally results in a decline, nothing more, and we all move on. It is not some capital offense, in which the user responsible gets viciously crucified. IIRC, I’ve apprised you on Eric’s unique status and history here, and warned you not to stand up against him. You knew what you were getting into, or at least, you should have known that this backlash could be expected. You’ve also been warned against overstepping your bounds here. And yet you’re trying to stand up for something because it’s right, and you’re standing your ground, not letting anyone bully you for it. I respect that. Good stuff. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm: I'll be honest; I did know that I get a lot of flack for it. If at any point at this process I seemed warned down though, it was because I never expected the intense days long hammering I got for this. I don't think I could have ever mentally prepared for that.
  Also, I don't think you realize how much that comment means to me! I've been worrying my willingness to step in hear would be.. upsetting news to say the least.
  Side note: Sitush asked about me being mentored by you. You're welcome to adds your thoughts about it here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sitush needs to seriously dial it down. You’ve stepped on some toes, but you really have never caused problems here. Don’t let him intimidate or slander you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm not too worried about Sitush. I'm just making sure he doesn't waste his time trying to dig up dirt on me when there really isn't much of a story there.
I also kind of think the They even list some of their wrongdoings on their user page. is genuinely hilarious. The Wall of Shame is literally prefaced with ... [This wall will] also help in cases someone needs to make a convenient Ad hominem attack against me. I never thought someone would actually find it helpful in that regard! (lmao) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope you like it.

BingYoung7 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@BingYoung7: Yes, I do! Thank you!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's more support for you, MJL, given the criticism you have weathered lately.

starship.paint (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns

I have always done my best to respect the pronoun preferences of colleagues on this and other projects, and will do so with you as well. It seems to be something you feel strongly about, so I'm going to make a few suggestions that may help to get your level of concern across in a more collegiate manner while respecting your preference.

First, I see that you've already taken the step of modifying your signature line from the baseline. I suggest you consider adding a parenthetical "(Pronouns:they/them)" to your signature so that colleagues will have reason to be aware of your preference.

Second, I suggest that you place your stated pronoun preference at the very top of your user page. Most contributors do not look at the user page of colleagues with whom they are conversing (most user pages do not contain information that is particularly relevant to the discussion), but for those who do, having it buried at the bottom of your userpage is not particularly likely to draw their attention. Based on your words, you feel strongly about this, so I encourage you to put it front and center, maybe even in a box with big, bold text.

Third, it's a requirement of participation here that we assume good faith. Your assumption that anyone who refers to you without using your preferred pronouns is deliberately baiting you is an assumption of bad faith. Most of the people with whom you will converse would be happy to respect your preference if they knew what it was. Sticking a plaintext statement on the third screen of a long userpage isn't really helping them to discover your preference. As well, even the colleague interacting with you in good faith may make an unintentional mistake about this. I've been here almost 15 years, I'm fairly well-known on the project, my RFA clearly states I'm a woman, but it's not unusual for people to refer to me with masculine pronouns from time to time; I simply correct them, and we get on with the discussion, with my assumption that they'll remember for future conversations (which they almost invariably have). I realize that it might be a bit trickier when using "non-standard" pronouns, particularly as the "singular they" in the English language is a relatively new construct that isn't widely socialized or taught yet, but I have hopes that you will find the same result. I'd encourage you to step it back on assuming that people who do not use they/them pronouns when referring to you are doing so to bait you, and I suggest modifying your userpage statement. Perhaps you might consider "Use they/them. Should I see that you use other pronouns to refer to me, I will inform you of my preference at the first opportunity, but will consider repeated use of unwanted pronouns to be uncivil." This would probably be okay.

I hope this is helpful. I'm assuming good faith that it will be, and that you won't misinterpret it as anything other than reaching out to a new user with some suggestions on how to best work collaboratively. Risker (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I was about to make a similar post. Please make your preference more clear, per Risker's post above. starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Risker and Starship.paint: Disclaimer: I need to start drinking coffee or something. If this sounds like a mess.. it's because I just woke up and can't word complex thoughts just right at the moment.
I really appreciate the advice, but you must understand that the change you reference came out of a place of immense frustration for me. The literal first diff of my case request reads: ...uses wrong pronoun for me*. Take with that the natural step of looking under the "Footnotes" section, and you'll see a list of all the places one could find clue as to my preferred pronoun. However, you have conversation like this where a user doubles down instead of moving on.
I changed my name on this project to make it easier for people. I picked something that has absolutely no gendered connotations whatsoever.
If people have a hard time figuring out a user's individual preference, Wumbolo made a great script for it: User:Wumbolo/pronouns.js. After a while, the burden needs to stop being on me to correct people.
I don't personally ask for a lot from this community, but I do ask for this.
As for modifying the userpage statement, I assure you that I will consider it when I am of a sounder mind and less personally upset by this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, let me recount my own personal experience. This “they/them” method of referring to people online is a rather new thing to me, maybe within the last year or two. Before that, what I think usually happened in my experience is that people by default used “he” unless the user is a known female. I understand that you’re upset when people use “he” instead of “they”. That’s why Risker is suggesting to make “they” as prominent as possible. What happened now is that your userbox declaring “they” is hidden, your footnotes declaying “they” were hidden. You can’t assume people will unhide these things. You can’t assume people will automatically use “they” just because your name is MJL. I’m not familiar with the script and how it works. I’m afraid the onus is indeed on you to either (1) prominently display your preference as Risker suggested (in your signature, that would be best) if you cannot tolerate being referred to as “he”, OR (2) be more forgiving of other editors and gently remind them to use the correct pronoun if they use the wrong one. starship.paint (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I've adjusted my userpage as to make my preferred choice of pronouns more prominent. I see you specifically note that placing it my signature is preferred, but my signature is a carefully crafted and balanced thing which has only taken its current form after countless hours of tinkering. Adding any more words is just too much.. Even for my special birthday signature, that had to come at the cost of normal white shogi piece. Simple changes like adding a nowarp span takes a lot of consideration. Sorry.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Shit MJL, I didn't even notice the slice of cake. Nice touch! @Starship.paint: FWIW, I've been using singular they in my everyday writing as a substitute for "he or she" for decades–I remember talking about "singular they" vs. "he or she" in high school English class. It's been around a long time. But all that aside, I think M's adjustments are much better. I'm reminded of the edit notice at SilkTork's talk page: No rules, just tea. – Levivich 03:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been using singular they in my everyday writing as a substitute for "he or she" for decades [emphasis added] @Levivich: how old are you exactly? I've always assumed you were mid-twenties.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm old enough to be your father, but don't call me daddy. – Levivich 03:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: UwU –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, that's good that you have updated your user page. It's alright that you won't change your signature. I just hope that you will be tolerant of first-time offenders who may not have read your user page. Levivich - I can appreciate that you have had a different experience regarding using "they". I did not mean to claim that my experience is universal for everyone. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I've been tolerant of second-time offenders as well.^[2][3] What I believe was misconstrued in this was that the post was never a statement of intent, but it was more-so a statement of ongoing frustration. I would never (and never had planned to ever) really take anyone to AN/I over my pronoun choice unless the other user admitted it was deliberate or intentional. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Here’s a nice thing, in a time of rather bad things: Boston’s MFA has rest-rooms designated for self-identified men and women. A small step, but surely one in the right direction. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Connecticut

I am glad to see you're in Connecticut. In the past we've had a couple meetups but it would be nice to have something more regular. Pharos is another somewhat nearby editor who has experience with this type of thing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: lmao, I had a meetup last August 10, but no one RSVP'd among those I invited. I'll have to hit up Pharos and you next time I give that a try! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

With pleasure. I think Pharos is currently in NYC but he has lists and he knows who else is around. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for whatever prickly thing you use

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		Abequinn14 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WV is back!

Hello, how are you, thank-you for your bearing with me, have filmoraphy o restore references and categories for actor and politician Terry Norris (actor), thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done No worries; it's always a pleasure! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ssbri Al Haiki

Hi

Corrected the article for (Ssbri Al Haiki)

I hope

Review the patch

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasilan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyaturtle

Flyaturtle was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after making a report to AIV about talk page vandalism on both of our pages by an IP editor that is now blocked for 72 hours. I'm not sure how to react to what is now in my talk page history (it is really unsettling). Clovermoss (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I sadly know the feeling (or at least something close to it). I had an IP recently post to my simple wiki talk page pretending to be the late Kevin Gorman.. There really isn't much that can be done. However, you are welcome to request revdel to at least get that garbage out of your talk page history if you like (I can ask an admin for you offwiki on WP:Discord if you want as well). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk page stalker comment - @Clovermoss:, I see the material has been revdelled now, so hope you're comfortable with that; I haven't seen the material that was there, but in general terms, you don't have to worry about stuff on your talk page from blocked/banned/LTA accounts. Everyone gets them from time to time, and you can't be expected to know who they are when they first approach you. I think I've probably got a barnstar or two on my user page from accounts like that (but what the hell, shiny is shiny!). When we find out who we're dealing with, we RBI, but nobody can expect you to do that retrospectively though. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Girth Summit. Up to this point, my user talk page had never been vandalized before. I was expecting something like blanking, not that. I'm relieved that it's no longer in the history and that's all I will say. Clovermoss (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Having seen it, I don't blame you for not wanting that in your history. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I do a lot of work through CVU - my user page and talk page have been vandalised countless times; I even had a vandal do this once, which to be honest I got a chuckle out of. Seriously, just let it flow under the bridge - there are a lot of absolute idiots out there, but they can't hurt you, and the community will rally round if they are targeting you. The most important piece of advice I give to editors who get involved with vandals is to report and then ignore. Vandals are usually just looking for attention, and they want to get a response - if you deny them that by simply reverting and carrying on with what you were doing, they usually go away and look for someone else to bait (until they get blocked). Anyway, consider this your first battle scar - a badge of honour! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't listen to him, he can't even spell honor right.

The arch-traitor, Girth was once held by God to be fairest of the angels before his pride led him to rebel against God, resulting in his expulsion from Heaven. Girth is a giant, terrifying beast trapped waist-deep in the ice, fixed and suffering. He has three faces, each a different color: one red (the middle), one a pale yellow (the right), and one black (the left)

EEng 03:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If I didn't know better, EEng, I'd suspect that you did that while logged out - vandals are seldom that inventive! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I'd be caught dead at Kennesaw State University [4]. EEng 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

mentorship

Hi. I’m a mainly visual arts editor who had noticed your work on Our Lady of Vladimir a few weeks back. I have a strong interest in the late medieval, and often travel to see such pieces, eg in the past worked on Cambrai Madonna with Johnbod. I earlier left a series of edits on Victoria’s page during which I remembered how hard it is to wade into Wikipedia as a neub. I have sympathy, as I was new long ago. As I’m also friends with Eric, and we seem to have overlapping interests, I would like to suggest that you use me as a sounding board for wiki interactions and article development. I’m not a perfect editor, and have made mistakes, but can share some harbitten learnings if and when you need an ear or advice. My talk page is always open, and hope I can help you steer through, or soften, difficult waters in the future. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I did notice your editing of the page today, and I would love the help! Though, you have gotten me confused because when you say you are friends with Eric... well most of Eric's friends are not on the best of terms with me right now, so.. why help me of all people? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

because been there done that. And from my POV, editors writing on articles on icons don’t turn up every day. Also you seem bright and with potential. I hope I can help you develop as a wiki writer, and lessen the stress you are encountering here. The process would be that I basically follow your edits and step into and quell disputes if necessary, and before you do anything slightly contentious you ping or email me to talk it through. In this role, I won’t be so much a friend of Eric, as invested in integrating and guiding you into the community. Ceoil (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Well, I hope I don't disappoint in any regard then! Though, full disclosure, I don't consider myself an editor with any particular topic area (check out the articles I've created!). I'm really weird like that. Also, just so you know; I already have been adopted by Swarm, but I'll certainly be contacting you for help as well! Swarm has literally never created an article before. ^{I don't know if he even knows about the WP:ARC thing yet.}
I guess you could say the thing I need most help on is getting better acquainted and integrated with the GA/FA side of Wikipedia. This has been ten times less stressful than this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

no worries, I had looked at your article creation earlier, and the majority fell within my interest range. Although, to be clear I’m not a sports guy, and you will be on your own in any adventures there. But overall I think we can get on perfectly well, long as you don’t find my copy edits too annoying. Ps, the GAC shouldn’t be stressful; it’s not time limited, and the commenters there are hoping that the page will pass. Relax! Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I'm not a sports person either, but dang do I find the African Games interesting!!
Point taken, but I really want it to pass. The subject is just so interesting!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

ok, phew, and impressed; the African page is very well done. Bty, Victoria is very knowledgeable on medieval art, and might be a good help for the icon. I hope you haven't burned bridges there; she has always been very approachable in my and many others experience, and certainly worth having advice from. Best. Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

re the GA, you seem very rule orientated, but review processes shouldn’t be about that. In particular if you said you were motivated by improving the page rather than “really wanting it to pass”, you would get more traction. Also, Johnbod and Gril are about the best subject matter experts we have on orthodox iconography. I would count my blessings, and frankly, get Victoria on board. There is a very good and able arts community on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Before I start, I'll be honest I kind of don't know when the best time to respond to you is because of the copy-edit thing. I'm pretty rules oriented, yeah. I'm a politician IRL, and I absolutely love everything about the policy making process. I'm not a fan of the politics always, but I do like the legislative bits.
Good advice there, though I worry about inviting Victoria and having too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. Abecedare has done wonders so far on expanding the article so far, but I also want to bring this through GAN without relying on so many people that it's like I didn't contribute at all.
Also, having someone proficient when it comes to art history be the reviewer is both a blessing and a curse. John knows more about what to look for and can see the mistakes easier if they're there, but it also means he has higher standards. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

MJL, re too many cooks, wiki is about article quality, not editors. Readers don’t care who did what, and when it comes to GA/FA level stuff, nor should we, and ego has to be left behind. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)|

@Ceoil: I'm not so concerned with ego (though I'm big enough to admit that is likely part of it). I'm more so concerned with (1) ensuring that I learn how to write great article (can't learn if you don't practice) and (2) having to expand coordination with additional editors. Wikipedia is about collaboration, but three different editors inevitably means three different directions for the article to go. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

in this case I think you need to accept that two subject matter expects are teasing it out. If the page makes it to GA standard is now more about wether they can still be bothered with you after. I hope you release this; from a distance it seems you have feelings of entitlement. Wiki review processes don’t work that way. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Methinks this subject matter expects too much. EEng 04:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Okay, I'll try to keep that in mind. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks. I never said it would be easy. Nothing hard earned ever is. Be cool, and hold tough. Ceoil (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

never said it would be easy. Nothing hard earned ever is – Well, yes, because that's what hard-earned means. EEng 04:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks for repeating what I just said. As far as I can tell, myself and MJL are getting on just fine. If you have an issue, you might articulate it with better reason. It seems you want to derail, but this is the kind of negativity I want to move him/her away from. Ceoil (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Since MJL thanked me for both of my posts here you might want to consider whether you have the wrong end of the stick, and perhaps try harder to apply the ol' AGF. EEng 11:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

as soon as you start earning it, I,ll start applying. Right now it seems as if you are a knocking bird. Extra extra. Ceoil (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're unable to understand my contributions in the spirit in which they were offered; as already mentioned, MJL was so able. EEng 14:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng and Ceoil: Let's all be cool here. Everyone is welcome on my user talk page, and I don't want to be indirectly responsible for anyone to feel uncomfortable posting on my talk. Can we all please just be friends? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Everything's been friendly all along. It just seems Ceoil can't see that. EEng 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: Now, now. What do we say about "I" statements vs "You" statements? Tsk tsk. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Howzabout I give you a punch in the schnozola? EEng 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let’s not make anyone swim with the fishes ;). EEng, Ceoil, cool your jets. MJL, applause for cool-headedness. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Let’s dial this back. 06:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WV account

thank-you, could please restore article Anne Charleston, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, how are you my friend, thank you for your assistance , could you please monitor my account, so there is stability and no abusive or derogatory content contained herein, thank you again my dear friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you have been warned for disruption. I'll review this matter and discuss with the person other editor for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank-you for your assistance, yes i always get warned for disruptive editing, lol, but yes of course i never act in malice. but yes that vagabond is me, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit unfair that you make a simple mistake and instead of explaining it to you they go straight for the {{uw-disruptive}} template.
OMG you just made my night with that yes that vagabond is me, lol comment! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou, yes sometimes people do tend to jump the gun to quickly, thanks for your assistance and kindness, have an article for you List of British supercentenarians, needs updating, the reference e is Kentlive.news/news/kent-news/oldest-person-in-uk-kent-3187053 the article states the third oldest as JOAN HOCQUARD, not ROBERT WEIGHTON, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Surprisingly, Hocquard and Weighton have the exact same birthday if you can believe that. It's rather impressive in all honesty. I would never have guessed that three people (including Alfred Smith, who until this this month was tied for the oldest man in Britain) would all share that birthdate and live for so long. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL, must have been a lucky day or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! Let me know if you need anything else as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett case

Hi MJL. Have you discussed the Eric Corbett matter off wiki with anybody? It's perfectly fine if you did, but it might be necessary to disclose something if the other people you spoke with are also commenting on the case request, or if they have been banned and might be trying to get you to act as their proxy. Please don't feel obligated to answer me. Just consider these questions and maybe find somebody you trust and get their advice, such as one of the arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Before I start, it was hard for me to decipher if this was a question about why I seem to know so much about Eric's past history or just to check up on my level of knowledge about canvassing and off wiki discussions. I've written the following with the second question in mind because Volvlogia's admonishment in Civility in infobox discussions.

Among other places, I have of course discussed this matter with my loved ones to explain why I seemed so stressed recently.
As for the two problematic scenarios you mentioned though; the latter is a non-issue. Well, both are, but it was the easiest to answer off the bat since it's a straight nope.
I believe Sitush had speculated with my connection with a Carolmoorede here, so it's understandably a concern. I guess I could make things clearer by stating here that the only reason I can't specify this connection is because it would be casting aspersions about CarolMoreDC's offwiki conduct towards a hypothetical third party whom I would only know in a professional capacity. Needless to say however, if CarolMooreDC asked me to be her proxy, it'd have been a fast track to WP:AN to try to get a Community Ban placed as well.
Additionally I will say in full transparency, that some blocked/banned users have reached out to me in private. Their only stated reason for doing so was to thank me for filing the case request or to say that they were sorry to see what was happening to me. It's kind of sad now that I say it out loud... considering they have been blocked.. but I have their pity; what a world. Considering how high profile this case is, that didn't really come as a surprise.
As for the other major concern, I can confidently say I have not discussed the specifics of the case with any user who has either commented there or plans to make any further comments there (as in, we spoke only after they finished commenting). The only exception was sending Swarm an email literally only saying I may have did something stupid... but not explaining with any level of detail (Swarm never responded tho, and I don't know if he even got it for reasons I can't mention onwiki). To my own knowledge, all of my wikifriends who otherwise wouldn't have commented on the case only found out about it through my talk page.
Hope that answers your questions! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I occasionally get email from banned users and maintain diplomatic relationships with them because it can help reduce disruption and, well, they are human beings entitled to their dignity too. Getting banned from a website is not a crime, and should be no big deal. Some people just aren't cut out for working here, or they are unlucky and get into a spiraling conflict from which they can't extricate. Our goal is always to incentivize reform. If a banned editor quietly creates a new account and avoids returning to their past disputes, Wikipedia actively ignores them. That's the way we work. Thank you for answering. You provided more info than I expected. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Small tags

Hi, MJL - did I forget to close a small tag? I am vertically challenged, so it wouldn't surprise me. Small tags are not a small issue. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia was created in front of a live studio audience.

@Atsme: I sincerely heard a laugh track play when I read that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ortizesp

Eh? What point are you trying to make? GiantSnowman 07:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)