Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 12 August 2019 (move archive top into section, so it doesn't disassociate upon archival). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    MarcusBritish personal attacks

    MarcusBritish was indeffed by Drmies. I don't think there's consensus to indeff Dicklyon, however, their misreading of their mass move ban nowthstanding. Dicklyon is reminded of that ban, but they should also feel free to appeal it, in a cogent and concise manner. El_C 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

    To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

    You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

    MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Someguy1221, Nyttend – Perhaps as the responding admins, you might indulge me by determing whether these MOS:CAPS edits constitute a form of COI? Since Dicklyon is engaged in moving a ton of military campaign articles, subtly changing related MOS guidelines to support his own position more closely, without discussion (note also he reverted admin Amakuru who disputed him per lack of consensus) seems to cross the line in my mind. He's been engaged in lengthy discussions and disputes since May at MilHist regarding these moves, so making MOS edits seems highly inappropriate and reinforces everything I've been saying about his autocratic nature with regards to ignoring everyone else opinion and continuing to move articles regardless of opposition. Even the comments you both made here, relating to his history of controversial mass moves despite being under a Standard Offer does not appear to have slowed him down. I'm not directly seeking to get this guy blocked, that's your call, but every argument I raise, he rejects without consideration. I'm literally competing with a WP:CIVPUSH beast here, even when I break down my argument into point form he plays ignorant and spews out demands for example cases and evidence, never accepting that the WP:BURDEN is and has always been on him, as the contributing editor. Please just fucking shoot me! — Marcus(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely very concerning to me that Dicklyon there is not only editing the MOSCAP guidelines, but edit warring at the MOSCAP guidelines, while also in a contentious dispute over moves related to those guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention in reverting Amakuru with an explanation in the edit summary was to convince him, not to edit war. I'm sure he was notified; that was the end of it, it appears. That MilHist bit was clearly out of line with the rest of the MOS, and seemed to encourage over-capitalization; it needed to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The afore post by MB makes the point regarding what I have perceived and that this should be considered as "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour per the purpose of this page. It is the repeated nature of the behaviour that I have sought to raise by my initial post. I have provided links to threads by way of examples where many (but not all) posts by MB in those threads demonstrate the repeated nature of what I have perceived. MB states (without diff or fuller context): it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. I have stated that certain actions might appear vexatious. However, MB states here (in one of the threads at MilHist I have linked): "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious. By their own statement and standards above (not mine), the quoted text would constitute a personal attack on their part. From my perception, it is posts to the end of that particular thread (ie here) which start to get hostile. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MarcusBritish has made this statement: Okay, enough with the trolling.[2] It is an unqualified accusation of trolling. I have struck the quoted sentence per WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Trolling is a legitimate Wiki-meta document. Italicising words doesn't make them any more vaild, that's your emphasis. It reeks of a desperate attemt to defame and derail the discussion. The same thing you tried with PBS and probably with editors before your topic ban. I won't go there, I'll just note that you're not a reliable witness given your own history. — Marcus(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll be pretty busy if you try to remove all his personal attacks in that section, such as "Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? ... you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you". And "your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction"; and "You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written." I don't think he has any real insight into what I love or what I'm obsessed with, and his concept that I ignore WP:V by posting n-gram stats is really just nutty. I may inject a mild sarcasm now and then, but I'm doing my best to not just make up expletives about what might be going on in his brain. I can't actually come up with any cogent printable theory for that, so I hold my tongue. Oh, well, as he complains there, he's "not quite feeling 'backed' by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution." His best attempt has just taken a solution that had been found (that is, following WP:NCCAPS per evidence from book n-gram stats and per RM discussion consensus on a dozen articles) and turning it back to a bunch of unproductive ranting about me and WP:V. Thanks for your comments, C. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Look at your own words here. "nutty" and "unproductive" – indicators of a pretentious editor who has no interest in the opinion of detractors. You and Cinarella have been at it before. You also remarked on PBS right here, loving that Cinderella called him "vexatious". Quite the tag-team you two make. And now your "friend" is here, giving you his support, not by defending you, but by attacking me. Think admins are fool enough to fall for that? — Marcus(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, "unproductive ranting" was uncalled for, and I apologize; it snuck past by restraint filter. The "just nutty" bit I have to stand by as my assessment of your attempt to apply WP:V against my work on caps fixes. If anyone else thinks this is in any way sensible, I'd like to hear from them. It's OK that you don't trust n-gram stats, but WP:V has nothing to do with this whole issue. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you're not projecting your own "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour which got you a WW2-related topic ban? Not sure what you're hoping to gain by linking comments made just over a month ago, which have probably been seen already, except to maintain your fidelity for Dicklyon's Crusade. Little to see here, since I told you before, frankness is not aggression. It's just plain talk which you are subjecting to your own fanciful ideals. Many Wiki editors are just as plain speaking as me, some moreso. Dicklyon knows now to man up and work round it, you should too. Wiki isn't here to change attitudes, it's a database dressed up for the interwebs, nothing more, certainly not a social club for you to be judgemental of others in. If you think anything in that linked comment can be infered as "hostile", well... plainly put: you need to go back to the dictionary and relearn some foul or offensive words. I don't see any there. Extreme hyperbole. FYI, regarding your snarky responses to PBS: diff 1diff 2, context not really required, I'll just sum it us as "aggressive and hostile" retorts to simple questions, shall I, kettle? Sincerely, frying pan aka — Marcus(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously removed attack was replaced with this by MarcusBritish: Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. Perhaps Bishonen might explain why this is rarely ever acceptable? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This an excercise in WP:Canvassing admins now, Cindy? Is it normal for ANI to allow an uninvolved party to campaign the admins they feel will support them best? What's the term for that? Something appropriately Australian... kangaroo court! Your poison pen not enough to dramatise the conversation for your amusement? Also, it's begging the question why Wikipedia would create essays then disuade people from linking them. If you can't call a spade out, especially after 3 months of wilful ignorance and/or tendentious editing, he'll just continue arguing ad infinitum, as Dicklyon does to palm-off his detractors. You're not helping him, btw, just increasing the odds of his controversial edits being scrutinised; he isn't doing himself any favours. That move log of his..... *whistles* — Marcus(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcus, this screed is highly inappropriate. I'd strongly suggest you refrain from replying until an admin weighs in, or the discussion gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a stream of unseemly, loud, and bloated attacks by Marcus, apparently based on pet peeves. Dicklyon, in my experience, is highly professional in his research and propositions for RMs. I don't always agree with him, and when I say so he is perfectly reasonable. He is sensitive to feedback, though rightly holds his ground when he comes up against unresearched and/or illogical counter-propositions. Tony (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony1: thanks for your support. If you could place your Oppose A comment in the section #Proposal, it might get noticed better. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, ok, I guess. Tony (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose immediate block of user:MarcusBritish

    Capitalization Wars (Campaign Campaign)
    This work is hereby condemned as an eyesore and public nuisance. For the Wiki beautification committee, --Dlohcierekim
    Your mother wears army boots, D.
    • Comment Why are we allowing these pithy personal attacks? He's full of commenting on the editor rather than the content. Accusing others of acting in bad faith? Really? I mean right here on this page? Why are we not blocking him right now? Let's nip this grandiloquence now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the other grown ups here don't treat accusing someone of bad faith as cynically as you do, perhaps? Or because accusing someone of "bad faith" is not considered a personal attack, given that it has no mention at WP:NPA as being one. They also looked at the counter claims I posted, examined the OPs behaviour and raised concerns about his behaviour. Did you? No, I didn't think so. Just marched in here without taking the time to review the situation fully and made a call off the bat, it seems. And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? There are no limits to free, honest speech on this page, are there? No policy that says you can't uphold an argument or defend a position at ANI? You didn't even comment on what "bad faith" behaviour I questioned, which means you did not consider the cause of the matter. What good is a block going to do anyone if you're sweeping the underlying problem under the mat with it and allowing that editor to resume his "bad faith"? You realise the underlying concerns I have with the OPs editing are so difficult to resolve, that I've been preparing evidence for ArbCom, incase I need Conduct resolution, right? — Marcus(talk) 12:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you are the editor's parent or step-parent, please do not call any other editor "son", as you did in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? — Marcus(talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? The seventh sentence in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm aware of where I used it, Ken. Perhaps you are unaware, as an American (I think?), that the use of "son" is a commonly used term in some parts of Britain. It is used between people, towards other males, regardless of age or relationship. Probably better that you refrain from getting triggered by a 3-letter word and attempt to blow it out of proportion, since that could be seen as objecting to a virtually cultural practise that you may not understand or appreciate, and that you have no place to criticise on wiki except from a personal pov, and I'm not interested in an op-ed on my regional vocabulary or dialect from a foreign speaker. To put it into context for you, however, consider the way Aussies say "mate" or you Americans still use "sir" a lot. Just a word, which depending on the situation can be informal, formal, disrespectful, respectful or endearing. Don't apply context where none belongs, it isn't worth your time and effort. Thanks muchly for your intelligent understanding! — Marcus(talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of its usage, Americans use "friend" in the same manner. Regardless, please don't continue to use that construction here, since in the absence of a informal familiar relationship in which the expression can be taken as just a bit of fun between friends, it implies superiority on your part. I have friends who I can call an "ass" or tell to "fuck off", because we are friends and we both know that there's continuing love and respect underneath the remark, but I don't walk up to strangers and tell them to "fuck off", for obvious reasons -- the same ones that should stop you from using "son", especially during a discussion in which your behavior is a prime element. Don't assume you have an informal friend-to-friend relationship with other editors, assume you have a formal peer-to-peer relationship until shown otherwise, and don't say anything you wouldn't say to a completely unknown stranger, your boss, the head of your school, or the mayor of your town. Simply put don't assume you have license to treat other editors as if they were your friends or inferiors, dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption is entirely on you, Ken. It neither implies friend nor foe. Only you inferred that. Regardless, it's your opinion not wiki policy here and I don't take orders from strangers online anymore than you should be issuing them. Would you have posted the same protest on Twitter or Reddit or YouTube? I say what I please. I didn't give offence, you took it. That makes it your problem, not mine. Haven't got time to listen to your stance on political correctness. If you find "son" hurtful or offensive you need a thicker skin. But since it was not even directed at you, I don't see why you're making it your business. It isn't even on-topic. Please move along, censorship in this day and age really annoys me. BTW I don't have a school, my schooling formally ended over 20 years ago... I have almost 40 years of experience in the usage of my local dialect, I don't need lecturing on its usage from someone who never lived here. I mean, who do you think you are to dictate etymology? And FYI, we do use it to strangers and acquaintances, "Alright, son!" is a very common greeting here, regardless of familiarity. Go figure. Just be glad I'm not from Manchester, they call each other "cock" (#20) there in the same manner as "mate" or "dear", and it's not the phallic term. American brain would go "boom" hearing that? ;) — Marcus(talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the above discussion, that was pretty much the kind of answer I was expecting. It appears that you never do anything wrong, and anyone you see as an opponent can never do anything right -- and you consider anyone who disagrees with or criticizes you for the smallest thing to be an opponent. You appear to have no real sense of scale about disagreements, it's all or nothing at all with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Thanks for the amateur pyschological analysis, friend! Wasn't at all pretentious of you to trouble yourself with such a thoughtful gift. Ta-ta now! — Marcus(talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone just close this and let us move on? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MB seems to be somebody who might benefit from a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support the call for a block. This is totally absurd. No one should get away with this level of incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just to be clear, Marcus, as far as you're concerned, you can just say whatever you like to anyone and if they "choose to take offence", that's their problem? That sounds remarkably like another editor, that folks might remember, who found he eventually had to change his account name in order to continue editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Martin, that's a Strawman argument. My reference was to the singular use of "son" and not the blanket statement you just misconstrued it into. If I was calling someone a "twat", it'd be to give offense. And FYI, I've never had or needed a fresh start. Isn't comparing people to someone of ill-repute much like posting a "you're a fascist/Nazi!" remark? Certainly has that tone to it. — Marcus(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. It's just as if I had called you a Nazi? Please don't address me by first name. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's two things about people blessed with a sense of smug superiority: they're always right, and they're perfectly comfortable with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kenneth, your repeated commentary here is borderlining on harassment now. Suggest you do one, mate. I'm sure Arbcom don't need another Fram-like character causing aggro while they're still neck deep in shit with that case as it is. Besides the fact, all this talk of "superiority" is nonsense – you're projecting your own self worth and engaging in personal attacks. You're also grandstanding, in your vain attempt to appear influential over others here with non-factual rhetorical remarks. — Marcus(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think you are being harassed feel free to open a thread a separate ANI thread. Make sure that you can provide concrete examples of the harassment though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    (A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

    (B) For multiple incidents of incivility, rudeness and personal attacks, some in this very discussion, MarcusBritish is blocked, the length of the block to be determined by the admin applying the sanction.

    Addendum: Concerning Dicklyon, to be absolutely crystal clear about it, their unblock conditions were

    Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) [3]

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored the comment above after it was deleted by @Dicklyon: with this edit. Dicklyon: if you do that again, you will immediately be reported to admins for inappropriately messing with another editor's comment in violation of WP:TPO. Everyone can see that my comment was added later as a clarificatiion, the time stamp shows it was 5 days after the proposal, and if anyone wanted to change their !votes because if it, they are free to do that. If you objected to it, you could have added a comment of your own pointing that out, or you could have gone to an admin and asked for relief. The one thing you could not do, is delete it - but then you don't appear to have any great regard for what you're not allowed to do, hence the proposal in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You did it again. I warned you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread close on WP:AN said "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." In the talk page comment, the "controversial" was meant to apply to both "actions" and "mass page moves"; or so it has been interpreted for the last four years as I contributed thousands of non-controversial moves. BMK's novel interpretation that all my moves are evidence of disregarding my unblock condition for the last four years and somehow getting away with it is ridiculous in the extreme. He has declined to say that any of my moves are controversial (other than vaguely, not saying which ones). He had it right in the proposal, "his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles", but changed to the sillier interpretation when no controversial ones could be identified. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored this comment twice already after BMK deleted it twice. Contrary to his "You did it again" claim above, I only deleted his inserted comment once; the other time I used hat/hab to delimit it, but did not delete it; he really wants people to see his half of the story! Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments were deleted accidentally, as all I was trying to do was revert the inappropriate changes you made and restiore the status quo ante. If you hadn't fucked around with my comments, your comments would never have been touched.
    As for your unblock conditions, they were not the closing statement in the ANI disucssion, they were what Prodego told you on your talk page. In a perfect world the closing statement and the notification on your talk page would be precisely the same, but it's not a perfect world, so how you were notified is what controls. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to neutral on A per the many fine "oppose" arguments, but mainly per Incnis Mrsi .-- Dlohcierekim 15:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A and B – rudeness is subjective and since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interaction, Dlohcierekim is not the best judge of character. Suggest C: take note of BMK's personal attacks and Dlohcierekim's willingness to turn a blind eye and thank his friend for such remarks. Seems some admins have a buddy system, yet transparent favouritism is not impartial which admins are required to be. — Marcus(talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Blocked 1 week for the Asperger comment. Discussion here may result in a longer block, at your discretion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @MarcusBritish: Good grief! This is the very sort of toxicity I've been talking about. And I'm an excellent judge of character. My inability to respond with alacrity in all social settings (I'm getting better) and discomfort in social settings does not prevent me from recognizing rudeness. Seems I'm not the only person here who tends to emotional tone deafness and social awkwardness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Further commentary Henceforth, I can no longer be considered neutral or |uninvolved regarding this user. I have never been so infuriated by a comment by another user before (started here in ~2006). I'm used to taking abuse from vandals and LTA's, and people angry over my admin actions. I take it as the price I pay for the job I chose. Never before has a member of the community stooped so low as this in responding to me. If you look through Marcus's removed talk page comments, you will see this has been an ongoing problem to which concerns he has responded with flippancy, personal attacks, and dismissal as irrelevant. Of course, I think he needs indeffed. (furious) But uninvolved members of the community may wish to consider a long-term solution to a long-term problem. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some find asperger's delicious
    Asp
    Bergers
    One more thing before I stop chewing on this. My asperger's impedes my ability to recognize non verbal social cues in face-to-face interactions. In so far as I can tell, I do fine in this sort of setting. And, I might add, am better at adhering to behavioral norms/etiquette than someone I shan't name.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support B, Neutral on A While there may be context I'm not aware of, I don't really see Dicklyon as having been all that disruptive. However I'll admit that I may be missing context and will not provide an opinion on whether they should be indeffed. However the behaviour shown by MarcusBritish here, up to and including since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interactions regarding another editor here is uncalled for. And what's more, when people have cautioned MarcusBritish that their comportment was insufficiently civil they doubled down. I think they need a time out to consider whether it's appropriate to insult an editor for commenting on your past insults to editors in a thread about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both A and B: I will admit to a passing knowledge of military history; referring to large-scale, long-term strategic military plans as campaigns is not incorrect. Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project, one to the atmosphere of the project. On the basis of the actor realizing his error, however, I would like to request, if possible, that the blocking administrator be favorably disposed toward a standard offer for DickLyon in six months' time. Having said that, and noting that MarcusBritish has been blocked by SarekOfVulcan for a week, I cannot see MarcusBritish's particular manner of discussion as being rather helpful; his comportment, even in this very discussion, if I may argue, is and has been wholly antithetical to a collegial atmosphere. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support B, Neutral on A. As per Simonm223. I've rarely seen a more sarcastic, demeaning and provocative tone than the one adopted by MarcusBritish here. It looks like it's just one big game to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also support Lugnuts proposal on A making a Tban on page moves. Considering the context available, that seems reasonable. And with regard to B, I'm leaning toward supporting an indef based on comportment here and evidence of past blocks.Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support B as in, an indefinite block, not just a week. I told arbcom when they unblocked him that they were making a mistake. For those that don't know, the last indef block was for, among other things, insulting the ethnicity of a user he was in conflict with. And he was more than willing to take it off wiki, including email harassment, a campaign on youtube, and a death threat against me personally. He's not someone we should have here. I've had occasional issues with Dicklyon as well but he's never tried to incite people to kill me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcus is rather upset about my above remarks, which he claims are lies. The only part of it that is not 100% certain is whether he was in fact the person running the youtube channel in question. There is no doubt about the rest of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    • Neutral on A, Support B - I was already taken aback by Marcus' commentary earlier, but his Asperger's comment is well over the line. I'm indifferent on whether Dicklyon gets a block or a topic ban for the violation of his unblock, but something should be done there as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given Dicklyon's repeated commentary below, we either have a case of WP:IDHT or he really doesn't get that "mass page moves" are inherently controversial, which brings us into WP:CIR territory. Either way, I now Support A, indef block until he understands what his restrictions mean, and a flat TBAN on mass moves in addition to his other unblock conditions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I really don't get that. If mass page moves are inherently controversial, then we'll need a strategy to split up the work such that nobody's part is big enough to be called "mass". How are we going to get a bunch of editors signed up to such jobs under such condition? Are you suggesting that it's better to just not fix problems that are widespread, when fixing them has been shown to be uncontroversial? Or are you like some of these other AN/I drama mongers and just don't like it when someone defends themself here? If I ask what's wrong with my work, and people say nothing, just too much of it, and I ask again, then I'm so disruptive I have to be indeffed. That's a fine how-do-you-do. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A (B already has consensus, but I support it, too, FWIW). The discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted. This is clear, repeated violation of his unblock conditions over a lengthy period. There is also evidence above that he was edit-warring on the MOS in support of his position while making one of those controversial mass-moves. The attempted handwaving doesn't really help; "engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial" looks good but when you think about it, the only thing it can mean is, "Lots of people objected and I repeatedly told them it's not controversial." In other words, it was controversial, just not in Dicklyon's mind. We don't need this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh, thanks for providing more detail, GR. Support an indef on this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A. If anything, Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started. Calidum 18:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since he asked, here is the complete list of moves he's made [5]. By my estimate, he's moved 199 articles that include the word "campaign" in their title in recent weeks, which was the locus of this dispute. Calidum 05:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of those came after the 5 RM discussions that all closed in favor of following WP:NCCAPS for such things, and were only for cases where sources were clearly dominantly lowercase. Only a few were "since this discussion started", which is what I asked you about. The list is easy to find, but I asked what you meant by "aggressive" and whether any of them look like they were either incorrect or controversial. Marcus's ranting does not make them controversial; I asked Wikiproject Military History to review recent moves and got no responses. So please clarify your complaint, or retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN on page moves. The indef of MarcusBritish was overdue, his behaviour/language was completely unacceptable. Dicklyon raised this issue at Milhist, but frankly, as a general rule we tend to be pretty drama-averse (MarcusBritish aside), and most members just want to get on and create content in their area of interest rather than get involved in a running battle with someone wielding ngram results like a sword in areas outside one's area. Dicklyon appears to be uninterested in what the specialist reliable sources used in each article say about capitalisation of the word "campaign". He has decided they should all be lower-cased, and just goes on with doing it regardless. If not controversial, this behaviour is tendentious, and given he was indeffed for page move-related behaviour in the past, the obvious next step is a TBAN on page moves. I don't support an indef at this time, as I am not sure that the case for them being "controversial" has been made out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Peacemaker67: Thanks for your support against Marcus in the project and RM discussions. If I recall correctly we were in complete agreement that campaign article capping is to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on sources. Take a look at Talk:Waterloo Campaign for instance (which is still open last I looked) – it's all about looking at sources. Please tell me if you think I moved some pages in error. It's true I tend to put more weight on general sources than on specialist sources, but would there have been a different outsome some place if it were the opposite? Not at Waterloo campaign, as far as I can tell, which is where the point has been pushed hardest (and I haven't moved that one yet since it was contested). Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose A, neutral on B. An indef is overkill and goes to the extreme solution without taking Dicklyon's good faith actions and explanations into account. The editor's continuing contributions to the project greatly outweigh any incidental page moves, and all of those seem to have been done in good faith (WP:Assume good faith) with logic backed by evidence. The Jr. and Sr. moves were done in good faith and per the results of RMs (I was involved in the comma wars, and when Dicklyon moved the pages it was as a result of the RMs). And the World Heritage Site moves, for instance, which are also used as an example for Dicklyon to be indeffed, were originally moved to lower-case per an RM close before being correctly brought back to their proper name status, and when Dicklyon moved them it was totally within understandable behavior and Wikipedia policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Randy, I really appreciate your response here, since you were my main opponent in quite a few RM discussions on commas and caps. Now it's fun that you say "before being correctly brought back to their proper name status", knowing how much sources and I disagree with you on that! Anyway, the RM decided, so that's where we left it. Thanks again. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I had read this discussion for a couple days at its start, but missed until now when it suddenly evolved into an indef discussion (talk about leaps of ungoodfaith). You certainly, from any of the discussions I was involved in, acted within Wikipedia good faith limits and presented evidence which you and others thought backed up your choices. That you were wrong on some is neither here nor there (mostly there), but you didn't act outside of normal page moves within the situations. I'm surprised this has even gotten this far. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A and oppose page-move topic ban against Dicklyon pretty much per Randy. I won't pretend I always agree with Dick when it comes to matters of titles and styling - he comes from the school-of-thought that we don't have to follow the sources when it comes to matters of styling and capitalisation, unless it is close to 100% of the sources, while I prefer to follow sources if they form anything upwards of a supermajority for a particular style. On the issue of page moves, I'll agree that occasionally Dick pushes through moves that I would regard as controversial and in need of discussion. But crucially, he respects consensus and he doesn't edit war or redo moves that have been reversed. As noted by Randy, his mass-page-moves are almost always following patterns that are already decided in enough community venues to make them uncontroversial, such as the aforementioned Jr. / Sr. comma debate. Dick's site-ban was lifted four years ago, and I think his behaviour in the four years since is good enough that we don't need to re-invoke that old sanction at this time. Similarly, banning him from the RM and titling space would not be helpful as that's one of the areas he contributes to a lot. In summary, Dick has come here in good faith to seek a remedy against an editor who was abusing him and justifiably so, as that has resulted in that user being banned. I don't think we should be using that as the opportunity to WP:BOOMERANG Dick, when ultimately his only crime is to want the best for the encyclopedia and to have his own strong opinions about how to achieve that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      True, I'm not a fan of "follow the sources" as letting sources vote on our styling questions, when we have our own well specified style. But in my mass moves I don't think I've crossed the line that separates us. Thanks for your supportive comments. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      While I have absolutely no doubt that the opinion expressed by Amakuru above is their own and not influenced by anyone else, I do note that Dicklyon WP:CANVASSed their participation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Nyttend failed to ping him when he claimed that I was edit warring with him; his perspective was needed for me defense. Is that not OK? Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A, Support B. Dicklyon is a net positive to the project. MarcusBritish is not. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Many thanks. I don't believe we've met. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A. I too think the contributions by Dicklyon to the project are a huge "positive", currently and over a number of years. The moves by Dicklyon are not damaging for the content or naming of the pages by any reasonable account. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad that there are editors who evaluate Dicklyon's value to the project as a "net positive", but that is really not the issue here. Did he or did he not violate the clear language of the restriction that was placed on him when the community granted his standard offer request, as expressed by Prodego: "Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." The evidence is crystal clear that he did. Those that wish to keep Dicklyon editing ought to concentrate their efforts on getting a community consensus for a lesser sanction, since whether he is a "net positive" or a "net negative" is irrelevant to the question of whether he violated the clear and explicit language of his unblock conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon, can you please do not make large scale, potentially controversial actions? If for no other reason, do not you want to minimize disruption? I must say however that "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" is not a clear and unequivocal language. What is "large scale" A hundred? A thousand? More important, I checked their recent moves, and they are fine. WP:IAR please. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Large scale", "mass pass moves" - Is there any doubt that -- in Dicklyon's words from the discussion in the first section -- "1000 Jr and Sr bios", "900 rivers and creeks", "fewer than 100 lighthouse moves" (by which I assume he doesn't mean "a handful, or "22", but something close to 100), as well as 199 "campaign" moves as counted by Calidum, are all "large scale" or "mass" page moves? Alright, some people might throw out the lighthouse moves, but nonetheless there are 3 examples, two of them by Dicklyon's own admission, which easily qualify as violations of his unblock conditions. It's completely irrelevant which of these moves were justified, or "controversial", or were or weren't reverted, he simply was not supposed to be doing mass page moves in the first place. If the moves were necessary, Dicklyon did not need to be the editor who made them, another editor, one who wasn't forbidden to make "mass page moves", could have done them. Dicklyon could even have pointed out the need for those moves on the appropriate WikiProject talk page, but he was disallowed from doing them. I don;t know how the facts could be any clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was involved in the Jr. comma wars I'd like to state some obvious points. Our side lost. Dicklyon gladly moved the titles that he was entitled to move. Who else was going to do it? That job alone proves Dicklyon's long time worth to the project - he did a job that few if anyone else would have been willing to do with the zeal and interest that he put into it. To the victor go the spoils...and the work. And at the time he moved the World Heritage Site pages he was entitled to do so, per RM. Who else was going to move each and every page (and then guess who had to go-back and return every page). So the justification that he is breaking his ban-return-vow seems like old history. Dicklyon was paroled in late-2015, had served his time, came off parole at some point, and since then has often assisted the project by taking the time and the tedium to do the very same good faith page moves that are now being used against him to try to kick him off the project. Not cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To anyone thinking of adding a !vote: The numbers of moves is not in dispute (except where Calidum must have counted talk pages, too, inflating my 97 campaign moves to 199). About 7000 moves since my unblock, as I have stipulated several times. Nobody has previously complained about my numbers of moves, since the 2015 unblock. There was nothing controversial in them (or the vast majority of them; someone might still step up and answer where were any of these controversial). There is no restriction on me for how much I can contribute to Wikipedia, as long as I'm not disruptive and don't engage in controversial mass moves. It doesn't matter that Prodego worded it wrong on my talk page (when he close the unblock thread on WP:AN he wrote "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here"; his rephrasing on my talk page was ambiguous, but certainly nobody suggested that uncontroversial moves were going to be a problem). Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Prodego: I hate to keep pinging you, but if you could help me out here with a clarification of your unblock condition, that might help. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • (To those reading this, I sincerely apologize for sounding like a broken record, but Dicklyon continues to misinterpret many facets of this situation.) Again, Prodego did not unblock you, the commmunity unblocked you, and Prodego was the instruments of the community's will. So while Prodego can certain give their opinion on the matter, it is not controlling - what is controlling is whether the community thinks you violated your unblock conditions to avoid any "large scale actions, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves," which you, of course, did not avoid at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dicklyon: - as Beyond My Ken says, the 2015 block was a community block, and the unblock was enacting a community consensus. I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them. Forming a community consensus that a block is needed again is the appropriate way forward if one believes it is needed. I haven't reviewed all the material here sufficiently to participate in the discussion of those details. Prodego talk 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose B A—That's ridiculous. And just a minor issue: we all have a lot to thank Dicklyon for in his tireless efforts to improve consistency and logic in many areas of en.WP. Occasionally an action is ill-judged, so admins should use the skill they're supposed to have to convey this to him.

      As for B, is the editor prepared to show contrition and self-insight, and to give an undertaking to avoid such behaviour? Has s/he been asked such? If there's contrition, understanding, and an undertaking, I suggest the project would be better off without imposing draconian measures against her/him. Tony (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Surely the two feuding users are primarily at fault, but now we see one of them harshly punished and another under thunderstorm, but this noticeboard with its abominable culture greatly contributed to escalation of the conflict. The third actor of this quarrel, who provoked both MarcusBritish and Dicklyon, has now good chances to escape unharmed. Burn AN/I. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great slogan. Tony (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's generally not the case that the editor who proposed sanctions is sanctioned for doing so, if there are reasonable grounds for the sanction proposal, which numerous editors agreed there were. However, if some admin should decide that I transgressed, I'm willing to take whatever punishment sanction they propose to deal out, although I can't see at the moment what the grounds for that would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if it's anything to you, I can assure you that an insignificantly small percentage of my 240,000-some edits have been related to this discussion, while about 70% of those edits have been to improve articles. Whether or not this discussion is, as you call it, a "crapfest" is somewhat a matter of opinion, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A and oppose topic ban per Amakuru. Most of Dicklyon's page moves have been entirely uncontroversial and gnomish, and I haven't seen evidence that he move-warred when challenged. His ban was lifted quite some time ago. I see the proposal as a typical ANI "plague on both your houses" over-reaction. No such user (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, No such, for your kind words. Isn't it funny how BMK brags about his quantity work ("my 240,000-some edits") while trying to punish me for mine? This seems like more of the "Wiki-Douchebaggery" that he is known for in off-wiki comments. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A and oppose t-ban - why on earth should we impose ill-will on one of our most proficient editors? It only harms the project. In the event no one has noticed, we're running out of admins and editors as a result. Surely there are other things editors can be doing to improve and expand the project. I'm on a coffee break so I'll use this op to shout-out that we need help over at NPP and AfC. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A and oppose topic ban. The mass moves with which I assisted had consensus carefully obtained in advance through formal channels such as RfC and BRFA. I see no evidence that other mass moves were controversial. We shouldn't punish an editor for making changes approved by the community, even if a minority opposed them. Certes (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose A, oppose TBAN: The proposal seems uncharacteristically harsh to me. I don't usually comment but I've been following the discussions including this one; and this one in particular stood out to me as one with the potential to rid ourselves of an editor who's a net positive by a great margin, for nothing serious. Whatever warnings they deserve, to foster an understanding that making mass moves isn't entirely their divine right on Wikipedia, I think they've gotten already, and I can see that they are seriously concerned here, from how thoroughly they're making sure people who oppose this proposal cast a clear !vote in exactly this section. The only concern I have is, they seem to be very sure of themself (probably somewhat warranted/understandable from what I've just learned of them). I hope that, if this proposal fails (which I sincerely hope it does), they don't take it as an affirmation that they've earned community endorsement to do what they please regarding what they personally believe is best for Wikipedia. They seem quite civil and very competent but they should probably step back occasionally (more than they seem to be doing currently) and try and see things from other people's perspectives. No one can fault anyone for being mostly right but such a person should particularly take care to make sure that they don't end up their own worst enemy in rare occasions that they're not. This I find as the most likely reason for concerns raised here by supporters, including IDHT. (I am not very experienced but am an eager learner, if any of my words/phrasings are inappropriate, feel free to strike them quickly, and explain it to me kindly. Thanks!) Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 19:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support B. I watched the unblock with concern but held out hope that MarcusBritish would not return to his old, vile ways. Alas. Lagrange613 12:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A (I doubt this will be any surprise) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised – that you took so long! Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2950 more moves I did

    Besides the 7000 article moves in my move log since the end of 2015, I also arranged to have 1650 moves done by bot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 14) and then 1300 more Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 15, with the help and advice of @Certes. If I'm to be punished for the quantity of my non-controversial work on article titles, please count those, too, and add some that were moved on my behalf by WP:RMTR and WP:RM discussions, for an even 10,000 article moves. That should be enough to get anybody blocked forever. Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These 2950 pages were moved not by Dicklyon but by bot as the result of consensus which both Dicklyon and I supported. I assisted by preparing lists of pages to consider moving, by making minor edits to reflect new titles after the moves, and by creating missing redirects. Jr/Sr moves found consensus at a significant discussion and follow MOS:JR. Station moves were approved by RfC, follow naming conventions and match guidelines for countries which have them such as UK and US. Both sets of moves passed BRFA. I consider that the operations were successful and I don't see them as a reason to block anyone. Certes (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you guys were using bots to move the Jr. page names, no wonder some of the fictional names got caught up in that. It's good there are some of us participant witnesses around when something like this indef ban is going down. I've explained a couple of times above how some of the core language being used by the nominator regarding the wrongness of the Jr. moves, the World Heritage Sites moves, and other moves, is incorrect. Yet as far as I know none of it has been stricken, and it probably should be. Thanks for "therewitness" testimony backing up some of Dicklyon's correct claims. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no those lists were carefully vetted and pruned; no fictional character articles were included. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy, going through and striking falsehoods in this mess would be too huge a job to ask anyone to take on. And BMK made it clear that I can't touch his comments. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: Preparation for Jr/Sr moves included compiling this list of fictional names. One of those titles later had its comma removed by another editor following a RM; the rest still have their commas. Certes (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot knows best, thanks. No, I don't mean someone else should strike the comments, but that the nominator might consider striking them. They simply aren't accurate. As for the rest, the only complaints against Dicklyon I'm unfamiliar with are the lighthouse moves (done under dead of night and rough seas I reckon) which he seems to adequately explain above. Looking at it, there really isn't much left in the complaint except a probable good faith misunderstanding about the terms of the 2015 unblock, which seem to have been adequately explained as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Certes, you might consider adding your "Oppose A" in the section above so it doesn't get lost. Thanks for showing up. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More "large scale, potentially controversial actions" of mine since 2015

    If I'm prohibited from "large scale, potentially controversial actions", then these 800 or so, including 4 since this discussion started, should be enough to get me blocked. Quite a few were not just "potentially controversial", but might be seen as "actually controversial" since they got reverted from articles. So block me for that if it makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on here

    I just noticed that Marcus was indeffed based on a proposal here, and that it's been proposed that I be indeffed, too, in this discussion that I thought we were done with. Was nobody thinking I might want to be notified, so I could inquire about the "charges" and defend myself? BMK's evidence that my moves were controverial is that some of them were reverted 8 months later by a guy who over-capitalized a whole bunch of articles, including many that were always lowercase, and that included some of the ones I had moved in Oct/Nov 2018 – and thus I am retroactively so disruptive that I have to be blocked?

    And why did BMK (not even an admin, iiuc) jump in with such a draconian proposal when things had already settled down between me and Marcus?

    I have particular disdain for all those who supported a block before anybody has bothered to say specifically which moves or groups of moves might be considered controversial, and why. There's a lot of hearsay there, but no actually evidence that I can even discuss. Come on people, be sensible please. If someone thinks that some of my moves were controversial, they need to say which ones, so we can look at them, before jumping to these conclusions and a disproportionate reaction. I repeatedly ask Marcus and the Wikiproject Military History to tell me if any of my moves looked wrong or controversial, or to just revert them if so. Did anyone do so? Pretty much not. Similarly in other projects; discussion has generally preceded "mass" moves, so that we wouldn't get into situations where there was any significant disagreement. If you think Marcus's disagreement was "significant", please point out where he said one sensible thing that would make you think that.

    Until people point out what I did wrong, with a couple of links, instead of just reading wrong inferences into the discussion above, there is no reason to be treating me as a disruptive editor. If you think I am, show us.

    All !votes before now should be considered null and void. Let's see what the case is first, if anyone will present one, and let me respond, then we can talk about whether a sanction is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you under the impression that only admins can make proposals on AN/I? That is not the case. Also, there was no requirement to notify you about a discussion which was ongoing, which you had participated in, and which had not been closed. If you failed to continue to track it, there's nobody to blame for that except yourself.
    What you did wrong was to violate the terms of your unblock condition, which was to "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Above you wrote that you made 75 "campaign" moves, "fewer than 100" lighthouse moves, 900 moves to rivers and creeks, and 1000 jr and sr moves; maybe I missed some as well. Some of those moves may well be non-controversial, but others were reverted in full, which means that you judged wrongly, and that they were controversial. In any case, my interpretation is that you have not "avoided large scale, potentially controversial actions, such as page moves", but have continued doing them as if you had never been indef blocked in the first place. Others may interpret your actions differently, or may see the best solution to be a topic ban rather than a re-imposition of your indef block, and that's fine, but you can hardly be surprised that after being indef blocked for making mass moves, and then being unblocked with the proviso that you avoid mass moves, that there should be the suggestion that you be sanctioned for basically ignoring your unblock conditions. I suggest that you return your indignation to your pocket and start explaining why you shouldn't be re-indeffed or topic banned.
    Your suggestion that the !votes already cast be "null and void" is ridiculous on its face, assuming as it does that the !voters are unable to read the clear words in the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation is of no interest to me; I am fully aware of what I wrote above and how you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what happened. I'm wondering whether someone has an actual case, or will say which moves they think I made were controversial, and why. I realize you reverted a move of mine once, and reverted a few of my edits without comment, but I don't know what you have against me. Did I wrong you at some point? Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon: Sorry, no. It's pretty clear you should stop with the page moves. Whether that happens as the result of voluntary action on your part, a TBAN or an indefinite block remains to be seen. Someone has said you have been moving pages since the start of this. That suggest the need for an immediate indefinite block to stop the disruption. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm stopping all moves now that I know there's a proposal to sanction me; a notification would have been nice. That "somebody" is who I already pinged below. And if you think there is "disruption" anywhere here, please give at least one diff, don't just go by "somebody said". Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Calidum: Since you voted to sanction me after I started this section asking for evidence, I'll respond to your remarks. You wrote "Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started." I don't know what you mean by "aggressive" here, since each of my moves is made with care and precision, where there is no reason to suspect controversy, in an aim to improve the encyclopedia. So could you point out what recent moves you think were in some way wrong or controversial, and why (and keep the conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS in mind if you're buying Marcus's argument that his complaints involved anyone but him in that project). That would give us something to look at and discuss, as opposed to all this nonspecific stuff that was provoked by Marcus. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you're just going to ignore the 8 other editors (9 with Calidum) who !voted to re-impose the indef block (vs. the 3 who opposed it and the 5 who were neutral), and pretend that those !votes never happened because they occurred while you were ignoring this discussion? I doubt very much that the closer is going to take the same position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much, yes, since they are just reacting to your misrepresentation of things. I'd be happy if any of them would say why they think I have been disruptive or made controversial moves, or whatever. I can ping them if you think that would help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that this:

    (A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

    is a "misrepresentation of things"? You yourself outlined in the discussion above the mass moves you had made, and you yourself said that some of them had been reverted entirely. What, then, did I "misrepresent"?
    A number of editors, including admins, have said -- before I floated the proposal! -- that your actions were violations of your unblock conditions. Are you going to ignore them too? You were taking part in the discussion at that point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You quoted my words in support of your unsupported inference. You're saying that if someone comes along and reverts some of my moves, then those must have been controversial when I made them. You ignored the context that this was a guy doing a large batch of moves contrary to guidelines – a much larger batch than mine, many months later, with much more reason to be regarded as controversial; and I stayed out of it after that. Look at cases instead of applying poor broad-brush logic, and see if you can say which ones were controversial and why, and then we'll have something to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably among my 7000 moves since being unblocked there are a few that are controverial; but controversial mass moves? I don't think so. I've done my honest best to engage in discussions to remove controversy before doing anything you might call "mass". If I messed up a few times, show me and we can talk. Stop paying attention to the complaints of Marcus who was an outlier in the Military History project and objected after we had the 4 or 5 RM discussions that made such moves uncontroversial. Nobody in the project supported him (a few remarked "looks better capped" and "it's a proper name" and stuff like that without reference to guidelines or sources, in some of those discussions, but when asked to point out which ones I got wrong, addressed to the project on their talk page, no answer). None were reverted; none were overturned in discussion; most of the moves were after these discussions, when no real controversy remained; just Marcus. So WTF are you accusing me of (pardon my French)? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And review what those "previous editors" said. Nyttend said "It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt" and "he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves". Well it "sure looks to me" like Nyttend is just repeating what Marcus claimed; he certainly didn't represent any evidence or reason to believe that large number of my moves were controversial. Where is he getting this stuff? Someguy1221 complained about the lighthouse moves (whih were reverted any months later as we reviewed), and the World Heritage sites, which were following the consensus of a big RM discussion when I did them. The fact that that consensus later changed doesn't mean my moves were controversial when I did them. Did any other editor make either specific or vague accusations? Please show me if so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just to recap, you're going to ignore all editors who !voted to re-impose your indef block because you made multiple violations of your unblock conditions, simply because they !voted before you were aware of the sanctions discussion, and it's your opinion that @Nyttend: is incapable of making his own evaluation of your actions and is merely mindlessly repeating what MarcusBritish said. You're sticking to your story that you did nothing wrong, that you never violated your unblock conditions, and that the editors who have suggested that you be sanctioned -- either with a re-imposition of the indef block or a topic ban (actually, the two editors who suggested that in the "Proposal" discussion changed their minds and are now in favor of an indef) -- are generally incompetent to independently evaluate your history because they were misled by my "misrepresentation" of the things you actually said in the above discussion. And you're completely closing your eyss to the argument that you made changes to MOS in order that your page moves would be MOS-compliant, and then edit-warred to keep those changes in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes, you're right, they may not be watching, so now I've pinged them all to see if I can learn what I'm accused of, since you won't say. Please give them time to respond, if you would. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're edit-warring at [6], several reverts in favor of your own position. This should be the last straw: Dicklyon pretends to be so fervently committed to MOS that he'll edit-war on articles to maintain it, yet in reality deceives others by making it look like his preferred ideas are consensus. You broke the community's trust with socking, you got back to editing with a promise to avoid a certain type of contentious edits, you've broken that promise, and now you've broken the community's trust here. Lock the door and throw away the key: this is a project for collaboration, and someone who repeatedly ignores community standards in a prominent fashion mustn't be permitted to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not edit warring. My last edit there was over 3 weeks ago, when I reverted one revert with a comment that seemed to satisfy the guy I reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @GoldenRing and Lugnuts: Please help me understand what I'm being accused on here. Lugnuts, you said "I've not paid too much attention" to my edits, and then later thanks GoldenRing for the added detail and voted to indef block me. GoldenRing, you came closer than anyone to saying what you think I did wrong, when you wrote "discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted." If you review that discussion, I'm sure you'll see that you were mistaken. The only batches (as far as I know) that were reverted were the 75 lighthouses (in Oct/Nov 2018) and 101 World Heritage sites (in Oct 2018). Was there something else? Did you look into those batches to try to understand whether or how they could have been considered to be "controversial" when I did them? Is this what you want to indef block me for, moves I did last year that amount to less than 3% of the moves I've made since being unblocked, and less than 1% of my editing contributions? Am I retroactively so disruptive that I'm not fit to contribute? Please clarify the basis of your vote to block me (both of you); or change your vote. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @MarnetteD and PhilKnight: Please help me understand the basis for your vote to block me. MarnetteD, you mention "violation of unblock conditions", but give no clue what that was inferred from; what is it that you think I did? Is there more than hearsay operating here, or was there some evidence that you looked at? And PhilKnight, you only say "per MarnetteD"; what's that about? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @WaltCip: I don't see that you made any comments about me, yet you supported an indef block. As you can imagine, that might be something that I would care about, so can you do me the favor of saying what you think I did that makes me so disruptive that I need to be indef blocked? Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Javert2113: You say "Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project..." Can you say what you think I did that was disruptive to the integrity of the project? And how my opinion that your vote should be treated as null and vote rises to the level of offense that needs an indef block? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dlohcierekim: What are you thinking? You didn't say much about me other than support an indef block. And what the heck is this about? You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. We serve tasty chum and punch at the meetings. Beyond My Ken ("not even an admin, iiuc") (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, don't you think that "You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I?" is a little, you know, WP:NPA-violatingish? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A little. Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dicklyon: I don't know what's difficult to understand here. You were unblocked on the condition that you "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." You made mass page moves. You don't seem to see the problem with that. You should be reblocked.
      You were not unblocked on the condition that the mass page moves you made were uncontroversial; you were unblocked on the condition that you don't make mass page moves and other potentially controversial actions. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dicklyon: It is about your dismissal of the community's concerns about your actions. It is about your nonsense of trying to say the !votes for sanctions somehow should not count. It's for your utter unwillingness to accept the need to remedy the disruption your editing has caused. Shark pack my hind foot. You've been counseled about your behavior before and have continued this episode (escapade?) while the matter was at ANI. You have left the community with no other recourse but to block you until you can convince the community that the disruption is at an end. I had thought the TBAN would be a suitable and sufficient remedy; your response convinced me otherwise.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where have I dismissed community concerns, and how does that become a blockable offense? And why were people voting on non-specific charges against me, without notifying me or letting me response and ask for clarification? Obviously those votes should be dismissed while concerns are clarified. As for the "potentially" thing, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that silliness. Surely nobody can abide by a restriction of avoiding "potentially " controversial actions. You're being absurd. And the admin who wrote that already said a that I had amply fulfilled his condition with multiple years of good work. Now you're complaining about the "quantity" of my work, but won't point out any specific problems. Can you not see the aburdity here? Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You were banned from doing something. You did that thing repeatedly. You dismiss that as "silliness". You wonder where you've dismissed the community's concerns. You wonder why people would rather indef you than have to put up with this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dicklyon, the condition was "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." This is pretty clear. "Mass page moves" is provided as an example of the sort of "large scale, potentially controversial actions" you were to avoid. In other words, ALL mass page moves are by definition in the category of actions you were required to avoid as a condition of the unblock. You seem to be reading this condition as "avoid large scale, potentially controversial...mass page moves," but that's certainly not how it was written. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is a problem. You did not simply asked him to comment on the edit warring, you wrote:

      Amakuru, I am being retrospectively accused of edit warring with you when I reverted your revert here, on July 13, and I'm also being accused of unspecified large-scale controversial moves, in an attempt to indef block me. I don't understand why, but a bunch of editors have piled on, while I can't get them to tell me which large-scale moves were controversial. Your perspective might be useful since they accuse me of edit warring with you. Top section in WP:AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC) (emphasis added)

      directing him to the "attempt to indef block me." That's an outright blatant violation of WP:Canvassing, which you should know.
      Furthermore, in regard to your protestation that no one will tell you which of your large scale moves are the problem, they are all a problem. Your unblock conditions read:

      Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) [7]

      That's clear and explicit. You were not told to stay away from "controversial" mass moves, you were told to stay away from all mass moves, because they are "potentially controversial". No one has to prove that your moves were controversial, only that you made mass moves, and you yourself have admitted that you have done that.
      Please stop being disingenuous. People in the section above have said that you are a "net positive" to the project. Perahps instead of pretending you don;t know what you're being accused of, you should work toward convincing enough editors that you really are good for the project, so that the community simply topic ban you from page moves instead of re-instating the indef block the unblock conditions of which you have undoubtedly violated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prodego: I don't think I was ever forbidden from doing non-controversial moves. And Prodego already said of his unblock conditions that he thinks "User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant." BMK, I will no longer reply to you, as most things I can think of to say to you at this point would not be viewed as civil. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unblocking admin's opinion is, of course, of interest, but it is not dispositive, since @Prodego: was not undoing his own personal block of you, they were enforcing this community decision. It was the community which decided to grant you the standard offer you requested, and it is up to the community to decide if you have violated your unblock conditions or not, it is not up to Prodego to do so, although they can certainly offer their personal opinion on the matter, which would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Prodego has again clarified above: "I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them." Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Simonm223, Martinevans123, BubbaJoe123456, Calton, HandThatFeeds, and WaltCip: Since you all had read part of the discussion and expressed an opinion on blocking Marcus, but had not (yet) expressed an opinion on BMK's proposal to block me, and since I've now actually heard about the proposal and responded, I thought it would make sense to ask you to take another look and see if you can form an opinion with respect to me. Obviously, I'm seeking an "Oppose A" in the #Proposal section above, but will take whatever comes. Please read this section #Hold on here and check out the Oppose votes at the bottom of the #Proposal section to get the side of the story that was previously missing. Also note that still nobody has been able to say which moves of mine they found to be controversial or wrong, or why; or to point out any other disruptive behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Simonm223, BubbaJoe123456, Calton, HandThatFeeds, and WaltCip: Dicklyon is incorrect. Multiple editors (including BubbaJoe123456, who even pinged him) have told him that all of his mass page moves are violations of his unlock condition, which was that "you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" [8]. Under those conditions, mass page moves do not have to be "controversial" to be a violation, instead, he was to avoid all mass page moves because they are "potentially controversial". Dicklyon may have been laboring under a misapprehension these past 4 years since he was unblocked, but the language of the unblock conditions is clear and explicit and not really subject to easy misinterpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. And I thought it was only the Boy Scouts who were unnaturally fond of canvas. Count me out on this one, sorry. Neutral is the best you're gonna get from me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged I will note that GoldenRing says it all. Dicklyon was banned from making page moves - Dicklyon repeatedly made page moves. Thus my support for proposal A - which has only grown with all the wikilawyering going on. Please do not ping me to this thread again. I have ANI on my watchlistMarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absurd! I was not banned from making page moves. If I had been, someone would have said so before I got 4 years and 7000 moves down the road. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal was based on the accusation of "violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles". He has now changed it to "many moves, controversial or not" (that is complaining about the quantity of my work instead of the quality), and now you've changed it to "any moves". Of course, I have no defense against these absurdities. Still, no controversial mass moves have been identified – correct me if I'm wrong, anybody. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MarnetteD neglected to say "mass page moves" or "large scale page moves", that was the only thing wrong with their statement. And, again, your unblock conditions were, and continue to be to that "you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" [9]. You made large scale page moves, therefore you have violated your unblock conditions. I can't put it any plainer than that. How long are you going to keep up this absurd WP:IDHT charade? This is Wikilawyering for the completely credulous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good God almighty. I don't even want to sift through this. Just like Martinevans123, I'm going to make like a Switzerland and be firmly neutral. I don't want to be involved in this. But the more I'm pinged, the more favorable I may become to an IBAN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IBAN for whom? MarcusBritish is indeffed; the crapfest is currently fed by certain other actors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon: I remain, as I was previously, neutral regarding the proposed t-ban, though I feel an indef would be unwarranted per at this juncture. However attempts to WP:CANVAS are not likely to make me more favorably inclined toward you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of "neutrality" cowardice puts me in mind of First they came .... I realize it's asking a lot of people to read this shitfest full of mostly MarcusBritish's diatribe and falsehoods, and BMK's history of such prosecutions, and speak up for me. But how else can we start to push back on BMK's aggressive drama-mongering at AN/I? And why does he want me indeffed? As punishment for a large body of work is all I can figure. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support t-ban on Dicklyon per their previous comment. I wouldn't want to be showing cowardice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my !vote to Support an indef until Dicklyon states understanding of why this entire discussion happened in the first place. Mass page moves are inherently controversial, thus why they were mentioned in his unblock restrictions. I'm not sure if he just somehow did not put two and two together there or what, but it's definitely a violation of his unblock conditions. Maybe it needs to be spelled out in a formal TBAN going forward, I'll leave that up to admins. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dicklyon: - how can we ensure that you not repeat mass page moves? starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you give me an example of what sort of mass moves you want to avoid, and why? So far nobody has said which of my mass moves might have been controversial or disruptive. I know it's easy to miss that point when reading this mess. Thanks for looking into it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dicklyon: - [10] unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid ... mass page moves. - seems like the unblock provision is “no mass page moves at all”. Seems like you think you still can do non-controversial mass page moves, and seems like many other users disagree. Perhaps other editors believe that all mass moves are inherently controversial. I think a clear solution is to simply have you stop performing mass moves altogether. starship.paint (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've pinged @Prodego: to come back again and clarify again re those terms, but he hasn't been on WP yet this month, so we'll have to wait. See his comments above. I have no intention of avoiding non-conrtroverisal non-disruptive work as a result of this sham. Show me where I have done wrong and we can talk about it. So far, none of my accusers will point out what I did wrong in the last four years among my huge quantity of contributions to WP. Please don't jump on their bandwagon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodego has already said they consider the conditions of the unblock were abided to and aren't relevant anymore, and that they think all users should refrain from large scale controversial actions (without specifying whether Dicklyon's actions qualify as that). I think that's clear enough. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur, and I'd point out that my opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's. It is clear that 'reinstating' a several year old block is not a reasonable action to take, but a new block is the type of action which should be discussed here on ANI. Prodego talk 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. You also noted above that "I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point". And there is nothing else left; the only argument BMK has left was that I was bound to not make any mass moves, even if uncontroversial. How anyone could be criticized for uncontroversial work is still a mystery to me, but that's all he has. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the opinion of one editor, Prodego, an admin, which should carry exactly as much weight as the opinion of everyone else who commented here, as his role was solely to close the AN/I discussion and enact the community's decision to unblock Dicklyon. I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that Dicklyon's unblock conditions -- which were never lifted, and therefore, despite Prodegos opinion, are still in effect -- call for Dicklyon to avoid mass page moves, on the grounds that they are "potentially controversial", not "mass page moves that are controversial" -- that language does not appear. Dicklyon's apparently deliberate misreading of their unblock conditions -- which have been explained to him numerous times, by numerous editors -- is an example of gross WP:IDHT behavior and the Big Lie, by which incessantly repeating a falsehood gives it greater credibility.
    Further, I would request that the closer of this discussion, when determining consensus, note that arguments made for re-instating the indef block on Dicklyon are based on normal accepted Wikipedia processes, while the majority of the "oppose" !votes are based on opinions of Dicklyon's value to the project, which is not relevant at this time. They would be relevant were Dicklyon be re-indeffed or sanctioned with a topic ban, as an argument that the project would be better off with him free to edit, but bringing them up now is putting the cart before the horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there were no special conditions since 2016 and Dicklyon is not under restrictions currently. Did he disrupt Wikipedia with page moves? It may warrant a block, but as a measure of prevention whereas the AN/I sharks apparently are more interested in punishment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Dicklyon's uunblock conditions from 2015 were never rescinded, and therefore are still in effect today. If Dicklyon want them to be lifted, they would need to make a request to the community to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose A - unblock conditions were slightly vague and it is now up to the community to decide if all mass moves are inherently controversial such that Dicklyon cannot make them. Even if the answer is yes, there should not be any punishment based on that. He should not be indefinitely blocked for this vagueness. starship.paint (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break (MJL)

    Comment. Has anyone indicated a problem with Dicklyon's moves besides that it was potentially against their unblock conditions? I really haven't actively reviewed their record, but for the few places I have seen them, I rather liked their contributions. I'd honestly hate to lose their input due to a misunderstanding on how their sanctions would be applied. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread has become a mess and is hard to follow, but the root issue I'm aware of is that Dicklyon has performed numerous large-scale page moves since his unblock, and while most of these were left the way he moved them, many (most?) were not discussed in advance, and some were mass-reverted. Dicklyon has also made undiscussed changes to MOS during debates over page moves, and then cites MOS in the debate. Finally, Dicklyon has chastised others for making undiscussed page moves, but his are okay due to his superior understanding of MOS or something. Anyway, so far as I can tell that's the root of it; then there is all the other alleged behavioral issues that sprang forth from that, such as allegations of IDHT behavior and etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not just T-BAN Dicklyon from directly editing MOS-related pages, moving articles without discussion, and performing more than 5 moves a day, then call it a day? You're right that this thread is hard to follow, but the little bit I skimmed seemed to just indicate the user was frustrated that none of the move restrictions were clearly spelled out in advance (then getting told not having known about these restrictions is part of their problem). Indef seems pretty severe giving the extenuating circumstances of why this user's contributions have been assessed in the first place (ie. reporting a user who just got indef community banned for making egregious personal insults to an administrator). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Someguy1221: Re: this, yeah you can say that again lol. Now that Dicklyon has agreed to step back a little, mind sharing your thoughts further? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Oh, sure. Certainly the underlying actions that triggered this dispute would be prevented by Dicklyon voluntarily accepting a ban on undiscussed and controversial page moves as well as any mass-moves (though I'd have no problem with him proposing them). I'm actually not sure there will be a consensus for any involuntary topic ban, though I suspect we'll be here again if nothing changes. I think the real driving force is not so much the page moves as it how Dicklyon and Marcus approached the dispute. Marcus thought that Dicklyon was running roughshod over Milhist, and then Marcus made it personal. Dicklyon feels a need to defend himself, and he does that by trying to refute every single point that's raised in discussion, from anyone, repeatedly and at length. I think that this litigiousness has really gotten under a lot of skins. I would not propose any editing restriction to try and "solve" Dicklyon's behavior, but I do think he needs to work on it, even if it's just learning to step away when his blood pressure starts rising. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, for Dicklyon, I'll just summarize my intended response to you as, it was not my intention to accuse you of anything, though I see now my response can look like that. I was just trying to let MJL know what you were being accused of, in general. I suspect a lot of people see a mess like this and wonder if it's worth reading. I was hoping to give a short explanation so people could decide whether this is the type of accusation they want to look into at all. As for your behavior, basically, you repeat yourself way more than you need to, and dominating a thread looks a lot like the digital equivalent of shouting over people in real life. Even if you're right, you are likely to irritate people. The person who closes a discussion, whether it's to move a page or topic ban a user, is going to read your statements. You'll either convince that person or you won't. You don't need to make the same points over and over. And I almost forgot, if you move a page as a result of a discussion, you should link to it in the summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

    Hatted on advice from MJL, since Someguy1221 was just answering their questions, not accusing me
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Wait, why not say which ones were controversial before jumping on generalities like "many (most?) were not discussed in advance, and some were mass-reverted"? The few that were "mass reverted" have been addressed; nobody has given a reason to think they would have been controversial when I did them. As for "many (most?) were not discussed in advance", that's the first I've heard of that allegation. @Someguy1221: Did I miss something? All the big mass moves, and the great majority of the total, were very seriously discussed and thoroughly resolved in advance and resulted in no pushback. Please don't continue in this trend of ambiguous general accusations based on hearsay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you mean by "all the other alleged behavioral issues that sprang forth from that, such as allegations of IDHT behavior and etc." That's just me being frustrated, trying to find out what I'm accused of. If you're accusing me of some disruption, or actual behavior problem, please say so. As for allegations of "I Don't Hear That", what? Tell me what you think said allegation is about, or who alleges and why. Don't just repeat the attacks on me. I need to know what I'm accused of if I'm to defend myself. BMK has changed his charges to "mass moves" since he gave up on "controversial". Can you imagine why I might be a little testy? Throw me a friggin' bone, people. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon: You make it harder and harder to defend your actions when you begin posts with And WTF do you mean. If you know you are frustrated take a break and come back with a cooler head. Striking all your latest comments right now would be a good show of maturity in my opinion.
    I hope I am being clear here. You are shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason and need to stop this instant. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course; I have replaced "WTF" by "what". I had to stop responding to BMK for a similar reason. When my blood gets to boiling, some of the heat leaks out though my fingers. Thanks for understanding. But I don't want to strike all my comments because I want to continue to challenge my accusers to put up some details about what they're complaining about. I'm mostly staying calm enough. If no answers are forthcoming, what do I do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... considering that I was in the middle of a discussion with this "accuser" it would've been nice to have it finished and not get sidetracked with this. I was in the middle of almost defending you in a simple conversation, but you rushed in here guns ablazing. The right thing for you to do is apologize to Someguy1221 for this response using {{hat}} since he wasn't accusing you rather answering my questions. You shouldn't be here to defend yourself anymore than absolutely necessary (and even then, user talk pages work WONDERS if used correctly). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually ec'd with Dicklyon 4 times trying to answer his questions. Each time I saw he posted even more, and tried to answer that as well, only to find more again. I gave up. This is part of why the page is a mess. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry, and I didn't even notice this when I hatted the section. I suppose I don't really need a response, as I've been advised to drop trying to defend myself. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you think I did something wrong in trying to patch the inconsistent MOS MilHist bit, that's really pretty orthogonal to the mass moves question. I discovered a discrepancy that encouraged capitalization in a way inconsistent with the main MOS page, and worked on a fix for it; the fix we ended up with, via several other editors contributing, was not exactly mine, but basically resolved the problem in the way I suggested. Did anyone indicate that we got that wrong? Did I ever cite that provision in a move discussion? I don't think so; if I did, or if I had, it would have been to say that it was wrong before and I fixed it. If you're suggesting that I changed the guidance and then cited it, please show. I can't defend against vague hearsay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "chastised others for making undiscussed page moves", I don't know why you use the verb "chastised", but yes, I have now and then objected to undiscussed page moves, when they seemed wrong, and had them reverted (e.g. the one you linked where I asked for a move revert based on the longstanding titles having changed contrary to the MOS by Sam Sailor without discussion; they got fixed and he capped them again months later and I stayed away after that as I didn't want to fight about it and haven't had time to go back and run the multi-RMs needed to fix them again). I have also asked, e.g. at the MilHist project, for people to revert any undiscussed moves that I have made that they think are wrong. This is normal WP:BRD kind of process. Discussion is not required where there's no controversy, but when a move is objected to it becomes controversial and needs to be reverted or discussed or both. Only after such discussions resolve the controversy can the issue be taken as settled. When an issue is thoroughly settled by enough discussions, only then can mass moves to implement the clear consensus be considered. I know all that. If I've messed up, please point it out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so Dicklyon has repeatedly questioned which of his moves were controversial and/or disruptive. Could someone provide the evidence? Do editors here consider all mass moves as controversial? He's also questioned what a mass move is. starship.paint (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, this started over a request to move "_____ Campaign" to "_____ campaign". I looked back through Dicklyon's moves over the last year or two, it's hard because he has many thousands of them. The mass moves that have been reverted were his moves of almost two hundred articles on lighthouses and about a hundred articles on world heritage sites. Dicklyon responded above somewhere to my questions about those, so I think you can just ctrl-F. As someone unfamiliar with these moves, it is hard to research after the fact because Dicklyon did not link any discussion in his move summaries, for these or the mass moves that were not reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for something specific. I provide relevant links to the chronology of that here.
    • Yes, the "Campaign" moves were what got MarcusBritish all riled (attacking me over that was practically his only contribution to Wikipedia this year). These have been done one-by-one with careful research, starting from a discussion in the MilHist project that suggested there was some unexplainable inconsistency in caps style, May 30: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Campaign article titles.
    • The 6 RM discussions about that (all closed with consensus to lowercase campaign) are listed at the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign, where an editor started off asking me, on 8 July, "Have we reached consensus about lower casing the word Campaign? Several articles have been moved again." Several; not mass. So we talked about the consensus to follow WP:NCCAPS and to proceed case-by-case consulting sources. There was a small move there to try to form a consensus for MilHist to have their own style fork, recommending capitalization where currrent policy and guidelines do not; only 5 members (of this huge active wikiproject) supported; Marcus was one of them. The proposal was actually made as a strawman by Peacemaker67, who opposed it. So as Marcus laments, the discussion fizzled, with no real support to buck current policy and guideilnes.
    • I made two mistakes. Brady Campaign on June 24, which I had lowercased as not the name of a specific thing, is most often capped in sources, so that was correctly reverted (it's not related to the MilHist moves except that I came upon it in a search for intitle:Campaign). And Admirable Campaign on July 11 I immediately self-reverted when I realized that I had misinterpreted my source stats. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moves continued carefully, case-by-case, a few per day. Nothing mass. One technical request was challenged and went to discussion, which is still open after more than 3 weeks mostly due to Marcus's noise: Talk:Waterloo Campaign#Requested move 18 July 2019. Please review that for the current state of thinking.
    • When Marcus brought it up again on 29 July at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS, there was no support for his position in the project. That's where his attacks got so bad that I came here, and where on Aug. 4 in talk:WikiProject Military history&diff=909317156&oldid=909314761 this diff, I asked project members to review my recent moves and say if any were problematic (before BMK's attempt to get me blocked). Still no response to that. Dicklyon (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Marcus did revert one move, based on his incompetent attempt to find one where I was wrong, on July 29; see Talk:Gettysburg campaign#Reverting move. We discussed, and I fixed it back on August 4. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the numbers come to nearly 100 over the last 2 months, these are not mass moves (my move log shows about 14 per week pretty consistently over 7 weeks, with the great majority after the 6 RM discussions). Marcus didn't like the results of the discussions that showed that there is a consensus to follow WP:NCCAPS even for MilHist articles. The MilHist project did not support him either in his wanting to change policy or in his approach to challenging the research on usage in sources using n-grams. Yes, there was grumbling at things changing, but no "mass" moves and relatively little controversy other than Marcus. I don't think any of these roughly 100 can be credibly contested, but as I pointed out in the project discussion, I'm always ready to be reverted and discuss. I also downcased a bunch of "Order of Battle" titles, without discussion; no pushback on that, as it's not controversial, though overcapitalization in MilHist articles is pretty much still the norm there. Dicklyon (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Someguy1221 and Dicklyon: Thank you both for this response. Someguy put it better than I ever could: editors will see a huge thread like this and won't know if it's worth looking into. I only generally comment on AN/I threads when I have an active report I'm waiting to get resolved, so I didn't know the backstory here.
    That being said, Dicklyon, you should really provide links to the discussions in your moves. Separately, I hope you'll walk away from this thread with valuable feedback on how you approach these sorts of discussions.
    I'd say more, but I'm on mobile waiting for the internet to come back on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose A (or similar)Yes, it is a mess. For a good part, it stems from how the allegations have been presented. They should be supported by diffs or links otherwise they are unsubstantiated. It is reasonable to expect a proposal to present and summaraise the evidence to support it, particularly given how this proposal had evolved.

    • Critically, is the inconsistency in wording between the unblock close and the notification of that close. This inconsistency was not transparently disclosed from the start. Those commenting here need to be given all of the facts so that they can make an informed comment. There are fundamental issues of fairness, which are compromised by not doing so.
    • In either case, the wording of the close/notice is subjective. What is "controversial"? There is always someone that will disagree with the actions of another (either here or in the RW) and WP is about discussing differences to build a consensus. At WP:BOLD: Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. From that, we might glean that "controversial" is likely linked to previous disputes. There is a requirement to "avoid". To do so would require prior knowledge that such actions are going to be controversial. And what defines a "mass move"? Is it by quantity or rate and are they intrinsically controversial? BMK, at this ANI archive thread observed: Any normal Wikipedia action will generally be considered to be run the risk of being considered disruptive if done en masse, unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass action is acceptable. So, to the second part, the answer appears to be, no. Also, BMK has referred to "en masse", which would be a large number at a high rate.
    • Given the ambiguity in the close/notification, we should look to the principle it is trying to express - a principle which centres on "controversial". Dicklyon has offered a statement (corroborated by others involved, such as Randy Kryn) that moves en masse were made following discussion and were therefore, not inherently controversial.
    • The next question is, why are we only now considering this? The assertion is that this is not a recent issue but nor has it been concealed from scrutiny. The matter was originally raised here by MarcusBritish to weaponise their attacks against Dicklyon. This, of itself, appears inappropriate.
    • Of the "campaign moves" that initiated the OP here, the moves were initiated with what appeared to be an affirmation of the guidelines per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS per this discussion as of 2 June (noting that subsequent posts were made, I believe, after Dicklyon commenced moves).
    • I previously observed near the opening of this discussion that the most controversial thing about these moves has been the behaviour of MB. It is disappointing that this was permitted to continue both here and at MilHist for so long without intervention, where an appropriate intervention may have caused them to modify their behaviour (I said may), without the ultimate result we now have. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    As I don't think a consensus to sanction Dicklyon will emerge as it's past time to move on.-- Dlohcierekim 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm good with that so long as it's noted that Marcus is C-BANNED per his block log. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Banned? Do threatening Emails result in a “community ban”? I see him only losing the known account. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Incnis Mrsi: A consensus emerged on this page for indeffing Marcus for his incivility. He continued the incivility on his talk page and lost talk page access. He harassed users via email and lost that access as well. As you are an admin, I'm surprised you are not aware that the community consensus to indef does constitute a community ban.-- Dlohcierekim 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Firstly, Dlohcierekim mistakes about me and I’m essentially nobody here. But
    Where do we see a (sub)section on the community ban for MarcusBritish from the site and the closure thereof? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, if I'm not mistaken, a CBAN is for the person behind the accounts- however many they have.-- Dlohcierekim 20:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree that this has been open long enough, and has attracted sufficient community involvement (some of it CANVASSed by Dicklyon), to be closed. And I also agree with Dlohcierekim that (caveat: I haven't actually run the numbers) it doesn't appear as if my Proposal (A) has attracted sufficient support to be enacted. However, I would like to point out to the closer that, taken together, support for that proposal (which called for a re-instatement of Dicklyon's previous indef block) and support for a topic ban means that there is probably sufficient support (again, I haven't counted) for some kind of sanction against Dicklyon for one to be imposed. My view is that a topic ban is sort of a "lesser included" sanction, and that the !votes for indeffing should count as support for (at least) a topic ban. Perhaps the closer will see it differently, but that's my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I have now done a raw count of the votes. Here are my results:
    • Support Proposal (A) [indef block] - 10 (1 weak)
    • Support topic ban - 2
    • Oppose - 14 (2 strong, 5 opposing both proposal and TBan)
    • Neutral/no opinion - 6
    Given these results (and please note that I did not double check them), I have altered my original comment, as it's apparent that there is no numerical support for a sanction against Dicklyon. The only factor remaining is the strength of arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So I guess I'm supposed to choose a bit to remind the closer of, too? I choose my first remark on BMK's proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember that one, it's a classic. It's the one where you were amazed that a non-admin would dare make a proposal to sanction you. You'd be surprised, we've come a long way - why non-admins can even smoke cigarettes and wear pants these days! Soon, we hope to get the right to vote! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It seems like pointless bureaucracy to say Marcus needs a separate proposal to be CBANned. The only point of a CBAN is that an admin can't overturn the block without community consent, and I'm pretty sure a savvy admin will realize they'll need that anyways. Let's just make that official and not waste anymore time debating it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, honestly, leaving him not community-banned might be the better way to go, if only because it denies recognition to him. On the other hand, it is helpful to be able to go to his userpage and see that he's banned for whatever reason. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reading of WP:CBAN, and my understanding of how things have worked in the past on AN, is that you basically need three things in order to have a CBAN:
    • (1) An indef block
    • (2) Either a review of the block requested by the blocking admin, or an appeal of the block requested by the indeffed editor
    • (3) A community discussion which endorses the indef block or rejects the appeal
    After all three of those things happens, then the editor is Community Banned. In the case of MarcusBritish, all we have at this point is #1, the indef block. Yes, Courcelles made the block on the basis of the community's input, but the block still needs to be "tested" by being reviewed or appealed and then endorsed. Without thsat, you really don't have a CBan, you simply have a run-of-the-mill indef block. Recall that community site bans are supposed to be more serious than mere blocks; a simple indef block imposed by an admin -- even if it's on the basis of community input -- can still be overturned by any single admin. It takes the re-consideration of the block by the community, and subsequent endorsement, to make it into a CBan that only the community can lift.
    At least that's the way it's always worked from my experience, and my understanding from reading WP:CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    The following text was inadvertently added coincidental with the close as a response to the correction by Beyond My Ken. It has been removed from the closed thread but is recorded here.

    "en masse":In a single body or group; as one, together.If a group of people do something en masse, they do it together and at the same time.in a body: as a whole.In a group, body, or mass; as a whole; all together. And my Macquarie Dictionary: in a mass or body; all together. The common element of these definitions is "all together" - ie, at the same time. Rate is a function of time. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

    Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So... you quoted my words to make a point you wanted to make, and when I corrected you as to my understanding of what the meaning of my words was, you "corrected" me with a dictionary definition (and from Wikitionary, for that matter, an unreliable source), as if the dictionary knows better than I do what I intended the words that I wrote to mean. Do you not see the problem with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Not really a legal threat. indeffed for other reasons-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    on User talk:MarcusBritish‎. @SarekOfVulcan:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    permalink to dif-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's essentially a call for suppression of a comment and sanctions on the commenting user. He does say that the comment is "libellous", but I don't see any threat of going to an outside authority. I wouldn't interpret it as a legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They danced right up to the line, but I don't they crossed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem:However, in their second comment, here, they doubled-down on their comment re: Dlohcierekim and Asperger's, writing that D is: "only proving that he can't handle himself socially and resorts to attacks of his own." An admin might like to take a look at that in terms of extending Sarek's block of MB, and perhaps removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the gaslighting nature of MB's edits since the block I would suggest that removal of talk page access would be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BMK and MarnetteD. It's one thing being annoyed post-block, and saying something in the heat of the moment, but this is on another level. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

    As was previously reported on ANI, [here] and [here] before that, Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to periodically add unsourced changes to population of speakers in the Cantonese article. user:Kanguole, user:LiliCharlie and myself have left numerous messages on their talk page asking them repeatedly to discuss their changes on the talk page, they made a single post to my talk page [here], on 10 July, to accuse us of being "Cantonese haters" (which I found highly amusing being a Cantonese speaker myself) and in effect threaten to sock if they were blocked You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Since then, they've continued to try and add their synthesis to the article. More recently, they've given up using the unreliable source and have gone straight for changing numbers irrespective of what the source already says, effectively misrepresenting the source altogether.

    Prior to the 11 July edit, they were asked each time to provide a source, but Kanguole (bless their patience) has given up asking and just reverts their edit. At this point, it is obvious we're dealing with an editor whose disregard for proper sourcing and penchant for slow motion edit warring and I would ask for a block. I will be notifying all involved editors shortly. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My impression is that this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and that they are consuming volunteer editors' precious time instead. I agree that a block seems justified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the user for two weeks, to stop the disruption. Perhaps he will reconsider his approach, though these edits don't inspire much hope.[11][12] If he continues after the block expires, I would recommend an indefinite block. Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Based on the name of the citation (中国语言地图集 （第2版）Language Atlas of China (2nd ed.) i would guess the citation would only supported the number of Cantonese speaker of China. But may be missing the (estimated) figures of Cantonese speaker in Malaysia, Australia and North America, etc.. However, it is not a valid reason for Jaywu2000 to insert unsourced figures to the wiki article, especially insert in-between the figures and the citation. He did stated his figure was copied from ethnologue in his talk page (see Special:Diff/905543170), but i am not sure ethnologue had been discussed in WP:RSN as reliable source or not. And then the personal attack in his talk page (Special:Diff/905582502) had deteriorated my good faith on him. So, yup, he need to learn to use WP:RS and solving the dispute in proper way such as WP:Rfc, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Or he need an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki articles. Matthew hk (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Douchebagdelight2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a brand new account, has just appeared making this edit to the article. Obvious duck is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, this user has now been blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as a username violation. Blackmane (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it seem now the case need to refer to SPI or a quick ping in order to determine the block of Jaywu2000 should be extended due to socking allegation. In theory his temp block had "account creation blocked" but not sure there is way to bypass it. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be inclined to leave it as it is for now. Jaywu2000 is still blocked. If they continue their previous behaviour after they are unblocked, they can be reblocked. As for account creation, that would only be from the particular IP they are using. If they are on a dynamic IP then it wouldn't stop them from creating new accounts. Blackmane (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent unsourced edits and disruption

    After four warnings, Xqq1238 (talk · contribs) has continued to make unsourced additions and changes, often contradicting existing sources. Many of the changes are to countries' population and area figures. The changes are sometimes correct, but often false. The latest change, after the "final warning" was: [13] (the sources mention neither "Arabs" nor "Africans", and the figure for "Americans" doesn't correspond with the source.) They have also been edit-warring, for example repeatedly inserting the same unsourced figure for the area of Germany: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (apparently they've taken the number from de:Deutschland, but it also contradicts the given source in that article.) Most of their edits have been reverted, for being unsourced or otherwise disruptive. Some other examples of unsourced changes to statistics include: [21], [22], [23], etc.

    I've already reported them two weeks ago as an obvious sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc, an editor with a long history of thousands of exactly the same type of edits, going back to at least 2016. Not sure why it's taking so long, but in the meantime they're causing a fair amount of disruption, as usual. --IamNotU (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they've stopped editing from the Xqq1238 account, and have gone back to editing logged out from Special:Contributions/2A01:111F:E1A:A400::/64, now that ST47's block from April on that range, from the previous SPI report, expired a week or so ago. I'll add it to the current SPI report, but maybe someone wants to just go ahead and block that range again? It's very obvious that it's the same person, and that they're continuing to add the same unsourced - and in many cases obviously fabricated - statistics, etc. They've been back at it for almost two months now and have made hundreds of edits, and I reported it already three weeks ago now... --IamNotU (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Artinpl1 also using IP 212.180.254.29 also known (as per self) as Marcin Latka

    The user repeatedly has tried to add an otherwise unknown image uploaded, identified and sourced only by h-self as "Artinpl1" or "Marcin Latka" (same person as per self) to a number of Wikipedia articles in various languages (most reversed by me today). Here help offered by a a WP:3O volunteer was ignored, our reliable source requirement has been summarily disregarded and the talk culminated (just now) in more aggressiveness & ridicule plus the statement "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published.".

    Further such activity this year (adding info with no source or h-self only as source) can be found here [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. It is hard to find good faith in this work. I have not looked through all the input by IP 212.180,254.29 but must assume that the rest of that too mainly is to promote the personal POV of "Artinpl1" a.k.a. "Marcin Latka" sourced only to Facebook or Flickr or Pinterest pages etc all created by that person. I've found no other kind of editing from the registered user or that IP.

    Because of what looks to me like a deliberate hoax, or at least a very doggedly clung-to error, in the case of the Anna Vasa image, I believe all of this person's image identifications must be questioned, and that an administrator or two should try to curb this activity asap. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now also had reason to notify Commons administrators of this problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Couldn't this rationally be assumed to be the same person? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Artinpl is individual, independent, educational project. All this is clear stalking, such people and those who blocked me earlier are doing more harm to wikipedia, than I ever done with any of my edits. Artinpl1 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We are all supposed to only add content which is reliably sourced. Nothing else is allowed. Content is not reliably sourced if we always use only ourselves as the sources for all the content we add. In other words, even content that is educational, interesting and valubale must be left out of Wikipedia if it is not reliably sourced to others than ourselves.
    2. We are not supposed to use Wikipedia to exhibit or promote our own businesses or private projects, whether or not they are individual or independent, especially not when sourcing such entries only to ourselves.
    3. We are not supposed to publish images elsewhere under our own clear copyright, then upload them to Wikimedia Commons (which does not allow copyrighted images) and then spread them ourselves from Commons to Wikipedia articles in several different languages. Thousands more wonderful and valuable images could be added to Commons and Wikipedia articles if copyright laws, and our consequent rules here, were not in the way.
    4. We are not supposed to evade blocking by creating new account names and then continuing to do the same things we were blocked for.
    5. We are not supposed change the heading of an ANI report about ourselves.
    6. We are not supposed to make arbitrary accusations against other users (such as the stalking allegations now made here & at Commons & at German Wikipedia), which are personal attacks.
    Reporting someone, for refusing to respect some of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's guidelines, is not stalking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seemingly persistent disruptive user

    Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · count)

    I have no current issues with this user (I have in the past}. I just saw (on my watchlist) another warning given, didn't even read it. I just thought it's time to bring this to the community. All the evidence is listed on their talk, there's been many users trying to help and guide this "new comer" (including myself and a very good Admin). Anyway, here it is lets see where it goes, Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm one of the users who's given quite a few warnings and sent messages to BKF. I have tried explaining, which Ad Orientem also did, to slow down their rate of editing. They seem to be an editor who thinks that once somebody explains something to them about one article/example, that this must mean every example they can think of has to be changed to be the same. I know most folks at ANi don't care about content, so I'll spare most of what it was regarding, but for example, they claimed that because a remixed version of a song is on an album and a different version of this song was released separately as a single at the same time, that this single could not have been released in promotion of the album because a different version of the song is on the album. They were reverted and told to go to the talk page, which I and others have advised countless times. They then went to several other articles of similar cases where a song was not in the same version it was on the album and changed those too.
    A lot of their edits seem to be made this way, regarding which single is from which album. They have commented on talk pages, but honestly not enough. I also believe this editor "competes" to have either the current or most edits on an article based on how many articles they make repeated incremental edits to and I really don't know why. I have not linked to diffs here because as FlightTime said, it's all on their talk page and I am not the only editor to raise this "competing for the current edit" concern with them. Also, their penchant for adding hatnotes often leads into bizarre territory like this, where they think someone would come to Wikipedia looking to buy diamonds and be typing in "buy me diamonds" to do it, and this hatnote on Norman Rockwell, where they think the title of Lana Del Rey's upcoming Norman Fucking Rockwell album may be confused with it when nobody has referred to Del Rey's album as just "Norman Rockwell". My patience with explaining things to this user and the fact that what goes for one example is not the same for all like it wears thinner by the day. Ad Orientem tried explaining things to this user (I believe via email), but they have chosen to disregard most, if not all, of that. Ss112 00:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For context, I've had several interactions with BKF due to similar topics of interest. They definitely aren't a vandal, know how to use article talk pages and also provide well-written edit summaries. They are also patient and able to take 70% of the advice I have given them. The main issue is their need to change everything to what they think it is, without looking up what reliable sources have to say about it, along with WP:POINT-making behaviour. Another issue is adding useless hatnotes to articles, which would only make sense to them. BKF definitely does also have a problem regarding making bogus edits just to become the current last editor on pages they like. Which can be annoying regardless of not being a blatant policy violation. To sum it up, they're not all bad, but definitely not a net positive. I have a little sympathy for them as they joined WP a mere 4 months ago. I suggest WP:AAU as a solution, and oppose a block or penalty of any length as of now. If the disruption is still ongoing a month later, then this can be revisited. This AN discussion will probably make it clear that they need to calm down, and if not then the WP:ROPE scenario will play out.--NØ 07:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Billiekhalidfan - Can you respond to the statements made by MaranoFan above? I understand that you're still becoming established with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we can't have repeated disruption occurring and at such a high rate if this is happening... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: This user has received two more warnings from two separate users since this thread was created, including one where they were told by another editor to slow down yet again. They haven't, as they are still making uninformed edits in the same vein as the previous talked about above and at this point I'm just thinking it's disruptive because my patience is frayed. I'm quite sure they're not going to respond here. Ss112 14:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the users who warned BKF yesterday, I can vouch for their contentious editing, frequent edit warring, and WP:POINT making behavior. Similarly to MaranoFan and Ss112, I have encountered BKF before as we both edit several of the same articles regarding similar topics of interest. Since the user is new, I initially tried to assume good faith and not to take too much issue with their edits (I figured they were just learning the ins and outs of WP). However, this disruptive behavior previously mentioned has continued on several pages. Regarding the warning given yesterday, I wrote to them about not changing information to support their own personal opinion after an edit war they had on Tempo (Lizzo song), in which they proceeded to remove a specific part of the opening description that disagreed with their own lyrical interpretation of the song. I have since noticed similar disruptive behavior on other music-related articles that I have edited. At this point, I think a block of some kind would be necessary considering their track record of disruptive editing and frequent edit warring. Gemsweater1 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must add that I’ve had a slight change of opinion too. BKF has completely ghosted this discussion and their spamming and point-making behaviour has gotten worse over the last few days. They’re now resorting to edit warring and continue changing things to what they think it is. Recent disruption also involves personal attacking some users who tried to help them. So with all that in mind, there is no point in letting the disruption continue any longer. I endorse indefinitely blocking BKF, with a chance to appeal it when they are ready to learn from their mistakes.—NØ 10:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Editing by User:Fæ

    The result of this community discussion is that Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, has been reinstated. For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fæ (talk · contribs · count)

    This report concerns Fae's activities on a page regarding Jessica Yaniv and the subject's court case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Fae does not want this page to exist and is in the midst of trying to have it deleted. Fae has also fought to keep properly sourced material out of the article, even to the extent of violating the 1RR sanction that they asked for in the first place.

    But this concerns Fae's remark on the talk page for the article: "I'm actually starting to wonder if I should argue the case the other way, deliberately quote ten more shitty transphobic ranty sources, and get this article deleted as an attack page." [[34]]

    And that is precisely what they did just thirty minutes later, adding statements to the effect that transgender people go against common sense, among other things. [[35]]. This is apparently an attempt to make good on their promise to add transphobic content to the article in order to have it deleted as an attack page. They began edit warring to keep this material in the article, but stopped after an admin pointed out that they violated the 1RR rule in the process.

    Another editor pointed out that "This seems like editing to illustrate a point." [[36]] I noted that deliberately adding material to an article in order to bolster a deletion argument is disruptive. [[37]]

    I asked if Fae would cease this kind of disruptive editing. [[38]]. They responded that they would not. [[39]]

    I have no idea what else to do, aside from bring it to ANI for resolution. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not inexplicable when you consider what I actually did and what the reasons were for that. I did not, as you say "add a tweet from Ricky Gervais." In a sentence regarding the international coverage of this case, which is rare for the BCHRT, it was noted that Ricky Gervais mentioned the matter and that had garnered media attention. His actual tweets were not included - if you'll check, I was using the same verbiage as the source. The purpose of this edit was to illustrate the international media attention this case has garnered, which is rare for a BCHRT matter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And I believe you're taking my comment about the human rights lawyer out of context, as well. At the time that I said that it should be removed, it was quite literally the only content under a heading called "Commentary." The section has developed since then, and it's now appropriate for inclusion when you look at the entire section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I've been watching this mostly from the sidelines and am not enamored with Fae's behavior in continuously ratcheting up the tension level on this and related pages. Fae has, in connection with this and another case (though Fae would deny the connection), recently been cautioned at WP:ARCA for very similar behavior ([40], [41]), again, ratcheting up the tension level and repeatedly seeking to impugn and discredit the motivations of good-faith discussion participants. I think there may be grounds for reconsidering whether Fae's editing in this topic area is a a net positive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material I added was providing context for the inclusion of Tucker Carlson as a commenting pundit on the BC Tribunal case. Carlson is exceptional famous for ranty diatribes and has promoted white supremacist views and homophobic views, and these are exceedingly well sourced. The context I added was Carlson's precise words, from the comment about the BC Tribunal case that had been added to the article by others, along with new sources. This is not excessive, it is providing context for the casual reader who may not know that Carlson is not an neutral journalist reporting the case. It remains odd that these tangential views are being argued by Cosmic Sans as being necessary, when they are at best tangential. However if they are to remain in the article on this case about a trans woman, then Carlson's actual comments being made should be explained, especially the misgendering of that trans woman he was talking about, and calling Canada "sick".
    Per WP:BLP, tabloid journalism should not be in articles like this. If the argument put forward on the article talk page is accepted, that this is not tabloid journalism, then it is reasonable to give it context. To deny context because the context looks like tabloid journalism, but leaving the context out but still including the comment as notable, is a bizarre catch 22 argument.
    By the way, this catches me as I go to bed, and I may not look at this tomorrow, being busy with building work. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, it strikes me that you're describing mainstream journalism as "tabloid journalism" merely because those mainstream articles refer to information from a tabloid source. We don't call that an unreliable source, we call that a secondary source. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mendaliv, I think you should try and read the talk page to get a better understanding of the valid points Fae has brought up about the news coverage of this story, which indeed seems to be just another sensationalist thing to sell headlines with. This is just pure bullshit; no matter what reputation the Toronto Sun might have, I cannot accept a paper that prints that kind of (transphobic) trash as a reliable source for a BLP. In fact, we should not even accept what it claims are basic facts. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be true, or there may be alternative sources that can be used, but all of this is obscured by Fae's battleground, combative misconduct, on this article and on others. That is the problem being addressed by this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess one clarification we might agree on, is whether editors can call objectively transphobic abuse in a source that another editor is adding to a BLP, "transphobic", or whether that word, even if accurate is always off limits. In most other places, it is okay to say that misgendering a trans woman is transphobic language or simply transphobic, because it meets the accepted definition. In the past on Wikimedia projects I have used "t-word" rather than writing "transphobic" because that word was so inflammatory even if accurate. If folks want to try doing that, let's all make an agreement to limit our language and we can be consistent about it. --Fæ (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Transphobic" is a great word. Describes exactly what it says on the tin. We shouldn't hesitate to call out transphobia where we encounter it (I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that).
    But this isn't a story about transphobia. Where Jessica Yaniv has experienced transphobia, that's regrettable but it's not the main story. The story here is whether it's possible or acceptable for transgender women to behave "improperly" to the BC HRT (and the BC HRT has used just that term), or similarly if transgender women can behave in a manner towards waxing salons which has been variously questioned as improper, inappropriate, racist or profiteering. Being transgender doesn't excuse such behaviours! On that point, I think we do start to diverge. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So don't accept it. If that's a trash source, then we just don't use it. End of story. A problem with this incident is that it has played directly into the TERF and reactionary right narrative. This is the "female predator"(Fiona Robertson's term) in the girl's locker room that they warned us of. So unsurprisingly, the right-wing and trash press have been quicker to cover it than anything more balanced. But that's not to say that there's no better sourcing available to us. We can use that, and it's enough to work with. This complaint of poor sources has pervaded the AfD out of all proportion to the actual problem it presents to us. We ignore the dross and work with the better stuff alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've also watched Fae's editing behavior from the side. Though I don't have difs handy, I've seem plenty of battleground behavior, edit warring (as recently as today), bludgeoning, unwarranted accusations of bad faith editing. Fae seems to have an extremely pointy POV that is being pushed at the expense of the quality of the articles and the civility of the talk page interactions. I would suggest considering reinstating Fae's previous Tban lifted in 2016 [[42]] Springee (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that Fae called me "abusive and transphobic" in an edit summary today [[43]] because I added the following sentence to the article: "Yaniv's case has garnered international attention, and was featured in a segment on Tucker Carlson's television show on Fox News." I think this is excessive to say the least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be fair, Fae called the content "abusive" and "transphobic", but I would argue the context suggests it was intended to be a personal attack, and in any event making those kinds of edit summaries rather than making a straightforward referral to the talk page without further editorialization is just another sign of Fae ratcheting up the tension levels to an intolerable level in order to drive away people who don't wish to be associated with edits that anybody calls transphobic. I can see many people whose on-wiki personas are known elsewhere or who edit under their real names being seriously chilled by such conduct simply out of a desire to protect their own livelihoods. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you could read it two ways. For various personal reasons I was a little upset by the implication. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand, I would've been fuming myself to be told I was doing something that was transphobic and abusive. Like I said, it's yet another example of Fae ratcheting up the tension level. Andy Dingley lists a number of other examples below. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I find this reading bizarre as I just cannot read it differently to the way I intended. Sorry if you read it as an accusation about you, but my words in the edit comment are intended as factual statements about the content, not about any Wikipedian. --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the intent, it's a very hostile way of editing and I think you've shown a pattern of hostile editing throughout this article and other articles. I understand you were topic banned for this sort of thing back in 2016. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My worry would be that a taunting edit summary like that is less about driving editors away (anyone still here is thick skinned) but rather an attempt to provoke them into a harsh reaction in turn. Because Fae is excellent at then playing the victim. And woe betide anyone who might act in a way which could then be presented as the faintest suspicion of transphobia! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a quick example from many, four days ago they posted this: [44] " no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap," to which I replied " you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI." There has been no such change in attitude, and so yes, we find ourselves at ANI.
    Naturally everyone involved has had a dire warning of GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions dumped on their talk page. Today Fae went to 3RR to remove something from the article (wasn't there already a discretionary sanction in place?) and then imposed a unilateral 1RR across the article Talk:Jessica_Yaniv_waxing_case#One_revert_rule_is_in_place, just to make sure that their now "correct" version would stick. Fae just will not accept that the same rules bind all of us, Fae included.
    I would certainly support reinstatement of a TBAN. Or maybe Fae just complying with the basic policies which apply to all of us regardless, would be a good start? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban on transsexualism? Jonathunder (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a ban on edits dealing with gender and gender identity. Fae would probably agree that one could be placed as a discretionary sanction under the GamerGate DS regime—though I don't think said regime is so broad, and would therefore prefer we did so through a proper community-based discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand there's a TBAN from 2016 which has been suspended? Maybe that would be suitable for reinstatement. But Fae seems unable to proceed in this area without behaving inappropriately towards other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not suspended anymore, but completely vacated. The Committee would need to reinstate it via an ARCA, and my current opinion of Committee procedures with regard to their strange interpretation of finality is such that I don't think that should be done except in a new case request. That's not to say I think a new case request should be brought. If a sanction is warranted here, and I'm not sure that one is, it's entirely possible to bring it via community discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an administrator, so it's not my call about 1RR.
    I am happy to comply with all basic policies as you suggest. Feel free to highlight any policy violations you perceive about my edits on my talk page and we can discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I'm not mistaken you, Andy Dingley, advocated using a blatantly crappy source for a BLP, so that thing about "basic policies" applies to you also. By the way, you made a completely ridiculous accusation, that I somehow implied you were someone's sock? This was a dumb comment. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, Drmies, this problem could have been prevented had Fae's combative misconduct not taken place in the article. By continually ratcheting up the tension level, Fae has created a hostile editing environment in which mistakes like you describe are not only more likely, but are bound to be made. Many editors, myself included, will not edit in this topic area because it is quite simply radioactive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is at ANI already. So you do not make hand-waving accusations at other editors like that, you provide diffs at the same time. No ifs, no buts, so I've struck it until you specify just what source and when I was "advocating". And in particular, you don't pull this "Oh, I might have been mistaken all along, I did mention it, don'tcha know?" crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah Andy Dingley: you referenced or linked to claims that Yaniv was a "sexual predator" five different times (4 in that deletion discussion alone): 1,2, 3, 4, 5. One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. I agree that some of Fae's rhetoric has been over the top, but I think that's an odd instance to point to, and it clearly wasn't out of the blue. Nblund talk 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. Point of clarification: Does WP:BLP apply to the content in sources? I don't think so. It can be perfectly fine to cite sources containing things that we would never say in Wikipedia's voice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one, certainly not me, is going to use Miranda Yardley as a source anywhere near BLPRS. But I'd also point out that Fiona Robertson, the National Women's and Equalities Convener for the Scottish National Party used the term "female predator", and we can source that through the Glasgow Herald (which still isn't a tabloid). Now, whether we need to is a good question - it has little to do with waxing, but that's one of the reasons why I advocate widening the scope of this article to Jessica Yaniv more broadly, at which point these many accusations and the widespread allegation of inappropriate and predatory behaviour towards young girls will come up again. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or did you mean the Vancouver Sun, which you have classed as a tabloid on the grounds that its writers also wrote for tabloid papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a reference to your comment here where you said calling Yaniv a "sexual predator" would be "on the table" on the basis of a Miranda Yardley blog post. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took it to mean you thought that this sort of commentary might be acceptable on a BLP. In any case: you referenced those claims a whole lot, and presumably that's what Fae was bringing up. I'm not saying it warrants sanction, but I also don't think Fae's comment is way off base, taken in context. Nblund talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think". Well, sorry, but I'm looking for Drmies to back up their accusation here, as they're the one who made it.
    As I have never made any secret of, I detest (and pity) Miranda Yardley. My comment in that diff was "and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything" because it's the only time I've ever cited Yardley as a commentator on anything. You might note that I've cited Fiona Robertson far more, and have every intention to carry on doing so. My only reason for including Yardley was to illustrate just how far this condemnation of Yaniv has spread, and how many independent commentators (and Yardley is at least prominent, even if she appalls me and I dread to think of a situation which would accept her as RS). I did not "reference those claims a lot", I have (until now) made only one reference to her (my shower isn't big enough for the scrubbing down I needed afterwards). Never for one moment would I suggest using her as a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've referenced "those claims" (sexual predation) 3 times in this thread alone. Aside from just reflecting inexcusably bad judgement, it looks pretty clear to me that you're calling for Fae to be sanctioned for correctly noting that you want to bring allegations of child abuse to main space. Of all the legitimate grievances you could point to, this is just asinine. Nblund talk 01:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this, I have spent too much time on the BC Tribunal case article, getting trapped in circular debate, and some of the content does make me sad, including the anti-trans material and abuse claims that I have felt obliged to examine in detail, stuff I would never, ever, seek out normally as you cannot "unsee" it. I am clearly arguing for one point of view to the exclusion of others, my intent being to address an imbalance of discussion, but even starting out with good intentions, that's not a proper way for any Wikipedian to think about articles in the long term as we individually should be concerned with all the evidence.

    I'm removing it from my watchlist, and I'll no longer participate in the associated AfD or any other discussions about it. I'll trust the community to stick to the high requirement of BLPRS to sort it out.

    Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not good enough. It's a great (and well-known) strategy to avoid ANI by either not engaging with it, or walking away from a particular battle. But that's not enough. You've gone too far. Other editors need and deserve protection from your combative editing like this. Just saying "I'm walking away and I won't do it again (but only this one page!)" doesn't cut it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as much in agreement with Andy that it's not good enough, but I think it's the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Your involvement in the Yanav article isn't the issue, and I think that your own viewpoints should be valued. The problem is that the combativeness, wikilawyering, tension, bad faith, etc. undermine both the credibility of those opinions and the overall value of those contributions. People aren't apt to listen, and in fact might fight back for the sake of fighting back, under such circumstances. That said I can respect your decision to back out of that article and AfD, and wish you nothing but the best. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Andy, If you examine my contributions in the last 12 months, I think only this article and discussions about it, are what you have a specific problem with. If you look at my user page I have created several articles about notable trans women and non binary people, none is subject to debate anything like this article. Rather than some general topic area, this case is an extremely unusual set of sources and extra-ordinary content to deal with as a community. Were the plaintiff in the case not subject to serious accusations, being the matter under discussion at BLP/N, then I doubt that the two of us would be in any protracted dispute about content and principles. The fact is that you have firmly agreed with me on some of these issues relating to the respectful treatment of trans women more generally, let's not fail to recognize that fundamentally we agree on these topics, it is just this case that is by its nature a bad one for me personally to take a stand on. --Fæ (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen your contributions for the last 12 months over those last twelve months. My silence, or at least not going to ANI, should not be taken to indicate that I am particularly happy with the style in which they were carried out. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that I've never been your enemy, nor actually an adversary when it comes to content and improvement. We've both been part of many policy related discussions on Commons as well as tricky deletions. Feel free to raise issues on my talk page rather than building cases for dispute resolution. We've both been around this project a long time and understand how most things can work out or where the systematic holes are than we try to keep walking around. I did read your comments, and did consider the points you were making about this case. Just because we do not agree, does not mean that you cannot make me doubt my case and change it or do an about face and agree with you. You probably have seen me doing exactly that in our discussions.
    You can normally tell because some smart person will point me out as being a hypocrite. --Fæ (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Good example of how Wikipedia isn't good for covering current events based just on recent news, especially when it comes to BLPs. How about a great big trouting for anyone who added an opinion piece or, worse yet, extracted the most scandalous bits about a living person, a double-big-extra-spicy trouting for anyone who reinstated that material when reverted, and then we just delete this and move on until there is evidence of lasting significance in reliable sources (not tabloids, not opinion columns, not blogs, etc.)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The story is a year or two old already - and growing, what with the arrest. In Canada it's (AFAIK) "the biggest BC HRT case yet" and there was something about them running out of space in the tribunal's room for the numbers of public spectators wanting to get in. We already have coverage in three broadsheets. Although there is a lot of trash coverage, and the right-wing reactionary press love this story because it plays to their narrative so well, there's plenty more besides. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the issue of the Toronto Sun As I've mentioned a couple of times at the AfD and at BLP/N, they are most certainly not a reliable source for anything. If postmedia has something reliable to publish, they do so in the Vancouver Sun or the National Post, and even those publications are dubious on politically sensitive issues in an election year. The vast majority of postmedia's local papers (such as the PEI Guardian, also cited at AfD) are just reprinters of the postmedia wire service. And the Toronto Sun is perhaps the worst publication on the postmedia roster, a tabloid both in format and content. It is about as reliable for BLPs as the Daily Mail. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Bullying warning

    The biggest thing I have seen is Fæ attempting to litigate opposing points of view out of discussion on talk pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and when rebuked there, doubling down on the same tactic at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Removal of apparently libellous hearsay and links to apparently libellous hearsay on talk pages relating to the "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons" tribunal case.

    In the light of Fae asking @ Arbitration that transphobic statements be grounds for discretionary sanctions, I find this edit to be particularly chilling. Fae considers believing that "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement, so I must conclude one that is grounds for discretionary sanctions. This has a negative impact on the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view, in light of the Wikilawyering, victimhood, drama, cries of transphobia, cries for censorship, cries of things being too disturbing or offensive to even read, etc. I get the impression that if Fae had their way, the wording of the leads of Woman and Trans woman would not even be open to discussion at all.

    For someone with any aversion to conflict the prospect of dealing with Fae may be daunting. For this reason I propose Fae being warned against bullying other editors, particularly in gender-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not chilling to raise an Arbcom request to discuss whether or not discretionary sanctions can or should be clarified more clearly to address the specific use of Wikipedia by Wikipedians to generally espouse their own views which measurably and factually attack the existence or rights of other Wikipedians. You are free to contribute factual statements to the GamerGate Arbcom request, but if the request were "chilling" then Arbcom members would be the first to state that and reject the request. I have no problem with contributors producing sources and explaining for the improvement of Wikipedia articles that it is a political lobbying view that only cis women are women, which by definition is the view that trans women are not women. It is also perfectly factually correct to discuss whether in Wikipedia's voice we can or should accurately describe those views which deny the rights of trans women, or deny them the ability to exist, as quite literally being transphobic views.
    However two other things are true:
    1. Currently in "Wikipedia's voice" we state as fact "trans women are women". Consequently that is how "structurally" Wikipedia is built, in the nature of acceptable labels, categories, article titles or the respectful description of living trans women. If you wish to change that, then that is itself a policy discussion I fully encourage you to have, in the correct venue which might actually be the Arbcom request that I raised.
    2. All editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to improve articles, including the frank but good faith discussion of what is commonly called racist, homophobic or transphobic views published in reliable sources that clearly can improve articles. Naturally the precise same policies ensure than all editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to include the frank but good faith discussion of anti-racist, pro-gay or pro-trans equality views published in reliable sources for the purpose of article improvement. Editors are not free to publish their personal views about minority groups which breach our common understanding of WP:5P4 and it is likely to be a breach of other policies, some of which is discussed by others in the current Arbcom clarification request and existing motions and amends.
    Nowhere have I said that articles like Woman or Trans woman would cease being open to discussion. What I do advocate is a better understanding of how policy can better apply to those discussions, without needing to hamper the purpose of those discussions.
    Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s. after reflection, I realised that I do not understand why you used the term "litigate". I believe you are using it as a synonym for something like "argue" or "debate", could you clarify what you meant? It has a meaning that I think is unintentional. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had taken "litigate" to mean that you had escalated a discussion from article talk: or AfD to the sort of pages which Must Not Be Named and are only addressed by their ALLCAPS acronyms. The implication being that this is a form of meta-discussion about talk: pages, and where the stakes were raised: in particular where sanctions against your opponent editors (and I use that term deliberately) were more easily available.
    If that was indeed DIYeditor's intended use of the term, then I saw it as particularly apposite in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh: I think Fae has been a bit of a bully, but I don't think it merits this particular sanction. I'm not sure any sanction is really necessary at this point. I'm more willing to let the discussion in this thread serve as notice that there are genuine concerns with Fae's behavior that are not mere posturing in the midst of an ongoing content dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mendaliv, I second your "meh". I suppose I can see a reason for some of the concerns, but I do think it's overblown and doesn't merit sanctions. It's been said that Fae sometimes uses the wrong method to achieve the right goal, but I don't think this case is the best example of that. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban consideration

    • Support topic ban on human sexuality and gender per ongoing discussion (note the “and gender” part). I’m sorry, but I agree with the others below that Fae’s sudden contrition isn’t enough here, particularly in light of the long history of trouble in this topic area. It’s time to deal with this before more editors are driven out of the topic area. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullying How much bullying merits sanctioning? How much do we tolerate? Why do we tolerate it at all?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer topic ban I see no ownership by Fae of their negative behaviors. Instead they are simply saying they will take a break from this dispute with no aknowledgement of wrong doing. Given the number of times they have recently been to ANI and their sanction history I have no doubt they will be back. I find the accusations/implications that others are transphobic or that their actions are such to be especially chilling. I think a topic ban makes more sense than a warning as the number of previous ANIs and talk page discussions (including those on their own talk page) should have been the needed warning. Do keep in mind that Fae is a very experienced editor and absolutely should know better. Springee (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This post raises some very good points that I'll have to think about and come back to. I might be swayed to support a tban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an odd statement, I positively acknowledge wrongdoing above as part of withdrawing from and unwatching the discussions about the highly controversial article and discussions that are associated with it, my sanction history is literally ancient as the record shows, and I have made no accusations or implications that any Wikipedian is transphobic.
      Per DIYeditor's opening statement in this thread, "the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view" must include the ability for editors to discuss frankly the actions of the sockpuppet master that has successfully disrupted these transgender articles, and created this one using a sockpuppet, and more generally for LGBT+ identified people to frankly discuss sources which do make transphobic attacks and do objectively contain transphobic material, including stating that reasoning frankly in edit comments when removing material per WP:BRD. These should not automatically be read as personal allegations against other editors that may add those sources to articles, possibly without realising exactly what the issues are with those sources. Perhaps I more fully and wholeheartedly agree with DIYeditor on these principles than they realised. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer topic ban the chilling behavior is unacceptable and there is no reason to believe that it will go away on its own. At some point, enough bullying is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Regardless of how it currently stands, this article was created as an attack page by a blocked editor who clearly wants to use Wikipedia to spread humiliating and salacious claims about trans people. It doesn't represent a "legitimate viewpoint", it represents an unquestionably bad faith effort to doxx someone. Editorial recklessness has sort of rendered the request to oversight this stuff moot at this point, but Fae is correct to think a lot of that material could normally just be oversighted, and I think admins need to be taking a firmer hand with addressing rumor-mongering about trans people. Fae bludgeoned the issue, and now they've said they'll stop. Nblund talk 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The origin of one of the articles/talk pages in question doesn't excuse the behavior nor is this isolated behavior. Springee (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The arbitration request wasn't about the article, it seemed to be about shutting another editor down, and it is just a pattern of behavior. The article is not great I agree. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Please add your views to the open Arbcom clarification request. If you can spell out why the request looks like it is was created for "shutting another editor down", that can legitimately inform Arbcom's decision, and if proven Arbcom can recommend actions, if needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I have myself been frustrated with Fæ, who I feel may be something of their own worst enemy in this particularly contentious area, it's deeply inappropriate to characterize their actions as bullying. Rather, they've been incensed by the way that Wikipedia is being used to draw negative attention to a private individual who happened to attract the ire of one of Canada's most powerful media conglomerates. While their actions at WP:BLP/N may have been somewhat counterproductive, they were certainly not bullying anyone, rather they were speaking with genuine passion about something where Wikipedia should be showing considerably more restraint than it does. And frankly, considering how frequently Wikipedia allows BLP notability to be decided by the causes célèbres of a small number of influential media players, often in blatant contravention of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT, I don't see their distress here as misplaced. While I hope Fæ will listen to some of the advice that supportive editors including myself and Nblund have offered them, I don't think this is appropriate for WP:AN/I at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not intimately familiar with the history of Fæ aside from a very few encounters. I noticed that I felt a little bit "avoidant" of them. I noticed other people are complaining here about their behavior. My main issue was about how they seemed to try to shut down Pyxis Solitary (on BLP/N and Arbitration not in the waxing article). It's true that the waxing article might be better off deleted but that is tangential to some of the discussions that occurred. I certainly have no reason to support a TBan; I was trying to offer a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Simonm223, thank you--this is valid. One thing, though: I appreciate your "causes célèbres", though I wonder if the plural in English needs that final -s. I'll investigate. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that bullying is appropriate even if it's in the furtherance of righting great wrongs. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't speak for Simonm223, but I believe this isn't bullying. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "causes célèbres" is the accepted plural
    Indeed, Simonm223 et aliae ( [sic]), "causes célèbres" seems to be the accepted plural in English of Cause célèbre, though it strike me as counter-intuitive. See, for instance, "inspector general", another French loan--"general" is, as we all know, an adjective in the French phrase, and consequently not pluralized in English. Thus, "inspectors general". The case for "causes célèbres" must therefore be different; I propose that it is possibly true that the entire plural was loaned from French along with the singular. It seems there was a wave of French publications [note: I will supply URLs to Google Books and JSTOR; full citations on request, for $20 per citation, to be PayPalled to my Cayman Islands account) in the 1700s, on this topic and with the "causes célèbres" spelling: [45], [46], [47]. Google Books provides a number of hits for English titles with that spelling in the 1800s: [48], [49], etc. What this needs is obviously a full bibliographic search in both languages with a timeline, and then an investigation into the connections--institutional, educational, authorial, etc., before my point can stand successfully: that such publications in French helped introduce this uncommon plural into English. Who were these English authors? What did they read? Why this pseudonym, "Civilian"? I fear the only person who can solve this is Uncle G.

    As for English usage, the American Bar Association Journal ran a series of articles in the 1920s called "SOME AMERICAN CAUSES CELEBRES" (articles which should be used in our article on the phrase): [50], [51], [52], [53]; in addition, a review from 1930 in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology uses it as well ([54]), so I think we can say confidently that at least in American-English legal usage "causes célèbres" is well-established, and for historians this seems to be the case as well. I encourage Wiktionary editors to either include a link to this note or to supply a better one for their entry, but that's by-the-by. At the risk of overdoing the by-and-bys, there is much work to be done still, first, and second, this is one of the occasions where the online dictionaries I looked at were correct, though they never indicated why. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose both this and the topic-ban. While Fæ can clearly be rough to deal with and could stand to tone down their rhetoric sometimes, the problems they're dealing with are real - as illustrated by the extremely low quality of sourcing others were trying to add to this article, something that honestly ought to be a more serious concern on a WP:BLP and seems like it might almost require a WP:BOOMERANG. But I particularly and strenuously disagree with the argument that Fae should be sanctioned for believing "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement; that is a common enough perspective that it is at least reasonable for an editor to hold that view and to advocate for policy or sanctions based on it. WP:CIVIL obviously bans transphobia; and it seems to me, at least, that denying that trans women are women is textbook transphobia and, therefore, sanctionable, especially if repeated over and over when interacting with a user who has asked you to stop. We can cover such views, and cite them to sources, and even edit alongside people who hold them, without having talkpages become forums to advance them, so the argument that it would have a chilling effect rings hollow - we wouldn't allow someone to argue on talk that homosexuality is a mere "lifestyle choice", for instance, or to present scientific racism as fact, yet we still have articles on those topics (and, indeed, editors who doubtless hold those views); this seems comparable to me. "I'm just stating what I believe" isn't an excuse for incivility, and Wikipedia isn't a random forum for people to spout off their views; if you know your views will be seen as uncivil and could drive off editors, keep a lid on it, take it to Facebook, Reddit, Twitter or wherever when you want to mouth off, and focus on improving articles via sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok I think I see what you are saying about incivility, so this (the content that sparked the arbitration request AFAIK) may be a prohibited opinion? (specifically "trans ideology", no need to address it here) I didn't realize there was some nuance to the question but I can see now why there is. Of all the many opinions allowed on Wikipedia on user pages, that statement is possibly not allowed on an article talk page... On its own I agree there is no problem with advocating that such be prohibited, or that people not be allowed to say anything like that they believe trans women aren't women. It is a strong stance to take but I can see why that is a valid policy decision and valid thing to argue for. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's borderline; it's the sort of thing that would depend on if they have a history of it and how they've responded to people asking them to tone it down. Talking about "trans ideology" is definitely stridently political to the point where it makes me wince - I would put it in a basket eg. consistently referring to an article's subject as a member of the "Democrat Party" or, perhaps more closely, saying that an article's subject isn't homophobic, they just oppose the "gay agenda" as if that's unambiguously a thing. It's a sweeping insult against people on the other side of the debate (and, in this case, to trans editors) and a bit of a chest-pounding announcement of the editor's own views. Everyone who edits controversial topics has a viewpoint on them, but we need to try and tone down the sniping and chest-pounding to edit constructively - and, to me, talking "trans ideology" is definitely sniping rather than constructive editing. Also, like "Democrat Party", it's a bit of a dogwhistle that people who aren't involved in the topic area aren't likely to catch. I don't think that just letting that kind of thing slip in occasionally requires sanctions or anything, but editors should stop when it's pointed out; repeatedly going off about "trans ideology" or the "gay agenda" or the like implies a degree of either unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL or even outright WP:NOTHERE. Talk pages aren't there for people to yelp snarlwords like that at each other; doing it over and over leads to a hostile editing environment. (And, conversely - do you think it would be appropriate for an editor to constantly talk about the "gay agenda" as if that was unambiguously a thing? If not, what's different about this?) --Aquillion (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not going to involve myself in this ANI, but now that you linked my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page I need to bring Fae's comment to your attention: "If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics." It's only fair that you read my response in BLP/N regarding the terminology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "At beast, I think Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous"
    • I further disagree that this is really bullying. At beast, I think Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous to a point where they are seeing potential threats to transgenders (a subject they are clearly passionate about) under every rock. Fæ's absolutely right that WP cannot a place to allow editors to freely insult and demean trans individuals - both off-wiki personalities and on-wiki editors. But at the same time, to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole. That discussion is all within policy as long it is it about improving article-space. Unfortunately, because Fæ seems to forget AGF and takes that discussion out of context, as to explain the discussion of these external views is hostile to views of trans individuals. WP is a "respectful space" (borrowing EdChem's term from the related AE discussion) and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose. Fæ's recent actions seem to forget this, to the point where their talk page editing has become disruptive. Fæ may have focused on a few editors that have been more vocal in the matter, but I would not call that bullying. --Masem (t) 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • topic ban Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Info The Arbcom "GamerGate" clarification request has been mentioned here several times, for those that want to read the clarification request with respect to the use by Wikipedians of transgender related phrases like "transgender ideology", "trans identified male" or calling a trans woman a "biological male" as Wikipedia accepted statements of fact, outside of discussions about source material that makes those statements, can find the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate. Diverse statements that can inform that discussion are welcome. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed is warranted. Fae's PoV about gender-related subjects has turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND too many times. Who among you that wants to exculpate his behavior has been subjected to:
      • "Just to help everyone understand the wider pattern here, @Pyxis Solitary:, have you blogged or posted about this deletion discussion anywhere?" F1
      • "Could you address the serious question of canvassing please, have you been blogging about this topic off-wiki?" F2
      • "Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes?" F3
      • Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH." F4
      • "this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement."F5
      This behavior needs to end. It doesn't matter how many years someone has been an editor, it doesn't matter if someone has made thousands of edits, and it doesn't matter if someone is a former admin -- no one has the right to threaten other editors or interrogate them. I am not going to fill this discussion with links to all the times that Fae has belittled editors when they push back. I know editors who stay away from editing gender-related articles when they see that Fae is involved in them. A slap on the wrist is not enough. Not any more. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC); (clarified bold response) 15:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You might have been wise to leave this particular text-wall out of this discussion. Your passionate defense of the term "trans ideology" - which seems at casual inspection a transphobic dogwhistle - certainly helps to contextualize that Fæ has not been alone in the process of escalation at BLP/N - and comments like that can be seen as having unnecessarily inflamed the situation. And while Fæ would be well advised to read WP:BAIT - it certainly doesn't support a t-ban to show us the exact bait that was used. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you're not following the discussion closely, but it was another editor that linked to my comment in the Murphy talk page, and it was that editor that stated "trans ideology" in this discussion. You're dead wrong if you think that I don't have a right to respond to any comment wherein I have been referred to by name or by linking to a comment I made. "Trans ideology" is the same as "gender identity ideology", they're interchangeable terms, and both have been discussed in many articles, including academic. As an ideology it falls under identity politics. Lesbian feminism is lesbian ideology. We are not forbidden from mentioning the existence of an ideology. Masem said it best in "Clarification request: GamerGate": "talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden." M. You really think I spend my time in talk pages itching for Fae to come along and start a confrontation? Insinuating that I baited anyone, particularly Fae, is bullshit and a personal attack. The only one blowing a dog whistle here is you. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Similar points were made in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate, by yourself, as well as on BLP/N and probably other places I have forgotten. Canvassing has been shown to be a matter of fact. It was widely condemned, including by those that were unnecessarily pinged and emailed. Asking reasonable questions to shine a light on blatant use of canvassing, with a background of sockpuppetry that was actively manipulating article content and discussions solely about transgender issues in order to deliberately bias that content and consensus processes, is fair. As it was clear what the evidence of canvassing was, those questions should be allowed without being re-pitched as personal attacks, or as if it there might not have been unquestionable evidence of the canvassing and checkuser confirmation of sockpuppetry. In the particular case of Meghan Murphy, it was confirmed by statements from the sockpuppet master, and recently by an administrator, that Meghan Murphy was emailing Wikipedians about the BLP about themselves. This is not a controversial statement. It is not an attack against you. it has always clearly been about establishing the facts and finding ways of counteracting the stealth canvassing, including the known targeted off-wiki abuse against Wikipedians clearly intended to drive them off improving transgender related articles, and the effects of sockpuppetry and possible meat puppetry.
      As I have stated repeatedly, I am not your enemy. I have even reverted targeted abuse against yourself and warned the account doing it. I agree with you, the topic is a battleground due to the actions of many parties, including hostile off-wiki and stealth manipulation of consensus processes. It would be more beneficial to focus on attempts to reduce the likelihood of over-inflaming discussion by better policies, this is precisely what I am attempting to do with the Arbcom clarification request for this topic. A valid attempt at improving consensus is the opposite of creating a battle ground, it is not bullying anyone, and you or anyone else can contribute to that process of improving the environment we spend our volunteer time in for the benefit of open knowledge.
      (ec) The person raising this thread has changed their own views during these discussions, an excellent example of the important of being open minded to evidence and challenging views. Why not let the stick drop? We can focus on how Wikipedians can work collegiately when the topic is as inflammatory as someone banned from Twitter for "hateful speech", and us Wikipedians need to find a way of ensuring a balanced encyclopaedic article that correctly covers that material, without being lost in circular and polarized debate about whether "word" means "word", or what we think might be in other contributor's heads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say anything in my "Clarification request: GamerGate" comment about canvassing. As for the rest of your wordiness, I've learned by now that you're a spigot that needs to have the last drop. So ... the end. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fæ, I assume you are referring to me as the one who changed my views. I did come to understand that, in isolation, it would be totally within reason to advance the position that it is uncivil to state as fact or as one's own opinion that there is a "trans ideology" (or the better example of "gay agenda") at play. I don't necessarily agree with that position and think it may stifle discourse. However, I think the question remains as to whether it is, taken with overall tone and behaviors, a part of a pattern of you trying to squelch opponents in this topic (or promote a certain POV) with any means at your disposal. Any specific behavior, taken on its own, may not rise to the level of needing any repercussions, and I am not familiar with all of the history here or what the prior topic ban was based on. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on transgender related articles. I do not see a genuine apology or regret from them, and I think they know they are in trouble and are trying to avoid real sanctions. The discussions I was going to link to have all been linked to above so I won't repeat that here, but every interaction I have had with this editor, and every discussion I have seen them involved in, they have taken a belligerent and bullying tone. This has had a chilling effect on other editors; I know this for a fact. They clearly are intent on Wikipedia supporting their POV and to hell with anyone or any source who disagrees. They are far too emotionally invested in this subject as an activist and attempting to "right great wrongs." They should know better by now. I think they need more than a slap on the wrist. They have harassed me on my talk page here accusing me of being a sock puppet, and here less than an hour later giving me official alerts about things they already told me about previously. Here they falsely accused me of having an "anti-queer politics spin". -Crossroads- (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, or at least from gender-identity topics. This sort of behavior has been going on for years across the entire topic area (not just the trans subtopic), and is what got that editor in trouble in the first place. The TB was lifted provisionally, under the explicit condition that the behavior not resume, but Fæ went right back to it, and focuses on the same kind of disruptive, activistic misuse of WP to advance a sociopolitical viewpoint. The viewpoint being popular among editors is not a justification. 107.204.239.99 (talk) [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, the user is so hot on the topic that they seem unable to step back, also they are creating a lot of disruption in the topic area, seems it was a mistake for whoever removed it, was arbcom as far as I recall. I don't usually comment to support editing restrictions, I prefer to work it out but this was one that should never have been lifted. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed Can't learn, won't learn. Jtrainor (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate topic ban Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed gnu57 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban Fæ from human sexuality, broadly construed. On this topic, Fæ's behavior unfortunately does not help foster a constructive, polite wikipedia editing environment. XavierItzm (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate topic ban. This has been a quesiton of when, not if, for some days now. Fae does not appear to be willing or able to dial back the rhetoric and righteous indignation. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate topic ban for this inveterate content warrior. NPOV is an essential component of WP and I have no confidence that this editor can ever contribute NPOV content on this topic. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic Ban. My personal experience with their battlefield mentality has come at Talk:TERF, where they implied that I was "hijacking" the article with a proposed edit by obvious lobbyists, canvassers and meatpuppets, accused me of forum shopping when I tried to start dispute resolution, and heavily implied that I had created a sock account. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed (meaning to cover gender identity politics too, especially gender identity politics). Fæ has been very unpleasant to interact with. Of all the inaccuracies the editor has said or implied about my motives or actions, partly highlighted by Pyxis Solitary higher up, this editor also claimed that because I mentioned transgender editors being a part of the disputes on trans topics, including BLPs, saying "transgender editors" is "an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians" and "is just an attack against a minority group based on 'dislike'."[55] I don't dislike trans people. I could go on about the trans folks in my life and how I care about them, but Fæ would just spin that as an "I'm not racist because I have black friends" thing. Or someone else might. So whatevs. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your negative and repeated claims about "transgender editors ... say the the opposing side has less weight" is an humiliating and hostile attack against all transgender Wikipedians. In these claims you have yet to produce any evidence, such as diffs, or statistics, to support any such claim about a minority group of editors. This is a matter of fact, not a rationale to topic ban the person who is trying to draw the Wikipedia community's attention to how badly issues like this are handled, or how it is virtually impossible to get anything done about this behaviour which is "theoretically" forbidden but in practice never even results in a warning. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, ya choose to reply to me with more baseless rhetoric. The evidence from Talk:TERF and Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics shows certain folks talkin' bout how TERF views have less weight (when the non-TERF views are mainly coming from a bunch of opinion pieces too) or how British/UK sources have less weight because TERFs are apparently more powerful in Britain/the UK. This view prioritizes American sources and even Canadian sources over British/UK sources. The evidence shows certain folks ignoring WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:WIKIVOICE at those two pages and pages like Talk:Meghan Murphy, Talk:Julie Bindel, and Talk:Mermaids (charity). And now something is finally being done about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard because others see it too. Folks know how to check the archives if the current material on the talk pages doesn't elucidate. I don't have ta dig up any diffs for crap that you know is there. The reasons folks wanna topic ban you is higher up. Now buh-bye. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was trying to remain silent on this ANI, but I will point out that Halo Jerk1's blanket comments about "transgender editors" and Pyxis Solitary's comments about "transgender ideology" were both UNCIVIL and deliberately provocative AFAICT. I am not inclined to excuse Fae's behavior in this space, but Halo Jerk1's repeated forum shopping and Pyxis Solitary's GamerGate-like insistence on unsubstantiated and essentially conspiratorial agendas are both unconstrictiVe for these articles and the overall situation should be taken into account in evaluating Fae's responses. Pyxis solitary compared "gender identity ideology" to "lesbian feminism" above, which is simply absurd: "lesbian feminism" is an actual, albeit minor, faction and self-described label among feminist lesbians. As has been pointed out, "Trans ideology" is more akin to "the gay agenda" or "Cultural Marxism" - a smear with a veneer of conspiracy theory behind it. That Pyxis would double down on their commitment to this smear, even after this was pointed out and even at ANI, is an example of the difficulty many editors have separating their individual POV from their talk page interactions in this space. The problem is not all with Fae. Newimpartial (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          You saying this again? Oh brother. You don't know what WP:Forum shopping is. Where the hell did I forum shop? Notifying relevant pages is not WP:Forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is against "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." Notifications for a central discussion, per WP:TALKCENT, is not "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively." That's why WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." My notifications were extremely brief and neutral. Your attempts to throw shade are just as poor as your understanding of the guidelines and policies. You say "trans ideology" is more akin to "the gay agenda"? Bollocks.[56] We agree that "the problem is not all with Fae." You have been a major problem at these articles too. The talk pages don't lie. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          I would encourage anyone that is thinking about appropriate sanctions in this area to review those Talk pages. I am confident that I have maintained a commitment to policy, reliable sourcing, FRINGE and BALANCE issues and BRD against the tendencies of various participants to either shut down discussion pre-emptively or to raise circular and poorly-sourced arguments. In any case, I have seen admin in this discussion recognising that "trans ideology" is a baiting word and not a real thing. Are you taking Pyxis Solitary's position on this, Halo Jerk1? That will be good to know, the next time you are at ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm ignoring this distraction now. I also encourage folks to look at your behavior and arguments about sources at these pages, such as your belief that "It is also worth noting again that is a BLP of a Canadian subject, so the way terms are framed in specifically UK sources (where trans-exclusionary sentiment among feminists is stronger, according to our TERF article) does not necessarily apply to the subject if this article."[57] Ah, and to look at "the tendencies of various participants to ... shut down discussion pre-emptively."[58][59][60]. The term "trans ideology"? Was my "bollocks" comment and pointing to this[61] not clear enough for ya? Admins have opinions just like everyone else has opinions. Many admins have said their opinions don't carry any more weight than others' opinions. As for ANI, I have a very good feeling we'll be seeing you here again first. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Halo Jerk1, if I have to say it, then I have to say it: your "gotcha" diff from Pyxis Solitary does not show that "trans ideology exists"; it collects op-eds and FRINGE conservative self-published sources to show that (some) conservatives believe in Trans ideology conspiracy theory. The support for Peterson's (and GamerGate's) "Cultural Marxism" thesis is better, and WP (rightly) calls that a conspiracy theory in Wikivoice. There is no difference between you and Pyxis saying that editors are advocating "Trans ideology" and GamerGators accusing editors of "Cultural Marxism". It is all bollocks. And you and Pyxis were using UK sources that didn't even mention a BLP subject (Murphy) to dictate what the terms used by the actual Canadian and US sources should be understood to mean. That is where the horse excrement lay,in that discussion. Please don't quote me out of context as dismissing sources which didn't even mention the BLP subject as if that fact weren't salient. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Also, you have three links that show me participating (lightly) in discussion and certainly not shutting it down. Hmmm. I guess it's always important to look at the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You got into a spat with Crossroads1 at Talk:Attraction to transgender people.[62] A source from Andrew Sullivan was eventually worked into the page. AT BLPN, you said "What Pyxis Solitary has done here is to assemble a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs."[63] How is this[64] source from Sullivan a blog or unreliable? And when, as a gay man himself, he speaks of the worry that gay men and lesbians have in terms of "transgenderist ideology," is he just being transphobic? Is he being transphobic at all? If so, why? For talking about the view that some trans folks have? Not all trans folks think that a non-trans person should be sexually attracted to transgender people, and, if they ain't, then the non-trans person is transphobic. However, some do. Not all trans people think that there are no issues with a trans woman competing in women's sports against non-trans women, but some do. So, in terms of either view, what type of ideology should we call it? It is an ideology, by the very definition of what ideology means, including in terms of politics. When Miranda Yardley, a trans woman (who prefers to call herself transsexual), talks about the worry some lesbian women have in terms of transgender ideology and says all folks "have the right to accept, critique and reject" it,[65] is she just being transphobic? Are you saying she has internalized transphobia? Also, you needn't mention how AfterEllen was deemed transphobic by some LGBT outlets after articles like Yardley's. I know. Anyhoo, and who says that conservative sources mean that the sources are unreliable? Where does the Wiki say that we should prioritize liberal sources over conservative sources? Should Sullivan's views be discounted because he's a conservative, even though he is speaking on something that affects gay men? I'm not conservative, but I don't see the Wiki saying "liberal sources are better." To kinda echo Pyxis, is The Economist conservative or a blog?[66] It's a British/UK source, but where does the Wiki say that we should prioritize American and Canadian sources over British/UK sources because TERF ideology is stronger in Britain/the UK? You said, "And you and Pyxis were using UK sources that didn't even mention a BLP subject (Murphy) to dictate what the terms used by the actual Canadian and US sources should be understood to mean." Not me. I pointed to a couple of sources in terms of "trans ideology" being used.[67] Do you have any good sources criticizing the term "transgender ideology" as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term "gay agenda" as homophobic?
    As for shutting down discussion, you don't have to be the culprit for there to be culprits. However, you've aided and abetted. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, Halo Jerk1, what? I was responding to the specific sources provided by Pyxis Solitary that you cited in a diff - the discussion with Crossroads1 is on a different topic, and my edits on that page have nothing at all to do with those on Meghan Murphy or what we are discussing here (Crossroads1 has a tendency to remove sources that disagree with him, when they come from traditions or disciplines he doesn't like, and I was promoting BALANCE as can be seen on the Talk page in question). Just because someone uses the term "transgender ideology" doesn't make that thing real nor, on the other hand, does it negate what they may have actual expertise in, like their own experience of attraction.
    As far as "Transgender ideology" is concerned, the fact that the term makes its way into Economist op-eds is no more surprising than "Cultural Marxism" being discussed in The Independent, and no more indicative. I can certainly produce the critique of the term, but ANI is not the place for that since there is currently no proposal to restrict the use of the term. Your UK sources discussing "Transgender ideology" were not strictly relevant to the application of the term to Megan Murphy, any more than the meaning of "liberal" in Australia or the UK would dictate to us how to use the term in a US BLP. And that was the context for my comment about Canadian sources, which you repeatedly cite out of context for reasons known known to yourself. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Newimpartial, seriously. See, what I said about reliable sources using the term "transgender ideology" is relevant to this discussion. You can characterize sources however you like, but if they pass WP:RS, they pass WP:RS. The Sullivan and Yardley articles are relevant, considering the claims in this thread that the term "transgender ideology" is transphobic or demeaning to trans folks. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Greenrd said something similar about not all trans folks subscribing to the same beliefs.[68][69] Plenty of trans folks use the term "transgender ideology" or "transgender politics," and they ain't all like Yardley. You only want to mention the word "opinion pieces" when the opinion pieces aren't your own pet sources. You have repeatedly used opinion pieces or sources of a likewise MO to present stuff as fact, including when trying to keep a controversial label applied to Murphy. Crossroads1 ain't the one who removes sources solely because he doesn't like them. He isn't the one who doesn't understand WP:BALANCE. Also, it's no surprise that you can't (rather than won't) provide any good sources criticizing the term "transgender ideology" as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term "gay agenda" as homophobic. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Halo Jerk1, those critical sources exist, but I am not going to produce them here because they have absolutely no bearing on this ANI discussion. You are the one making broad claims about that terms mean and how they are used, and your evidence is a pure pile of codswallop. You and Pyxis Solitary seem to have trouble understanding this, but op-eds and SPS (which is what the conservative blogs amount to) only become RS for our purposes when their authors are recognized experts in the field where they are writing. Literally none of your cited experts have any such recognised expertise - Pyxis was arguing that being a finance editor at The Economist granted some kind of imprimatur to discuss gender identity, which is purest malarkey. Your sources are not reliable, and the fact that you can't distinguish between expert and non-expert op-eds and SPS is a good reason for you not to edit BLPs and maybe try to avoid ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You ain't gonna "produce them here because they have absolutely no bearing on this ANI discussion." Riiiiiight. Smirks. You don't get to command what are or aren't reliable sources. There ain't one rule on the Wiki that says that conservative sources are unreliable. The Wiki speaks of WP:RSCONTEXT, but a lot of sources that Pyxis Solitary and other folks have provided, sources you disagree with, are appropriate for the contexts of what we've been talking about. The Sullivan source is absolutely appropriate for the issue of gender identity politics, which is what has been discussed in this thread to a degree. That's why the source is appropriate for use at the Attraction to transgender people page. Sullivan is also appropriate for commenting on some feminists issues, like he does in the source, if the material is on-topic. He ain't an unreliable op-ed. Besides, Pyxis Solitary and other folks have provided reliable op-eds from feminists who are experts in their field. But you label those as unreliable because you deem them TERF sources, or supporting TERF ideology, or because they're from Britain/the UK, where you say that the TERF ideology is much stronger/more powerful. The more I discuss with you, the more I realize that you don't truly understand the Wiki's rules and that you twist these rules to correspond to your POV. The Murphy case is a prime example. The TERF BLPN discussion shows that the way I've interpreted policies and guidelines on sourcing and attribution have been correct. Very few there agree with your views about sourcing in terms of Wiki's voice. That BLPN thread is a good reason for you not to edit BLPs and why you should maybe try to avoid ANI. Because of that discussion and your monumental screw up in terms of the Murphy introduction, I know it's best that folks (including moi) don't take any advice on Wiki rules from you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all — in case anyone thinks it was — the term "trans ideology" was not included in the Meghan Murphy article. My comment in the talk page was based on Murphy's own words: "I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation." (in Views.) I've seen "gender identity ideology" and "transgender ideology" used synonymously in many articles I've found.
      You think "trans ideology" is "a baiting word" ... I don't. I see it as an offshoot of identity politics. Just because someone in a discussion thinks "transgender ideology" is the same as saying "gay agenda" does not make it so. And contrary to your opinion, lesbian feminism is an ideology, even if you think it's a "minor, faction and self-described label among feminist lesbians."
      However, a different point of view does not give any editor the right to attack another editor. I wrote a comment, and Fae came at me with guns blazing. The vitriol was over the top. And then Fae kept pushing at me: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5.
      How did I respond to this? P1, P2, P3, P4, P5.
      Fae created the toxic environment. Fae has a pattern of accusing, threatening, and interrogating editors, which creates a tense and incendiary atmosphere.
      As for you, stop following in Fae's footsteps. Your accusing one editor of "forum shopping" and another of "GamerGate-like insistence on unsubstantiated and essentially conspiratorial agendas" is aggressive and hostile. But by all means, do invite everyone to look at the Meghan Murphy talk page, so they can see for themselves how you also engaged in edit warring. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I am a staunch believer in BRD but have no objection to the attribution of terms that prove to be controversial, which is exactly what anyone will see if they go to the Meghan Murphy article and elsewhere. And if they go to the BLPN discussion, they will see me objecting strenuously to Fae's evidentiary basis for proposing the removal of Talk page discussion and for their policy basis for doing so, based on actual sources and principles. The idea that I am "following in Fae's footsteps" is quite laughable in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      "No objection to the attribution of terms that prove to be controversial."? You say that, but you edit warred to keep the controversial label in the intro, without any type of attribution. And now most folks at BLPN say they disagree with that direction. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed: Editing Wikipedia is not a contact sport. These problems seem pervasive and are not just limited to the conduct I complained about when I originally came to ANI. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to examine and take with full seriousness the diffs relating to any "pervasive problems" that I have caused and respond to that evidence rather than the various unsourced allegations made here. As far as I am aware, the diffs presented above only relate to the two articles with difficult disruption, canvassing and sockpuppetry. Any topic ban should be related to evidence, not only unproven assertions by those actively and heatedly in recent dispute themselves about transgender terminology over the last few days. The fact is that I have had no sanctions relating to my edits on transgender topics, or any topic in the last 12 months or even couple of years. Normally a topic ban for disruptive editors is accompanied by solid evidence of recent sanctions, not just discussions over the last week that a number of parties have made highly disruptive and offensive assertions in which amount to attacks on transgender people. I have not been the only long standing editor to highlight and complain about this disruption. If there is a topic ban here, perhaps our community should now consider a topic ban for several of the parties involved in these discussions, in particular those using Wikipedia to make allegations about transgender Wikipedians in general, and those making statements that transgender people are part of an agenda or ideology, or that trans women are not women.

    I suggest a 6 month topic ban would be good for all the parties who are visibly involved, rather than limiting this topic ban to one person who is already presenting the misuse of transgender language in an Arbcom request, and has been one of the few but not sole voices highlighting the inappropriate anti-trans unsourced assertions made by others? Obviously a topic ban would shut me up, which might be super, but that does not stop these anti-trans issues being real, and supported by firm evidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the problem in a nutshell basically. "Topic ban everyone" is not a reasonable response to the complaints made, especially when you aren't identify who these users are. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See? Perfect example of how Fae can't help themselves. Just a bunch of vague aspersions. Back to the same behavior and hasn't even been sanctioned yet! Most of the people in favor of a topic ban here have not been involved in these articles. This thread is about you (check the very top), not others. I suggest this time your topic ban be permanent, and be from all articles having anything to do with sex, sexuality, or gender. "Human sexuality broadly construed" is too narrow, as many people consider transgender as having nothing to do with sexuality, and these issues can crop up on articles related to cisgender matters, such as undue weight being given to certain activist favored terminology. Topic ban needs to be on sex, sexuality, and gender broadly construed. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fæ: If simply bringing up the prospect that womanhood is defined by sex not gender as a position in a debate is grounds for block/tban, then how would assertions about restrictive vs. expansive definitions for woman have been dealt with at Talk:Trans woman/Archive 4#RfC on introduction or Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead? Isn't that discussion a legitimate editorial topic in the phrasing of an article? Exactly how far removed from what appears to be one's own POV does such an assertion have to be, and what about assertions that might only seem to imply that? I don't think someone is victimizing trans editors (being uncivil) by discussing such a point of view in a discussion that is necessarily about reasonable interpretations of the meaning of a word. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Fae, but my take on this would be the position that "Woman" could be defined by sex, or by gender, or by either depending on the context, is a legitimate editorial topic and any position within that terrain should be heard (in a policy- and evidence-based discussion). On the other hand, the position that gender or that gender identity does not exist is FRINGE, and deploying such a position to dismiss, taunt or otherwise bait our editors is a violation of CIVIL, no matter what one might believe in the privacy of one's conscience. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^agree. —DIYeditor: I think reasonable people can debate where to draw the line, but I think there were topic bans and blocks handed out partly on the basis of comments made by some editors in that thread, and there are a number of bullshit digressions (commenting on specific trans women's larynxes etc.) that added nothing to the policy discussion. From my perspective, Fae's real transgression here was calling for formal sanctions when trout would suffice, but they are hardly the first person to suggest that certain POVs are so disruptive that expressing them might warrant sanction(see: WP:NONAZIS). Nblund talk 16:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really asking you to check. I'm informing you now, so you could amend the original comment if you so choose. If you want to hold whatever stuff Fæ did in the past against them, that's irrelevant to me. I just ask you at least do the kindness of respecting their choice of identity when it comes to pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting of ass
    persians
    • Topic ban - this is the last straw for me. Constant drama-mongering, revisiting old disputes, insistence on being correct, castings of aspersions etc. And it happens across multiple talk page and noticeboards every time, usually because they open a multitude of fronts in either an attempt to bludgeon their opinion or confuse everyone else. I, for one, usually end up being utterly confused. I'm sure they do some good stuff but trying to find it amongst all the noise has been difficult. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban (at a minimum) - Per the above !votes; It is not my wont to support sanctions on editors, but with this we have clearly reached the "enough is enough" stage. - Ryk72 talk 12:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBan from human sexuality, broadly construed - Per all above. I genuinely believe that he has good intentions, but the rhetoric is way too much and he is his own enemy. ∯WBGconverse 16:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      They/their/them. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion

    So the article has been deleted, per the clear NOCONSENSUS outcome at the AfD.

    But was it really appropriate to delete the Talk: page at this point, during the on-going wrangling over Fae's topic ban? What happens next? ANI closes it as "There is no evidence"? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I learned from another article for deletion discussion that nothing is ever truly "deleted" when an archived copy exists. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins still have access to the history. Besides, the complaints cover more than that article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion is currently being appealed at Deletion Review, so it may come back. The final tally was 24 Keeps, 20 Deletes, 4 "Delete or Merge." Definitely either a no consensus or a Keep. Should also be noted that the article was nominated 30 minutes after it was made, so many of the early votes were Delete as the article was basically in stub form at the time. Anyway, that's going on here. [[70]] Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note for closing admin

    Please remember that folks are using "broadly construed" to include gender identity politics. There are instances of this above, and the areas of concern higher up are about gender stuff. To quote Crossroads1, "'Human sexuality broadly construed' is too narrow, as many people consider transgender as having nothing to do with sexuality, and these issues can crop up on articles related to cisgender matters, such as undue weight being given to certain activist favored terminology. Topic ban needs to be on sex, sexuality, and gender broadly construed." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DOI bot without WEBSITE and URL: bug or feature?

    The bot that's been taking out URLs and replacing them with DOIs is creating a situation whereby a person who "hovers" over the citation's DOI gets no clue as to the citation source. In an article I had previously worked on, the bot left an empty URL= which resulted in: "Missing or empty |url= (help)"(in red). Am I the only one who sees this as someone who takes one's car keys to prevent them from losing the keys (and deposits them in a central lost-and-found). Pi314m (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    DOI bot hasn't edited since 2008. What bot are you having trouble with, and have you reported it to the bot operator? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm echoing Mendaliv's question above. Are you perhaps talking about another user? Which one? Can you link us to it so that we can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I think I found it. Pi314m is concerned about this edit by Citation bot. Specifically, a {{cite journal}} template in the "Further reading" section of Tymnet had both the DOI parameter filled, and the URL parameter just linked to the DOI (though through doi.acm.org rather than doi.org). That is pretty duplicative. Anyway, I don't think this requires administrative intervention. Best would be to discuss it with the operator of Citation bot first. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pi314m - Can you confirm that this edit is what you're trying to tell us about here? Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny: I guessed differently. I thought it might have been this edit to Business continuity planning by a user (Nemo bis) whose username might, at first glance, have been mistaken for a bot. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    actually it's with Tellagraf, edited (as noted above) by Nemo Bis; yes I was wrong about it being a BOT. Pi314m (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also mentioned at Template_talk:Citation#Where_should_links_to_url_or_doi_params_appear_in_the_citation?. Using DOI rather than URL doesn't give an obvious link over the title, so I see this change as a reader usability problem, requiring a template change to recover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on a couple of closed AfDs with issues?

    Greetings. These AfDs were NAC closed as redirects on July 18 but have yet to be removed from CAT:AFD. The CPR FC redirect is showing up in WP:BADAFD as linking to a closed AFD even though there does not appear to be such a link in the current version of the redirect. (The HFC 1912 redirect dropped off WP:BADAFD by itself on July 27 despite there having been no edits to that redirect since the AfD closed.) Can an admin please look at these and do whatever cleanup is necessary? Also curious to know if there's something I'm missing with regard to being able to find and resolve the problem myself without calling in admin intervention. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Null edits to the redirect and afds fixed them. One hopes this isn't a problem with XFDcloser in general. —Cryptic 03:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AGF user being disruptive

    It brings me great pain to report a user for WP:CIR. It really should only ever be used as a last resort, I feel. This matter is that.

    Any user who visits User talk:Wikipevi.acc will see that, despite warnings and pleas for communication,[71][72] they have continued a pattern of moving clearly unfinished articles into mainspace (Special:Log/Wikipevi.acc says it all). The thing that went to far was the move that just happened from draftspace to a nonexistent article's talk page.[73] This is the second time they've done this.

    It'd help if I was a bit more confident with being a pagemover and NPP reviewer. This user did put out a request for help.[74] I have no clue why they self-reverted that immediately.

    I don't know what to do for this user. They keep unintentionally breaking things and don't seem to be learning nor displaying curiosity by asking questions about things. They just keep creating the same poorly written articles that keep getting deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Back in April I tried to get him(her?) to engage and talk about what they were doing, because they clearly were struggling. However they haven't been particularly responsive, with a total of 12 talk space contributions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They thanked me for the AN/I notice... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Luisborromeo

    Rjrya395

    I try to avoid coming to ANI if I can, but I'm WP:INVOLVED here and I'm not sure what else to do.

    User:Rjrya395 has been blocked by me for edit warring twice in regards to the contentious inclusion of Sgt Pepper at List of music considered the worst, back in April. This included me having two make 2-3 IP blocks for evasion as well. This is not about the content dispute itself, which is slowly slowly headed to a resolution (waiting on an RFC to be opened on an inclusion criteria for the article). Back in July, it was discovered that some of the editors involved in supporting the inclusion of Sgt Pepper on the list were socks of The abominable Wiki troll. Rjrya395 took this as validation that the entire thing was ultimately trolling and began harassing admins and other editors who were trying to work through the content issue. This resulting in Drmies (talk · contribs) blocking them for NPAs and disruption against Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) and myself as well as others (I'm going to skip linking the diffs for these, but simply review July 25th-ish contribs to talk pages), which I increased the length of and revoked TPA for after the user continued on their talk page to ping others and taunt them about the subject, particularly SummerPhDv2.0.

    That block ended today, where Rjrya395 immediately resumes their behaviors on this topic. This includes going to Sro23 (talk · contribs) to continue asking about the entry's addition by TAWT (This in particular is not a big deal though other than showing the laser focus), going to multiple other users to canvass them about TAWT ([75][76][77][78]), hijacking a section about inclusion of an unrelated song on the article's talk page (Collapsed section here), further personal attacks against SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) on their talk page ([79]).

    I am not sure what remedy here would be appropriate, but at minimum the user needs to leave alone the topic of Sgt. Pepper and the list of music considered the worst, and likely stop interacting with Sergecross73 and Summer entirely. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Drmies' action as above. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this. I saw the notification on my talk page this morning (by then already diligently removed by Drmies) and was like... [81]. I weighed in on one of the original RfCs because it seemed like a challenging problem, but I've barely been involved since then. I wouldn't necessarily have been opposed to more straightforward/neutrally worded canvassing, something to the effect of, "you were involved in a discussion, there have been some developments in the discussion since then, and since you've shown past interest in the topic your perspective would be appreciated, if you'd like." But Rjrya395's message was bewildering, it reads like an implied accusation, a "ha ha, told ya so" taunt, and a bad-faith effort to get me to either change my mind or feel discredited due to some other user's actions I have no control over. Obviously it's an inherently controversial topic, but keep some perspective. As the wise Dot Wiggin of the Shaggs once sang: "There will always be/ One who wants things the opposite way/ It doesn't matter where you go/ It doesn't matter who you see/ There will always be/ Someone who disagrees." —BLZ · talk 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLZ, that tone you signaled was indeed why I removed a couple of those taunts. For the life of me, I cannot fathom what the user is trying to accomplish here. I'll throw in some Mamaleek for you, hot off the Bandcamp press:

    But now remains only deadly serpents and prickly thicket,
    whose backs are beaten by a boiling star,
    that keeps this circus in town.
    I tell ya, the clowns are crying along with the children they terrorize.

    Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Second unblock request

    I was almost on board with an unblock until I read the last bullet of the second unblock request, which is an unsubstantiated allegation against MarnetteD. That seems... unwise. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kee1992

    Kee1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be related to another recently blocked user, Bxxxxxb92, based on the similarity of their name and article contributions. Reasons for the report here, as they were for the previous block, are that the user never includes edit summaries, has not responded to multiple attempts to reach out concerning their edits, and has had multiple photos deleted for being improperly sourced or licensed. Hate to propose admin action, but do not know how to proceed when the user appears to be unwilling to communicate. Would appreciate any feedback. Thanks, — aegreen (talk • email) 14:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SpoonLuv

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

    DS alert on 17:34, 10 July 2019.

    Edit warring alert on 18:56, 10 July 2019.

    SpoonLuv is continuing to edit war without establishing a consensus for new content again. For previous AN/I report see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#SpoonLuv

    On 13:45, 8 August 2019, SpoonLuv added a citation needed tag to "only water vapor".[82]

    On 14:02, 8 August 2019, SpoonLuv added "...but no proof of this correlation has been observed."[83]

    After the problematic content and tag was removed, on 18:23, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv restored the content[84] and on 18:27, 8 August 2019 restored the tag.[85]

    After the problematic content and tag was removed again, on 19:38, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv yet again restored the disputed content and tag.[86]

    On 20:00, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv removed the SYN tag.[87]

    Cloudjpk restored the SYN tag and subsequently deleted the disputed content on 20:43, 9 August 2019.[88]

    There is no consensus for the content on the e-cigarette article and it was explained on the talk page the reason it was SYN violation. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Renormalization I added the full quote to the subarticle where there is similar content from the same source.

    The citation needed tag is inappropriate because the content is sourced. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Verification_provided.

    SpoonLuv stated in part: "He's been accused of disruptive editing multiple times. It's incredibly clear what's really going on here with only a cursory look at the page itself and the abundance of other peoples valid work that's been removed en mass. All information that disagrees with his viewpoint is instantly removed. I honestly find it sad that Wikipedia is clearly a game where those with the most time on their hands will get to push their own personal narrative by wearing down anyone that disagrees with them. It's also sad that yet another editor who wants to help improve the quality of information on Wikipedia, is leaving after discovering that NPOV, one of the FIVE PILLARS of Wikipedia, appears to be of little to no importance to its editors."[89]

    It looks like SpoonLuv is hear to right great wrongs. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This reads like a content dispute. Have you tried any alternative dispute resolution since the last ANI? And to clarify: what great wrongs is SpoonLuv trying to right here? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no benefit for an alternative dispute resolution for failed verification content and edit warring without establishing consensus.
    SpoonLuv stated "Renormalization of smoking appears to be speculative. Either the section should be removed, or information pointing to the fact that it's unproven needs to be provided." SpoonLuv added "...but no proof of this correlation has been observed."[90], but that was a SYN violation. What SpoonLuv is trying to add is speculative or a minority opinion because a 2018 source indicates "some publications from Great Britain have downplayed the use of electronic cigarettes and their link to combustible cigarette use in adolescents...".[91][92]. The article says, "Studies indicate vaping serves as a gateway to traditional cigarettes and cannabis use.[134]" This is the consensus among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that the definition of a content dispute? He thinks the article should contain one thing, you think it should contain another. I think that you are correct, by the way, and that he is inappropriately synthesizing information to push a POV that strays into the realm of fringe theory. But it still seems like a content dispute that has evolved into a conduct issue due to his edit warring, and I think that it merits administrator involvement specifically due to the edit warring behavior, without wading into the merits of what he is actually adding. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did add the quote without the SYN violation to the subarticle where there are other position statements. More than one editor thinks the content is a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's subtle, but it's not actually debatable, and this is a very straightforward SYN violation to the point that Spoon's IDHT behavior is a problem. There is a claim about nicotine-free E-cigarettes that cites one source. And then it is followed by "there is no proof of this" citing a different source that is actually about ordinary E-cigarettes. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SpoonLuv also added and restored a citation needed tag. I'm still puzzled about the citation needed tag being restored when I previously explained the content is verifiable. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Verification_provided. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Severe breach of WP:POLITE policy

    User:Sebastian James just reverted another editor with this edit comment: "ADD THE SOURCE IDIOT, OR AT LEAST SEE THE SENTENCE UNDER THE GAME ON EPIC STORE"[93]. Perhaps a cooling down period, or at least a warning, would be appropriate.

    Full disclosure, user has recently reverted my (I believe reasonable) edit, without comment.

    LK (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been warned here already, and their recent talk page history is quite a read: [94][95][96][97][98] -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like User:Sebastian James has a recent history of abusive and contentious edit summaries, and not assuming good faith. This in spite of Swarm's warning from the previous ANI report, so I have applied a block of one week. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 06:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a dang fine call. I didn't pipe up because of my previous interactions with the user, but they were definitely one of our less pleasant users. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    3rd offense from AdamPrideTN doing personal attacks

    Dragging others into the drama he makes see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=910151358 as well as both other times I have brought up personal attacks and bad faith assumptions he has made Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN again and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN. He has been warned multiple times by @Ad Orientem, Jehochman, Cullen, Eperoton, and Nil Einne:. Maybe now someone can act he obvious didn't mean his apologies and keeps reoffending. Any help would be appreciated. Moneyspender (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both of you, stop. You need to find a civil way to resolve this. And @Moneyspender:, you were told not long ago that this is not the forum to address this matter. Listen to what El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said, lest the WP:BOOMERANG find yet another meaty noggin.caknuck ° needs to be running more often 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fairness, would you not be upset if someone else kept on calling you a vandal, after promising not to make personal attacks and after being asked by two other people (me and Nil Einne) to stop doing that? What forum would you suggest for addressing such a situation? And wny do you think it blockable to be asking for help in such a matter? In none of the three reports has Moneyspender asked the content dispute to be resolved here; they have all three been about the personal attacks. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G: i did not personally attack him, and if i did i apologised, i dont know what u call someone who keeps adding false unbiased infos to pages just to serve an agenda. Every other editor now even administrator asked him to stop and all reverted his edits no matter how many times he keeps bringing them.

    I did not attack him and i present it my arguments on his talk page and when he eekete it i did ask a former administrator who is and lgbt special editor and he took the matter so i will be out of moneyspender way and not have another useless edit war with him. On the Emirati page at first yes i lodt my nerve and apologised. The second and third time here, he tries to block me by saying this here because i present it sources and facts to which he did not respond In the end next time and from now on i will not meddle and respond to any of mr moneyspender edits. I will ask more experienced editors to address this with him. Laws are laws what he edits and adds is not true. Every other editor told him so. Cheers Again i did not attack him and if i did i hope this is the last time of me apologising since i will never address him ever again. Cheers! AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC

    You continued to attack me while pleading for Kwamikagami to get dragged into our dispute. You referred to me as a "vadaliser" and told him to tell me to "stop vandalising" (yes both times he spells it wrong) while putting vigilante attacks in the punishment tab of LGBT rigts pages. Again, that shows bad faith and is seen as a personal attack. In addition, I have stated that in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_LGBT_rights page there is a discussion started by MartinEvans123 about whether or not vigilante executions should be allowed to be add into penalty summaries or not but there is no consensus either way on that issue. So no it is not vandalism, yes it is common in the countries I added it into and I have sources to prove that, and no I don't care if it's info you don't like to hear or that offends you. Wikipedia is not here to cater to your feelings about whether a truthful sourced statement offends you it's just here to present all the facts as is. Wikipedia is not a safe space and neither is reality. So stop slandering me, keep my username out of your posts and leave me alone. Moneyspender (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Moneyspender:It is not spelled wrong, i use British English, besides whatever u will make such disrubtive edits, i will ask for the help of a neutral more experienced editor. And no i work by sources and facts and what the law says, not by an agenda and unbiased assumption like some do, it is not what the law says. U will never here of me ever again i assure u and i will never ever address u and address ur name but i can ask whenever u make diruptive edits (vandalise) that i will ask someone else!! Cheers and goodbye!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't make disruptive edits I sourced them and they are accurate, if you disapprove that doesn't make it wrong by default. And there is no agenda or assumptions. Those statements you made just prove my point that your promises you make that you "won't do it again" are worthless. You lie when you say this. You continue to attack me, make personal attacks and type personal assumptions. Others are starting to see how dishonest your claims are as well as your false shield of being a peacemaker while being dramatic. If you had committed to them instead of trying to keep taking low blows and slandering we wouldn't be talking here. Also, stop pretending to be a victim. That doesn't work here. Just own up and I hope someone takes real action against you. Moneyspender (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Moors murders

    Can an administrator please look in on the Moors murders talk page. There is some arsehole trying to troll the participants of that discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with the article: [99]. What's more, they are now warring to keep it in place [100] [101]. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 10:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much. CassiantoTalk 10:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The odd thing is that he said to me get bent fortuna; now, I've not used that handle for a couple of years, and don't in any case remember running into BH when i did. Thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Hathorn was editing using this IPV6 range in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:290:FC50:0:0:0:3B/55 - and the style of ReeMiXx does not match him at all. No offence intended but I'd suggest someone remove the suspected sockpuppet of Billy Hathorn tag from ReeMiXx's userpage as it doesn't appear he's a sockpuppet of Billy Hathorn. 92.1.192.39 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2019 Dayton shooting

    A few more eyes at 2019 Dayton shooting and Talk:2019 Dayton shooting would be welcome. A discussion over the appropriate way to deal with the gender identity of the shooter's sibling has been heated at times, and I've had to post a couple of warnings about personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discretionary sanctions apply for most of the topics under discussion, including WP:BLPDS – recently dead people are still covered by that policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR editor at it again!

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Potentially_WP:CIR_editor_editing_sports_related_pages - this user is making very similar (problematic) edits to similar article; which leads me to believe this is block evasion... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Added another IP with similar editing pattern. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OR rationale given for edits

    This is about an unregistered editor, who made what by themselves are good-faith edits, but gave this long edit summary for one of the 4 they made:

    Genocide is the systematic murder of an ethnic group. Whites cannot be murdered by people of color, because murder is prejudice plus power. They can be killed in self defence, but not murdered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.144.183.107

    I do not see a talk page for this unregistered editor.

    --Beneficii (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: Also, what is odd about these edits in the 1804 Haiti massacre article is that in each of the 2 edits the unregistered editor made to the article, is that they only removed one instance of the word "genocide" in each edit; the use of the word "genocide" is what they objected to. But even with the changes made in their last edit of the article (before it was reverted by an administrator), the word "genocide" still appeared several times in the article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1804_Haiti_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=910245137

    This strikes me as odd, and I question whether this unregistered editor is acting in good faith.--Beneficii (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please engage the IP editor in discussion at User talk:78.144.183.107 before asking for help from an administrator. I do not see any edit warring or disruption. Try talking first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider it odd at all that an inexperienced editor would change one instance of a word, and not take the time and trouble to scour the whole article for every instance of the word. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it intriguing that anyone would say it is not genocide if it happens to X, Y, or Z people. -- Dlohcierekim 05:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure a block is necessary, purely as a technical matter of will it prevent further disruption, but there is no need to entertain an editor who writes things like, "Whites cannot be murdered by people of color", or "not genocide, it happened to whites". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying you want to go for a community ban of this editor? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was suggesting that his behavior was already so far beyond community standards that any admin could block him at any time, but I didn't know how stable that IP was. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked - but since this is an IP people should keep the relevant pages on their watchlist and revert on sight. We are under no obligation what-so-ever to entertain questions from someone who is just here to provoke people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Propose block per WP:ZT

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

    This edit makes it clear that there is a problem with this IP editor: "[Genocide is what whites do to people, not something people do to whites."

    Critical race theory has stuff to say about "reverse racism" and such, but to say that genocide cannot affect white people would require a twisted definition of "white". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't require any specific definition of "white", all it requires is the same ideas found in critical race theory. Whites can't be the victims of racism and genocide is the ultimate form of racism so whites can't be the victims of genocide. Genocide is the worst thing that can happen to a group of people, it can't happen to whites so whites aren't people. I'm surprised these white supremacist edits of yours haven't been noticed. 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious troll is obvious. RBI seems like the appropriate answer here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis where does this provide protection for whites? Point out a specific instance. 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC) The link to genocide is the wrong evidence, this link appears first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Continued disruptive edits by Elsotomenor

    User continues to add unsourced info to music related articles (here and here for example) despite several warnings on their talk page as well as a recent block for the very same thing. Please could an admin cast an eye, thanks. Robvanvee 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking into this but it looks like they've been warned (and blocked) over this. Mark Ironie (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Elsotomenor for 1 week. This is longer than usual but given the number of warnings about this specific issue on their user talk and persistence even after being blocked before, this seems appropriate. Maybe the message will get through this time. Mark Ironie (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Darien43chars addition of unsourced content

    This user continues to add unsourced info (specifically sample credits) to music related articles (here, here & here as recent examples) despite repeated warnings on their talk page asking for them to stop. To date, no attempt has been made to discuss their disruption. I would be grateful if an admin could take a look please. Robvanvee 07:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    While the additions were certainly unsourced, the edits seem likely to add accurate info to the articles. So, these don't seem like vandalism to me, and I don't see any blockable offense here. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to find sources to verify the added content. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason that we have a uw-unsor series of user warnings, a reason that {{uw-unsor4}} says "you'll be blocked next time", and a reason that the prefilled list of reasons for blocking includes an option for "Persistent addition of unsourced content". I'll check into this momentarily, and if the user's actions are as described, a block is definitely appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User Vaze50 - persistent removal of ordinals

    I first noticed Vaze50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when they recently removed information (the ordinal of officeholder, e.g., changing "5th President" to "President") in over a dozen Irish politician BLPs. I reverted. They have reverted again without explanation (and another editor reverted them). I've just had a look at their contributions, and they seem to be doing this everywhere (also removing dates of offices being held), without explanation or edit summary. (There is an occasional edit summary of "Why?" when just ordinals are removed). There are approximately 200 such edits since 1st August. Can this be addressed, please? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not just the Irish - Canada too. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you both want to keep the current situation where there's no consistency on this whatsoever (some jobs/countries having them, most not) then that's your problem. I'll leave them as they are - inconsistent, cluttered, pointless - if it bothers the pair of you so much. Vaze50 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great to see you reply to the concerns raised as you can see the edits are in dispute. Would be best to stop the edits of this nature till we figure out what your concerns are about a format that has been here for over a decade. Can you explain the problem with the current system? --Moxy 🍁 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor @Discospinster: appears to have taken up Vaze50 sword, at least concerning the Canadian prime ministers bios. Hoping this isn't a meat/sock puppetry situation. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Some (not all) of Vaze50's edits are actually substantively correct. As per the documentation for {{infobox officeholder}} |order= should "only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources", which is definitely not the case for some of the specific instances they've removed - for example, Canadian Ministers of Finance. These should be reverted only on a case-by-case basis, where that sourcing requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no objections to his removal of numberings from cabinet ministers' bios. The numberings should remain on bios of governors general, prime ministers & deputy prime ministers. Likewise with the provincial level - numberings should remain in the bios of lieutenant governors, premiers & deputy premiers. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's excessive, but the specifics of what should and shouldn't be numbered are best discussed somewhere other than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandstein and Eric Corbett at WP:AE

    Sandstein made a mistake and has now corrected that mistake. The rest (like whether to block and for how long) is better addressed at WP:AE, which I'm sure Sandstein will not close again (in part because of specific objections to them doing so in several statements). ~Awilley (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sandstein has just blocked User:Eric Corbett for 3 months (and fully protected his talk page) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett. However, one of the main diffs that was claimed to be problematic (and indeed, the main one that was being discussed as problematic) was an alleged personal attack against Sandstein themselves. This is almost certainly in violation of WP:INVOLVED, especially given their previous disputes ("... involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.)

    • Sandstein has claimed a novel reason for doing this - "If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective."
    • He has then shut down discussion on that page with - "any discussion about this case elsewhere is inappropriate, and I do not intend to comment further about it outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. For the same reasons, I am hatting your comment and my response to it." In other words, only an appeal by Eric Corbett at AE is valid - but Eric is blocked and his talkpage is locked.
    • I'm bringing this to ANI because this can't be the way we do things. Most comments at the page were not in agreement with his view of the infraction, yet he swoops in, almost certainly ignores WP:INVOLVED, blocks for 3 months, and then refuses to discuss it except in relation to an appeal that can't happen. This is simply wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As I noted at AE, the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited instructs: "Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." Accordingly, any discussion about this case here or anywhere other than in an appeal at AE is inappropriate. For these reasons, I do not intend to comment further about the block, outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. Such an appeal discussion can occur despite the talk page protection if Eric Corbett e-mails the appeal to somebody, who then copies it to AE. Sandstein 14:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about your violation of INVOLVED and premature shutdown of the case, so is valid here. By the way, your close has been reverted already on the 24-hour rule. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, you have violated the clause by ArbCom that states all AE stuff about Eric shall be kept open for at-least 24 hours; I have reverted your close and ask you to unblock him and un-protect his t/p. ∯WBGconverse 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am re-opening the AE thread and undoing the enforcement action (for now) because I was made aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_Eric_Corbett's_sanctions_(alternative) instructs a minimum discussion time of 24 hours. It is regrettable that this is not mentioned in the original decision. My view remains otherwise unchanged. Sandstein 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was mentioned twice in the discussion you closed, including in the admin discussion section, which just goes to show that you didn't actually read any of it, just decided to block Eric Corbett. It's not a good look, that. Not good at all. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Please don’t pretend you weren’t aware of the 24-hour minimum. You were part of the last AE which was kept open for 24 hours, and Galobtter himself said he’d have blocked on his own if not for the 24-hour rule in this very AE thread. This is a clear indication, in fact, that you failed to read the thread before acting. How often do you do this? For an AE regular I cannot believe this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sandstein, It would appear that your negligence is the reason for your incompetence in this episode, maybe you shouldn't be blocking if you can't be expected to READ the discussion. Maybe the thrill of the block and ensuing attention you receive is the guiding principle here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further

    • AE discussions regarding GGTF etc. are supposed to be open for 24 hours. This was closed after 7. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein is a disgrace and is acting like a coward, no suprise there he's been acting like AE is is personal fiefdom for years and the admin there have allowed it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Bad block but I anticipate Sandstein will close this pointing to the claim that reviews of Eric’s AE blocks can only be reviewed at AE. I will note however that there is nothing prohibiting a review of Sandstein’s misconduct as an involved admin. His response, in ignoring every single comment at that AE, was to assert that his recusal creates a perverse incentive for Eric to just involve every admin. This slippery slope argument fails for two reasons: (1) There is no indication Eric was trying to force Sandstein to recuse in future AE cases (or cases just reviewing that one comment), and (2) Were Eric to just name every admin and collectively insult them, it would be transparent what he was doing and no admin would be involved for the purposes of reviewing that comment. I am greatly disturbed by Sandstein’s behavior in this case and recommend that arbitration be considered to determine whether he still retains the trust required to retain administrative rights. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Sandstein has violated arbitration enforcement with his premature close; since it should not have been closed, and the block was concomitant to it, the block needs to be overturned by an arbcommer, if there is one in the room. I do, however, assume this error wasn't made through eagerness to be the one to apply the sanction in case, god forbid, another admin took a slightly more nuanced approach?
      Now, someone may remind; has Sandstein on a previous occasion blocked Corbett for a length of time against a clear consensus of this fellow admins? Answers on a postcard, please. ——SerialNumber54129 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Sandstein’s previous one-month block of Eric was in the absence of consensus for that specific length. I think there was administrative consensus for a block but I do not think there was consensus as to length. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Mendaliv I've <ins></ins>erted your correction, and I agree, I think that is what I'm thinking of. ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for the insertion. —Cryptic 14:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...thanks Cryptic, is that the one I'm thinking of? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That being the case, if the topic ban is to have any meaning, it must be enforced as it is written. A warning is not necessary because the topic ban itself served as a warning, and a warning is not possible as a sanction because the enforcement provision envisions only blocks and not warnings as sanctions. Emphasis mine. Not even kafkaesque is adequate to describe this sort of thinking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein ought to be banned from closing Eric-related AE threads and certainly ought to be banned from blocking them too, Every single time Eric is taken there it's always him that blocks and closes, Ought to be left to someone less-involved with him. –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I 100% agree with everything that has been said. Sandstein, you are an utter disgrace. And while we're on the subject of rogue admins, why does Galobtter consider themselves outside of the AE rules by posting in a section that forbids INVOLVED admins to post there? Galobtter , was the filing party, so they are very much INVOLVED. CassiantoTalk 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This block by Sandstein was truly embarrasing. It is clearly there in the admin chat, remedies relating to Corbett have to be filed at AE for 24 hours before they can be enforced - Sandstein did not even read the chat comments. He clearly has some issue with Eric and should not be allowed to take any actions against him. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid Sandstein has a track record of this involved behaviour when dealing with me too. He has been warned multiple times by multiple editors yet refuses to acknowledge his contributions are highly inappropriate in such cases. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein has stated over AE that he might re-close the thread in the same manner, once 24 hours pass. If he does that, I am inclined to file a case request before committee; he has continued his unilateral assault against consensus and common sense, under the technicalities of the policy, for way too long. ∯WBGconverse 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandstein should have read the AE rules more closely, but his action is understandable as the case is so cut-and-dry. Eric undoubtably violated the sanctions that he agreed to. While some editors, as per usual, are quick to excuse his conduct, his AE sanctions specifically note he is to withdraw and disengage. There is no “but he was mean first” or “I don’t like him” exception - Eric is expected to be civil and not belittle or insult anyone, period, and he is a person with agency and in complete control of his actions. If he chooses to violate his sanction, that’s his choice, but it has consequences.Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toa Nidhiki05, I don't think a small block is a problem but scorched earth by an involved admin is pretty bad too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sense a lot of animosity towards Sandstein with a lot of the same petty bickering that lead to EricCorbett even being blocked in the first place. It is really sad to see this kind of behaviour escalating all over Wikipedia. Here Toa is right, Sandstein made a correct decision to block Eric. He made the decision to violate his sanction, three months are correct .BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Let’s be clear, this is a discussion of Sandstein’s misconduct, and not so much a discussion of Eric’s merits or demerits (I am told there are many of both). While you are entitled to your opinion on whether Eric should be blocked, or that we should treat him as poorly as we treat everyone else (as I have said elsewhere we should be asking why we aren’t treating others better), I would respectfully suggest these comments aren’t relevant to whether Sandstein’s conduct in interacting with Eric was proper. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It is relevant whether Eric violated the sanction because that deals with a major part of this. Sandstein should have waited the 24 hours required but the case is so cut and dry on policy that I can understand making that mistake if he didn’t know you have to wait 24 hours. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toa Nidhiki05: If he didn't "know" he had to wait 24 hours, then either he hadn't read what others had said or he deliberately ignored them; which would you prefer? ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I can understand making that mistake if he didn’t know you have to wait 24 hours. It’s simply not credible that he didn’t know. He’s been involved in several Eric Corbett AE cases where that rule was discussed, expressly brought up, etc. And on top of that it’s explicitly stated in a big bold box on the relevant decision page, and was mentioned multiple times in the discussion Sandstein closed. And on top of that to call Sandstein an AE regular is a dramatic understatement. He is practically a resident there. For Sandstein to not know in good faith that he was required to leave the discussion open 24 hours means that he acted with gross negligence in implementing the block. It means he didn’t read the arbitration decision, and didn’t read anyone else’s comments either in this AE case or the previous one (and probably more), and wasn’t aware of ongoing arbitration decisions relevant to AE, where he is one of the most prolific contributors. That alone is sanctionable for purely protective reasons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: I was in fact unaware of this 24-hour discussion requirement, having not been involved (to my recollection) in previous ArbCom cases about Eric Corbett. I also overlooked the brief mention of it by the AE filer. I apologize for this oversight. But the "big bold box on the relevant decision page" was in fact added today, out of process, by a non-admin. It was not there when I made the block. I am amending the box to include a date of its addition to make this clear. Sandstein 16:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have completely removed the modification to the remedy and your subsequent edit. The user had absolutely no right to modify a remedy in an arb decision. They also changed the enforcement section, which they also shouldn't have done, but it's not as egregious--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Yes, they annonced the remedy if not amending it. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, go, write an article, if you can write one. ∯WBGconverse 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remedy, unusually, doesn't allow for a small block; it mandates the length: it's three months or nothin'. Or at least, three months with all the rules baggage of WP:AE to defend the blocking admin, or a shorter block solely on their own authority. That, historically, hasn't worked out well.
      By my count, though, Eric's had at least three blocks for this remedy at the one-month length. Shouldn't the ARCA provision have kicked in by now? —Cryptic 16:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m not convinced there’s no discretion to impose a lesser block. I think it’s just bad drafting on the part of the Committee. If there were no discretion it would be a phenomenally bad ruling and not at all consistent with the administrative community’s role in making rulings on actual behavior rather than imposing punishments. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Mendaliv, what is not convincing you about The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. (emphasis mine) – Levivich 16:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        First, the fact that whether to block in the first place (despite a finding of a violation) is discretionary. Thus a reviewing admin can decide that a block of any particular length would be excessive or insufficient, the only choice is to not block at all, which is perverse. Second, I do not believe the Committee has the discretion to mandate specific blocks for future misconduct and completely remove what would otherwise be ordinary administrative discretion to choose a particular sanction length. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either there is a violation here or not. If a violation has been made then a block is warranted. If not then, no.BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually no, an admin finding that there is a violation can impose no block. See the arbitration decision. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • So basically sanctions can not be met with any action. According to you. That is comforting. BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to you. Well no, according to the Committee itself: If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. It’s right there in black and white if anyone cared to read it. Also be wary about the inevitable counterargument that this wording shouldn’t be taken as authoritative or indicative of the spirit of the Committee decision: the exact same counterargument applies to the claim that the block lengths are mandatory. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If arbcom is doing their job, to reduce disruption and to support users faith in the dispute workings of the project they will already have emailed Sandstein telling him he has no authority to use his advanced tools to block in this case. Note, this thread is about Sandsteins actions not Erics. What users with advanced permissions and all editors here that want self control need to understand is that while they are all good here, getting away with elements of disruption using those advanced permissions, Fram and Richie for current examples, is, if this project doesn't deal with them the Foundation will step in and do it for us and out of the blue, but not really, you will find an office action on Sandsteins talkpage that he is restricted from making any AE actions for twelve months. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failing to wait 24 hours is a simple mistake to fix, and no big deal. It's a clear-cut violation of the sanction, well within an admin's discretion to enforce. A 3-month block (with mandatory report to ARCA) is the proscribed next step under the plain language of the sanction. An admin doing what they were elected to do, by enforcing an arbitration decision written by arbitrators who were doing what they were elected to do, is no cause for concern. – Levivich 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This actually isn't about Eric. If there's consensus to block him (for three months) after 24 hours, someone will do it. If there isn't, they won't. However, what won't be happening is Sandstein, someone who has previous issues with Eric, swooping in and blocking for three months without even reading the bloody discussion and when there's quite a few people opining that it's not blockable. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Enforcement log

    Closing as Sandstein has updated the log. –Davey2010Talk 02:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Enforcement_log is there any reason that Sandsteins out of process actions should be allowed to stand here without and clarification or removal? I post a request here because it seems User:Bbb23 removed a clarification from a non admin. Here is diff were he removed it https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF&diff=910373617&oldid=910372982 the edit summary is ok and I agree with that part of it but he also removed the clarification at the same time and failed to do anything to replace or amend that part of the edit. That block has not been enforced and as such should not be left in the enforcement actions, any admin getting invoilved to remove the clarification should have taken responsibilty to correct the issue.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The removal of the non-admin comment in the enforcement actions section was accidental, but that section should be used only by admins. It was Sandstein's block and his later unblock. He should be the one to correct the log as he believes appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Bbb23. I have now properly logged the undoing of the enforcement actions. Sandstein 20:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Thanks to both of you. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alberto279 genre warring

    User blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Past warnings and block

    Genre warring since warnings and block

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=910447139"