Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 18 June 2020 (→Site ban proposal: SashiRolls: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Open tasks

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 34 sockpuppet investigations
• 32 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 100 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 20 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Misplaced Pages is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot . Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per . How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Misplaced Pages is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here ? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, everyone. What a bloody shame. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

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

I think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Misplaced Pages is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? _Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Misplaced Pages. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi , the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?

  Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Misplaced Pages. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Misplaced Pages, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'

  Note: I oppose an on Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

  I have literally used that word once on Misplaced Pages and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Misplaced Pages should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Misplaced Pages should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​

  Note: YUEdits has made fewer than 500 contributions to Misplaced Pages, dating to 2017, and this is their first ever post to any administrator noticeboard. They've only edited 1 article talk page and 1 other noticeboard. Interesting, I would say. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen. I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

          WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Misplaced Pages system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Misplaced Pages!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Misplaced Pages. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia. I have been blocked in Arabic Misplaced Pages because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Misplaced Pages but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Misplaced Pages is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Misplaced Pages don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Misplaced Pages and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Misplaced Pages. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH₂₁ 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on Saudi Arabia TBAN per discussion with SlimVirgin below; oppose Middle East TBAN per comments by MJL below; oppose a ban on Islam or Muslim topics per my original rationale. 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) edited 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I said at the ANI thread back then, SharabSalam is emotionally invested in the topics they edit on: first Iranian politics, now Saudi Arabia? I have a gut feeling that we're going to end up looking at a t-ban from the entire Middle East. But, per WP:ROPE, this, for the time being. ——Serial 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN, alternatively support Middle East TBAN (or should that be MENA to make the WMF happy?), oppose Islam TBAN. Echoing SN54129 and Boing!, I'm not filled with confidence that even an ME topic ban will be enough of a wakeup call given that they didn't seem to get the message after the IRANPOL TBAN, but ROPE and all that. I also would like to express my disappointment that SharabSalam has been told by multiple editors how their "pro-Saudi trolls" line sounds and yet hasn't even retracted the comment. creffett (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  How to redact that comment when it is already removed. I didnt intent to call any editor Saudi troll. I said that the content that was added was promoted by Saudi bots according to reliable sources. If I knew that I would have been understood that way, I wouldnt have said it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The proposed ban and the ban from Middle East as per this comment --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can someone post examples of the problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia on enwiki? So far, the only one offered is "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" in response to a proposed poorly sourced edit that arguably undermined Jamal Kashoggi, the Saudi dissident who was assassinated. SarahSV 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that SharabSalam has retired. Looking briefly through his edits, it seems he's an Arab editor with excellent English who understands the sourcing policies, including a good understanding of OR/SYN and the misuse of primary sources. In case I'm wrong about that, or in case it's an incomplete picture, can someone please post some of his problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia? SarahSV 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: On its own I would agree with you. For me, the context I would want you to consider is that this seems to be continuation of the behavior that led to the ban from post-1978 Iranian politics. While those accusations were more direct than the incident you mention, the oblique accusation, Tony's diff from meta (among others), the Saudi Barbaria comment at RSN, and the Iran TBAN collectively make me think that the editor has issues assuming good faith or behaving civilly (i.e., not rude) in this topic area, and that what they learned from the post-1978 Iran TBAN was to make accusations by implication rather than directly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Wugapodes, thanks for the links. I agree that his comments there were unacceptable. The Iran topic ban was placed on 26 April 2020, so the question for me is what he has done since then to trigger a second one. The meta diff is from 2019 and in any event needn't affect enwiki. The Barbaria RSN diff was in January and is arguably fair comment. So we're left with the "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls" comment on 30 May. SarahSV 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, I missed the date of the Iran TBAN. Given that timeline, I would agree a TBAN is not the ideal response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for taking another look. SarahSV 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't want to fully weigh in here, but I have to say that idea we would TBAN SharabSalam for that "Saudi Barbaria" comment would be pantently absurd. (1) The dude is not a native English language speaker and probably has no clue the deeper implications behind call a place barbaric. He didn't even know what "whiny *****" meant. (2) He lives in Yemen. You guys know there is an active civil war there, right? It's just a wee bit tense there.. (3) Saudi Arabia has done some pretty awful things, so let's not pretend that a user biased against them is all that surprising.
  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. To TBAN for that one single comment from five months ago, that's pretty absurd.
  I'd also completely oppose a ban on the broad topic of the Middle East. That's like TBANing an English person from the entire topic of Western Europe. That's greatly disproportional to anything I have seen be alleged SharabSalam to have done. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. - I've read through Tony's link for meta.wiki and I have a different interpretation. I do not think SharabSalam was targeting Tony's acquaintances, I think it was a general comment. If you combine every allegation SharabSalam made as if they all referred to the same people, yes, it would look bad. But I do not think one is obliged to combine all the allegations. It is one way to look at it, but it is not the only way. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be honest, I thought along very similar lines. I just figured I must've been missing some context or something. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Given Saudi Arabia’s influence in the region, is it even feasible to devise a TBAN from Saudi Arabia but not from the Middle East? P-K3 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The behavior here is very concerning because I don't believe people don't quite understand the implications of what they're saying, and what it could mean or the consequences it could bring to people who live in different countries from the US or UK, especially where religion and customs are held in the highest regard. Please measure your words carefully. _Talk 📧 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: Considering we have a general sanction regime in place for Iran.. well there you go. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The behavior clearly justifies the proposed TBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SarahSV and MJL. Furthermore, I have stated above, I do not believe the meta.wiki comment was targeted at anyone in particular (of that discussion). Let's also remember that this dispute started with the OP labeling Jamal Khashoggi as a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer". What we should be doing, if SharabSalam ever returns, is to have them clearly state the targets of their criticism every time. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing

• Note: User:Sotiale (not an admin) moved the user page and talk page of User:SharabSalam. I was able to undo the talk page move, but the user page, not so much. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sotiale is a steward and global renamer. He was obviously doing it on request. You should revert.P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: - I reverted already. starship.paint (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, Sotiale is Korean and doesn’t really edit this project. He had no reason to know that this was in the middle of a sanctions discussion or that the user was already under sanctions. The simple solution is to reverse the vanishing, because you are correct, he isn’t entitled to one while under sanctions or being discussed at a noticeboard. It’s not big deal. These things happen on a global website. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: English Misplaced Pages is not the center of Wikimedia-sphere and we (S and GRNs) do not need to check for every project/every contribs every time to check stuff before acting on something. Vanish runs on honor systems: we assume good faith and act on bad faiths if found. — regards, Revi 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, let us not only make English Misplaced Pages more myopic and parochial, but let's do it in the most tortuous way possible. Forgive me for actually reading WP:VANISH, but there it says: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." That unless clause (combined with the 'might not' in the following sentence) tells me this is something you chose to do. That's fine. I am entitled to think you're a bad person for doing so. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He isn't "embroiled in controversy". WP:VANISH is poorly written, but my understanding is: don't do this to wriggle out of trouble temporarily; you do have to intend to leave. SarahSV 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the norm to be declining a vanishing in the middle of a sanctions discussion is that people who vanish in the middle of sanctions discussions usually aren't actually vanishing. They're usually trying to set up for an invalid clean start and will be back. Because of that, the vanishing policy both locally and on meta is traditionally read similar to the en.wiki WP:CLEANSTART policy since despite the wording saying vanishing is not a clean start, they tend to be linked in practice.

It keeps things cleaner if you wait until after it is over, and easier to figure out who is under sanctions and who isn't if they do come back in another incarnation. Basically, I do agree with reversing this, but I think we could have better explained the reasoning behind it besides global policy says so. I think there's a good reason for that norm, but its not intuitive if you don't work in the area.

Basically, my understanding of VANISH is that if you wouldn't otherwise be eligible to clean start, you shouldn't be vanished. There is of course wiggle room and grey areas, but I don't think they really apply here since it isn't a real name account or one with privacy concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: m:Global rename policy is a bit clearer on this saying that in seeking a rename The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. which is another reason turning down requests during sanctions discussions has become more of a normal way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing is done using the rename function, so normally the global rename policy is applied. Like I said, there's also a sometimes spoken sometimes unspoken assumption that rage quits happen, and are more likely to happen when someone is under stress of being discussed at a noticeboard. Eventually a lot of the people who try to vanish when there's controversy come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nihlus, where does meta:Global rename policy say anything that meant this vanishing had to be reversed? SarahSV 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 5) Dumuzid, there is quite a bit in WP:VANISH as well as m:Global rename policy that explains what renaming is not to be used for. The main takeaway though is that the user is a user in good standing and that renaming ... might not be extended to users ... who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned. So yes, this is something that I, in agreement with the original renamer and Tony, chose to do in accordance with policy. I disagree with your need to personally attack me and request that you remove it. Thank you. SlimVirgin, the fact that a topic ban is being discussed on AN means a rename would be under controversial circumstances. And this is something that we avoid for obvious reasons, as mentioned in my previous comment. I left more comments on the user's talk page prior to renaming. There is nothing that said it had to be reversed. The original renamer said it was okay to reverse, and two global renamers agreed that it should be reversed. The original request had no mention of privacy concerns, so there wasn't any need to look into it further. Nihlus 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, I am sure you are a wonderful person in your day-to-day life, and probably on Misplaced Pages as well. I have drawn a conclusion regarding your specific conduct here. Do what you want with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, when this has closed, we should discuss at Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing how to avoid this kind of situation in future. The local guideline should apply. SarahSV 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the local policies should and do apply in this situation. If, after this discussion, SharabSalam would like to vanish and is eligible, then I will be happy to process it for him at that time. Nihlus 05:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, there isn't much point in arguing about it in this thread. According to my reading of WP:VANISH, he is eligible. According to yours, he is not. That means there is a problem with the way the guideline is written, and it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV 05:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Renamer note As a renamer, I can tell you that SharabSalam is probably "under a cloud" and probably should not have been vanished. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reversing the rename/vanishing, while defensible by policy, was a mistake. Nothing is gained by keeping someone here who wants to walk away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter What? WP:IAR and WP:5P5 seem to suggest that's not the case. This just sounds like wikilawyering for a reason to punish someone who wants to leave. Also, if anyone who argues too passionately and discourteously for a topic they care about is now "malicious" under your definition, you might want to go see our "malicious" community trustee that just got a TBAN for similar conduct. Wherever the grey line of bad faith editing is, we're clearly very far away from it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, here's how I view it. Someone wants to vanish, fine, they get to vanish. As long as they're not some prolific vandal or something (and SharabSalam is not, regardless of whether any of us might agree or disagree with him) then let them go. Once. Whatever shit they may happen to be in at that point. "I choose to walk away" should always be an option.

  If they return with an attempted clean start, then they can declare that, and we can look at it case by case. Guy (help!) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: It's not that you said they were malicious, but you brought up a point about maliciousness in a case where it supposedly did not apply. If you don't believe Sharab is malicious, why do we need to argue about where the line is? Since Sharab was editing in good faith, if the spirit is avoiding harm from malicious users, then not following the letter better complies with the spirit. My point is and was that focusing on the specific letter of the policy isn't helpful. As Nil Einne explains below, it's not even clear that the wording you point to has particularly broad consensus.Despite the page name, I (and perhaps others) view this as a right not a courtesy. The meatball:RightToVanish essay was the basis for our early vanishing policy and--along with Barnstars and Assume Good Faith--the right to vanish represents one of the oldest parts of our community. SarahSV created our RTV policy page in 2007, copying it from meta. Meta's right to vanish was created in 2004 and was spun out from our first privacy policy where it was added by an IP in 2003. People change, communities change, and risks change. Unlike social media accounts or blogs, if we change our mind and want to abandon our connection to the content we've created, Wikipedians cannot simply delete our accounts or content (and people used to do that on wikis: c2:WikiMindWipe). As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. If we need to reverse the vanishing later so be it, but either way all the important stuff is kept. We gain nothing from a weak right to vanish but stand to lose a lot without a strong one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with NYB here. I agree this is all within the letter of policy, but I'm saddened that we couldn't just let him go as he apparently wishes. And no, this is someone who has problems with their interactions with others, but I really don't think there's any malicious intent. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am very much of the view that the harder we make it for people to leave with dignity, the more we stoke resentment and invite further abuse. If someone wants to leave, let them. Honestly. This is not some vandal we need to keep track of long term abuse. I've had my run-ins with him but this just makes us look spiteful. Sorry, I know that's harsh, but - well, just let the guy leave. Guy (help!) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
  Regarding the RTV/leaving thing, I'd just let people say what they're going to say. If people want to express their positive opinion of an editor or opine that a certain and specific courtesy should've been shown to them on their way out, then I can't see that doing any harm. At the end of the day, the policy has still been followed. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  But people can have strong attachments to their user names, especially if they have been used outside Misplaced Pages, and often even when they aren't. So even when an account name cannot be easily tied to a real name, demanding that we keep unnecessary connections seems, well unnecessary. Both WP:RTV makes it clear that editors who have engaged in that process cannot undergo a clean start. If they want to return, their vanishing is liable to be reversed or at least their connection to the old account will need to be clearly disclosed and will be considered in any request to return to editing. I think that's fair enough too. And as others have said, when the it's necessary to keep that connection so help us in tracking them e.g. for a known sock, sure it's fair enough that RTV is denied. But I agree with others that it's not clear why it was needed in this case. There seems to be no benefit to us, but there is potential harm to both us and the editor involved. Note that I have no real feelings about the editor either way. I just don't see any reason why we need to keep the unnecessary stuff when there is no apparent need to track them anymore and we already make it clear that if you later decide to return you will need to come back under you original identity so your return can be properly assessed. But until then, if you want to stay away, and you do stay away, then we're not going to keep unnecessary connections. The edit history, AN//I discussions etc will be preserved as they need to be and always will be. The other stuff especially the username in the editor history, we can remove. The most confusing thing to me about this is I'm fairly sure I've seen RTV afforded to editors who are under strong sanction e.g. an indef block, or I think even a community ban or arbcom ban afforded the RTV in the past. Also some where the vanishing does risk causing problems i.e. an editor with a known sock history. And indeed a read Misplaced Pages talk:Courtesy vanishing/Archive 1 seems to agree with me. Have we gotten a lot stricter recently, or is it just that because this editor decided to RTV when they were under discussion and therefore additional scrutiny, even if it seemed clear that any outcome would be no worse than when we normally allow RTV, they were treated different? P.S. If you check out that page, User:Risker's comments back in 2016 are similar to how I feel now. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, Nil Einne, and MJL: As I've explained before, it's just how WP:RTV is written, do I have a personal opinion? Not really - because as I said, it's not a big deal. People's attachments to their usernames are also not a big deal, if you wish to execute RTV then that attachment becomes irrelevant. It's equivalent to wanting it both ways, ensuring that things you do aren't tied to your username as well being able to wipe your history (to a limited extent). The way I see it is WP:RTV is a courtesy and if you feel that's not how it should be then you should propose changing it, what's not OK is justifying written policy with arbitrary notions. Should the RTV policy be more lenient? Maybe, whether the community feels that way should be debated in a RfC and not at an AN thread. I'm sure there have been cases where RTV has been done on a indeffed account because someone didn't read through WP:RTV or just straight-up invoked WP:IAR but that's never a suitable reason to subvert policy. What I do agree with is what Wugs' said here, As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. And I believe the real question lies in identifying "good" faith and whether sanctioned or under-a-cloud editors apply for the same. So, the real crux of the issue comes down to the letter of the policy and as it stands now, it's not something we can or should resolve unilaterally. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  We're not resolving it unilaterally; we're having a discussion about it because it was dealt with unilaterally when the renaming was reversed. I struggle to find in the text of that policy such a strict interpretation as you seem to understand. As Sarah has discussed above, nothing in the text requires we deny vanishing to those "under a cloud" or even indefinitely blocked users. Consider: Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "unless" means, it seems plain that what I and others have said is squarely within the text. Similarly, it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community... (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "might" means, it does not denote a requirement but rather a description of what could happen. The meta policy is arguably less restrictive. Saying that we need to propose a change is nonsense; we've advocated an interpretation that is squarely within the literal meaning of current policy text and given historical evidence for the spirit of the policy which led to the development of the current text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your viewpoint, you are saying because it was dealt with unilaterally by Nihlus whilst chipping away at the "might" of the guideline (it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community...) as if to say what Nihlus did was not justified in the guidelines prescribed in WP:RTV, the fact is that as a global renamer they have the discretion to carry out or reverse renames and your misinterpretation of WP:RTV to be permissive more than it's supposed does not mean their actions were misaligned with policy. In cases where it's unclear and actions are probably in a grey area, the correct step is to go back to status quo and not go through with it anyway, which is what Nihlus did, then the discussions can resume on whether the action was correct or not. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:58, 11 June 2020 (UTCl

  Agreed. Nihlus did the correct thing, according to policy, and there isn't much more to be said about it. It is probably time to move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• This hasn't been Misplaced Pages's finest hour. We've made a hot mess out of a relatively low-level problem.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, there wouldn't have been any "mess" if the editor had simply waited for the discussion to be concluded and then made their request. It was their doing so in the middle of a discussion about possible sanctions which created the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Censoring

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

I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like . Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace.com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now he is edit warring about it. Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
• This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply think you are a problematic editor. Why 2 months would not be recent, and what you see wrong with an unjustified warning on my talkpage being the trigger to investigate your edits, I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Economist: Straight but Narrow
2. Clear Quran: Surah 5:90
3. Clear Quran: Surah 6:145
4. Clear Quran: Surah 11:78
5. Clear Quran: Surah 45:11
6. Religion of Peace: Islam and Homosexuality

Another RfC close review please? (Religion in Albania, lede infographic)

I'm sorry for having two of these open at the same time; it's because I've been going through the more contentious unclosed discussions on ANRFC. Anyway, a few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert. The complainant concurs with my determination that there's no consensus, but disputes my view that the status quo ante is the version without the disputed graphic.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I hope you don't mind me being blunt? And no criticism of that (or any other) close. But just file at RfA please: it'll be a piece of cake. All the best, ——Serial 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Totally out of the question.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse close The summary was an accurate reflection of the discussion. I had been looking into the same discussion and would have posted nearly the same one myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Eggishorn: I agree with S Marshall's conclusion that none of the two sides of the dispute managed to reach consensus. I discussed with them on their talk page on what version of the article constitutes status quo ante. As I see things, the version with the pic in the lede is that version. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Those two questions are what I am not persuaded about in the RfC closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. What counts as longstanding text should ordinarily be determined by local consensus, where the level of activity of the article would be a key component in determining WP:SILENCE. Because this time the status quo ante was decided by the closer (which is to say, singularly), perhaps an explanation by them as to their respective determination to that effect is due. El_C 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, might I suggest reviewing WP:CHALLENGECLOSE? The close was ... a reasonable summation of the discussion and the closer has no history that would make them involved in the discussion. If the close accurately summarized the discussion, even if that discussion was based on faulty premises, then the discussion is still closed. It is not up to the closer to correct the participants. Doing so results in a WP:Supervote. I can see your point about the sequence of events but I feel S Marshall also accurately summarized those in your challenge on their talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I am aware of what is said on WP:CHALLENGE. I came here after the proposal to do so by S Marshall. I thanked him for his review process, and I have not asked him to correct any participant. The point I would like clarification about could probably be summarized this way: If I challenge an edit made 1 year ago, and after discussion there is no consenus, then the version I support should stay as a pre-dispute one? If that is the rationale applied, then one can easily remove content added years ago and those who disagree should not revert but just seek a "new consensus" on the talk page per WP:BRD. Is that the right way of action? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, if one today decides to remove content that was added a year or several months ago, can we say that the dispute started a year or several months ago? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. As the principal admin who has been attending to the article in question, I'd like to thank you, S Marshall, for once again taking on these difficult closes. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I hope you keep up the good work. El_C 16:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. The default position should be not to include contentious content. This was a brave close, in the proper sense of the term "brave". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: On what Wiki policy is your opinion that contentious content should not be kept on the article based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's based on common sense, which is more important than any policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" can cause disputes rather than solve them in controversial Balkan topics. No wonder Balkan topics on Misplaced Pages have so many problems and conflicts. The rationale of that "common sense" implies that one can remove content from an article and they do not even need consensus because "contentious content" should not be on the article. I was aware of the fact that editors in general tend to support decisions such as RfC closures, but I expected some justification based on well-defined rules, not that kind of "common sense". It is no wonder then that Wiki has lost so many editors during the years. Anyways, I do not see any reason to further continue this discussion, as it has already become pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• After reading all the input on this discussion, I do sympathize with Ktrimi991. The effect of the decision I made is to crystallize what Ktrimi991 feels is the wrong version of the article -- and I can see why, when I have sat the "stable version" such a long time in the past, this user might feel as if I've played a bit fast and loose with the rules.My position is that encyclopaedia-writers are educators, and that puts us under a basic duty not to mislead people. Properly analyzing sources is fundamental to what we do. In this case, independent and normally-reliable sources like the CIA World Factbook do seem to use the figures on this 2011 census -- but there are other, also independent and normally-reliable, sources that describe it as wildly inaccurate. We're dealing with research that's disputed, or even, suspect. In those circumstances, I took the view that the last "stable" version was the one that doesn't include an infographic based on the disputed research, and my view on that was certainly coloured by the possibility that the infographic is wrong.Please note that in doing so, I've backdated the last "stable" version well over a year from the start of the RfC. In that respect my decision was unusual, so Ktrimi991's outrage is understandable. We need to be fair, and although I'm grateful for all the "endorses" above, I do feel that some more careful, sober analysis from uninvolved editors is called for, and I'm completely open to being overturned if I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I am very happy you reviewed the RfC. My major issue is not a pic in the lede of an article, as after all when one participates in a RfC is aware that their opinion might not "win", and that is just a pic that changes nothing. What I find disturbing is the way editors who edit difficult areas such as the Balkans are treated, and in what condition a good part of Wiki policies are. The major reason why topics such as the Balkans are a mess on Wiki is that the rules are not well-defined, have multiple interpretations, and the noticeboards that are supposed to help just leave the requests unanswered or give answers without citing any well-defined policy. It is the big picture that is a problem, not merely a single pic. Thanks again for reviewing the RfC, and hope we will have the opportunity to work together in other places on Wiki too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say you're happy with this close review as-is, then? It's important that you feel you've had the chance to put your case and the decision has been reviewed in a fair manner.The state of our policies and guidelines is poor and I once spent nearly a year fixing wording that implied the truth doesn't matter. And Wikipedian policies and guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of rules you can find support for any position. I know that's unsatisfactory.But the flip side of that is that the rules aren't really worth revising, unless we can come up with a Turing-complete set of rules that can't be gamed and don't require editorial discretion. If we can't then every decision is a judgment call, so we'll be inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary. I know how difficult this makes it if your field of interest is India-Pakistan, or homeopathy, or the Balkans. I just can't see how to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good close. At the end of a well-participated discussion such as that, it is to be expected that some will be unhappy. Challenging the close is often a worse idea than reflecting on why your proposal didn't convince many other people. Asking for advice on how to proceed is always always better than making this sort of challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Would like check of my actions in a possible NPA caution statement

This section has been moved to WP:ANI#Issues related to Talk:Ronald Reagan at suggestion of Beyond My Ken; leaving here for courtesy pointer. --Masem (t) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The thread has been closed on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help investigating T2 and T3 usage

I have for a long time been following CAT:T2 and CAT:T3 and have seen quite a lot of templates that would be more suitable to handled through TfD, redirection, moving the page to another namespace or speedily deleted under another criteria and am now considering a proposal to deprecate these criteria. In preparation for such a proposal I have been combing through the deletion log looking for templates deleted under these criteria during the last month and would like to see the content of these templates to help assessing how well the criteria are working. If some admin with a bit of spare time could help out by getting the last revision of each of the following pages and send them to me by email that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sent. —Cryptic 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have started by creating a proposal for removing T2 at WT:CSD#RfC: Removing T2 ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

AWB requests need attention

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

Note: I may be a bit biased, as half the requests there are mine. However, could the admins look at the requests there? While they’re at it, they could probably take a quick look at the other permissions... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Total Eclipse 2017, if you can't even be bothered to provide a proper link to the place where you made a request only yesterday, then I don't think you can be trusted with advanced tools such as AWB. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Okay then. Here’s the link: Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, though I must admit I thought you guys knew where it was already. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Expiring user rights

Hi. Some of you may have noticed that the log entries for adding user rights with expirations don't currently include the expiration (haven't for the last ~2 days) This is being investigate (phab:T255330). In the meantime, I started a manual log of the missing expirations at phab:P11488 - it would be really helpful if those adding user rights with expirations could put in their log entries how long the rights are for, so that if at some point a maintenance script is written to fix the old log entries the correct data is available. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can administrators "semi-protect" the email function when faced with email harassment?

Recently, I and my students have become victims of some serious harassment through email (I've already informed a number of admins and WMF about it). Anyway, the solution to harassment on talk pages has been to semi-protect our userpages and elevate students to auto-confirm status, which I did through the Misplaced Pages:Event coordinator tool. But the solution to email harassment is a bit tougher. I did find that there is an option (WP:ENABLEEMAIL) to "Allow emails from brand-new users", which when disabled, requires autoconfirmed right to email a given user. It seems like a great solution to harassment by email (the person harassing us is creating a brand new account for each email, as the old one gets blocked by CU quickly after). However, that option is disabled by default. And while I could auto-confirm my students and admins did semi-protect their talk pages (thanks), right now I don't think either of those flags (or any flags at all?) would allow us to enable the function of 'Allow emails from brand-new users' for another account. And this is a gap in our anti-vandal/harassment toolkit, as while of course I can make a class announcement / video telling my students to enable this option to protect their accounts, some will miss it, and it may be days before they do so. As such, I think it may be worth discussing if admins and/or event coordinators shouldn't be granted the power to enable this option for other accounts, in cases of harassment by email. Through to make it a bit more complicated still, they should be able to do it on a global level through global preferences, since any smart vandal/harasser can simply shrug and send an email through Commons, wikibooks or Urdu Misplaced Pages instead. But the fact remains that right now we may be somewhat impotent when dealing with email harassment, but the tools to deal with this exist, just need to be activated and given to the admins. Another option would be to enable this feature by default for all projects, because how often does a brand new account needs to be emailed by another brand new account? But as with any global changes, the latter option is probably more trouble than it is worth it (and of course it probably would need to be discussed on meta not here), even through it wouldn't really affect anything or anyone of significance. Thoughts? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Go to Special:Globalpreferences and disable email everywhere, then enable it only for en.wp. Do you have a tutorial that says Step 1: create a Misplaced Pages account? Add Step 2: disable email as described. MER-C 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen

It's been chnging from Republic of China to Taiwan and Taiwan to Republic of China and........I think that can be disruptive editing is really disruptive.So i suggest we should semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen.history--Taichengwu (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Taichengqu: Requests for page protection are generally made at WP:RFPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Messed up the ping, @Taichengwu: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks--Taichengwu (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam

When I try to edit the page I get the message that it is restricted. It does not say why. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly are you trying to edit this blocked user's page? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that removing speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself is not permitted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta and Lee Vilenski: could be the same editor—but that's OK of course... ——Serial 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Sorry, not sure I follow what you mean by "could be the same editor"? You mean that placed the speedy tag on? It was the same user account here (GerardM) who created that page and removed the CSD. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm suggesting that GM and GYAT are one and the same  :) ——Serial 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Sorry! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation. It's also false. Perhaps you'd like to strike it, Serial Number 54129? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an allegation at all, let alone a serious one. GYAT was only soft-blocked as a username violation, and we explicitly instruct the blocked editor to register a new account with a username that is in compliance with the username policy. ——Serial 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Since User:GerardM first edited on 2003-12-07, and in the light of this nearby edit, you might want to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For your information, I am not the person who created that user page. I don't do that.. It is a board member of the GYA who created that page. As is stated on the page what I do is discussed with him so I do what is in line with what the GYA considers relevant. Again, this is about science, global early career scientists and relevant awards. It is not limited to the GYA and therefor it is not self promoting. GerardM (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: Someone using your user account created that page. Was someone else using your account at the time? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not create that user.. I did add the entries on the page. GerardM (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So if you personally did not create that user, did someone else do so using your account? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: It also appears to be blatant misuse of Misplaced Pages as a webhost, given the vast number of subpages of this user that you have created, per your user log. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

When you hold such an opinion, lets discuss what it is that is reflected in these Listeria lists.

It is what we know about early career scientists, organisations and so far awards that can be characterized as of having no bias. It includes images, links to papers and it shows a scholia for awards, organisations and scientists. It shows the extend English Misplaced Pages covers all of these. These particular pages are therefore as much about English Misplaced Pages as about the subject perse. Similar information can be found on other Wikipedias. So no, this is not a webhost, it is a reflection about science and it is relevant to this project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a different person is behind the CYA (role/org account) than GM. But I think that doesn't matter...CYA is softblocked, so it's reasonable for that person to create a new person-account. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That person did create a new WMF account has used it a lot on Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: I think you need to clarify the situation with your account. Has someone else used your account to edit wikipedia? As others have mentioned, the user page User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam was created by your account and a large amount of the content was added by your account. Who created the account GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is IMO not so important as whether anyone else has access or has used the GerardM account. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I am quite happy to claim that I created this page and maintained it. I did not create the user, I do not use sock puppets. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the speedy tag. If someone who didnt create the page wants to remove it, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Already deleted by Fastily. P-K3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Like a speedy ninja. I left a query on their talk page about the subpages, but I am pretty sure they need to be looked at as a group per my below comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

From taking a look, I concur with C.Fred that given the subpage content linked from here that this is on the face of it, a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIR. From past experience it looks similar to link-farming - as everything appears to be stored on wiki-data, the only real purpose to having it on ENWP is to gain higher status. There is a related issue that a lot of them appear to have been created using ListeriaBot (see here for recent issues with that.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

From taking a closer look. The subpages all appear to be lists either of wikidata or wikipedia articles. If they are for the purpose of improving wikipedia's articles about the relevant subjects, then a Wikiproject is probably the best option - many wikiprojects contain lists of articles they want to focus on. If they are merely for GerardM to use in their own editing, then move them to his userspace (but there is likely issues with WP:UNOT). But we shouldnt have over 100 subpages being actively curated by an editor and/or bot in a deleted user's userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So what is the process to get this page restored. The deletion is based on assumptions, they are manifestly wrong. These pages provide information about the extend English Misplaced Pages supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists. It does enable collaboration, many of the scientist gained Misplaced Pages articles as a result.

You have not made a case properly and imho it reflects badly on Misplaced Pages process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

GYA is patently not a user. It might be a project or a Education program and may be something for the Misplaced Pages:Project namespace but definitely not the space. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Like Nthep noted, with GerardM's assertion that these pages provide information about the extend English Misplaced Pages supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists, and that it does enable collaboration, this sounds more like a WikiProject. There's more information here about what they are and how to start one. Maybe a pre-existing science WikiProject exists that suits your needs? The science WikiProject directory may be something worth taking a look at. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

With such arguments you basically assert that a speedy deletion and the reason for it is wrong. It should not be a speedy deletion in the first place, its execution while it was discussed is an affront to the due process that is expected as part of a defined process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to specifically contest the speedy deletion, the place to do that is WP:DELREV. A blocked user's userpage is not an article, nor a directory, nor an advert. If that information is for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia, then either your userspace (as you appear to have created all of the content) or a wikiproject (if it satisfies the criteria, which has a low bar since about the only requirement for a wikiproject is 'to improve the encyclopedia'). Here is a question: What is the intent/purpose of all those lists? Is it intended to be used/turned into an article? Is it intended to be used as an admin aide to collaborate in improving articles? Are they just going to sit there and be periodically updated by ListeriaBot? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if it helps, I am one of the many people that GerardM has worked with. I was also there right at the start of this process. I am a wiki newbie, just like hundreds others that GerardM has brought to contribute (mostly to wikidata) over the last months (from Bangladesh to Panama). I just tried to access the project page and couldn't find it anymore. The page is basically the starting point for more than 50 organizations of professors (young scientists that are part of young national academies of science as well as their alumni) that are being mapped as part of a wikidata project. See here for more information: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/. PPEscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me that if the page is being used as the "starting point" for an organisation's efforts, that's prime WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Reading through that web page, I'm not clear at all on what the link to Wikidata or to any Wikimedia project is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask that as a very direct question: what is the ultimate intended outcome of all this work in terms of Misplaced Pages article content? DMacks (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PPEscientist, I feel you may have been misled or giving incorrect information as to the basic point of wikipedia, so I will start from there. English Misplaced Pages's (ENWP) purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Much as Wikimedia Commons (Commons) is to create a repository of free media, and Wikidata is to create a shared resource of data to use in multiple language wiki's (altho this may have changed in scope, as Wikidata is doing its own thing). ENWP has a number of different spaces for different purposes. Article space is where we store the articles for the readers. Userspace is where editors have their user and talk pages where collaboration/communication to improve articles takes place. Project space (usually denoted by a WP:<title>) is where all the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, documentation for the running of the encyclopedia sit. Its also where we have our Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are groups of editors that come together to improve a group of articles within their projects scope. WP:MILHIST focuses on military subjects, WP:WIRED seeks to improve the coverage of articles involving women, WP:MEDICINE seeks to improve content on medical articles. The key point here is they are all intended to improve our article content for readers. From your description above, and reading the website you posted, what you describe is something that is more of a project, but it is more of a data gathering/tracking exercise, that doesnt have any direct (or indirect that I can tell) goal/purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This isnt to say its not something that should be done, just that it does not appear to be something that is within our scope for Misplaced Pages. Hence the rather direct questions to GerardM and from DMacks above. Wikidata being a data collecting project is probably more a good fit for your purpose than wikipedia, and as (from looking at a lot of the pages created by GerardM) a lot of the information is already stored there, likely in scope for that project. Another alternative would be starting your own dedicated wiki. The references to WP:NOTWEBHOST are linking the relevant policy/guideline that lays out that we are not an indiscriminate web host for the hosting of material. We host stuff that is directly (or indirectly) intended to improve the encyclopedia. Data/Tracking does not really fall within that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me that you first abuse your own procedures and then ask questions. In the information provided by Robert, you find a link to its website. It shows other organisations and, the majority of them have their own websites as well, they are linked in the information as provided. They are fairly active, they list their members and inform about their accomplishments. Largely this information is used as references for the people involved. They have their own scientific programs, one of them informs about Covid19. These are not specifically linked in our data. Where these papers have a DOI they are included in Wikidata through the normal ingestion methods. This gets reflected in the relevant Scholias.

The ultimate outcome is "share in the sum of all knowledge", a bit like what we do as a movement. Each Listeria lists shows information that is particular for what it is about. As time goes by, more people, more papers are included and as a consequence it becomes no longer viable to just utter "not notable" because the information about people, awards, organisations is directly available and as up to date as we have it. This data will be correct and not suffer from the false friends you find in Misplaced Pages lists and links.

In Listeria lists and, you know that, it is clearly known what list items have a local Misplaced Pages article. It follows that as lists are followed, it is easy to check on the quality of articles and provide additional information. One such is that every year new recipients happen to awards. As you may know, there is a Scholia template and it is used on many Misplaced Pages articles providing additional, up to date information.

For me personally it is again obvious that you do not know what is in front of you. Your procedures are open for abuse as is clearly demonstrated and the only way to address this is to contest this deletion. Given that there was an ongoing real time discussion your procedures are abusive and do not reflect what Wikimedia stands for. I have been an admin for many years and I am glad those days are done. I do not need to reflect on this collective behaviour.

I doubt that there is room to discuss ways that will improve Misplaced Pages quality by 4 to 6% in its lists and wiki links. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of rants which don't answer any questions, perhaps you can't explain why this wasn't done either in your own user space, or in project space (or on Wikidata), but on the page of a non-existant "user", actually a front for a group (or a shared account), which has been blocked since long. I notice that you already have 640 userspace subpages, which is more than the number of mainspace edits you made over the past 5 years. Your activity on user talk, Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages talk space are minimal. So what exactly are all these pages (in your user space, and in the userspace under discussion here) actually doing for the improvement of enwiki? Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This project was not my initiative but something that I consider important. Otherwise it would be a project with a subpage of my userprofile. At the start a name for a profile was chosen that reflects what the project is about. The user was blocked and this matters little as long as the page is available.

Yes, I have a large number of subpages and they all reflect projects I work on. On my profile page you find what they are about. The problem that I face is that Misplaced Pages does not have the quality in its information that we seek. In these Listeria lists I provide consolidated data from several Wikipedias about these subjects. Often a Misplaced Pages is superior in a given domain, I use tooling and manual edits to include the data in Wikidata. These Listeria lists are shared with other Wikipedias. This enables comparison and improvement on the data local and in Wikidata.

Given that we are working in a Wiki way, it allows for autonomous growth. Both local changes and changes from data are reflected in my watchlist. In this way these Listeria lists provide an excellent tool to learn about particular subject matter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

None of that actually seems to be about improving Misplaced Pages articles however. And from your description this looks like a project that should be on wikidata. Also your lists are in userspace and so won't be visible in any real fashion for readers to learn from, and they can't exist for the most part in article space as they would be subject to the rules around lists and bots. As well as other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, all of this seems to belong on Wikidata (if they can use it), but not here. Fram (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the problem with role accounts and promotionalism connected to the Global Young Academy has been long and ongoing; see for instance GlobalYA (talk · contribs) from 2012 and GYA Press Officer (talk · contribs) from 2017. (I created the article myself in 2011 but have not been very active in keeping the promotionalism out of it since.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that the main page has been deleted as U5, should I tag the 109 subpages all with U5 as well, or will some kind admin spare me the work and delete them outright? This is separate from the 600+ subpages of the GerardM account, which may need some action as well. Fram (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

De-tagging bulk speedy nominations

I need some help, please, to de-tag speedy nominations for a large number of articles in the User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam user space (example: User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Sackler Prize for Biophysics. I started doing so manually, then by rollback, but there are too many.

I believe these to be valid pages, created in good faith to detect notable people and, as part of a project, to write their biographies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the pages should be moved to be sub-pages of, say, WP:WikiProject GlobalYoungAcademyTeam? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam a bit higher on this very page. The main user page has been deleted as U5, the editor has been blocked, GerardM has been asked questions to which they gave evasive (or at least completely next to the point) answers... The deletion (tagging) of these subpages was announced there as well (after it had been raised there by multiple editors that the subpages needed attention as well). Please undo your removal of the U5 tagging and let these user subpages of an indef blocked editor / role account be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

None of what you say means that the material in question is not useful to Misplaced Pages, or should be deleted. There is only a soft-block, because of the user name, and the user is welcome to edit under another name. We have enough problems to deal with without inventing them, to the detriment of the project and the demotivation of a wanted, novice, contributor. Your tagging for speedy is challenged; the tags must be removed; you can use AfD if you wish to persist with this nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Which wanted, novice contributor would that be? There is no evidence that any "User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" exists, and GerardM is not a novice at all. The pages are part of a Wikidata project, according to those working on them. Why then they needed to be created on enwiki, in the userspace of another user is completely unclear, and no answer to this (or to suggestions about where this all belongs) have been given by the editors involved. Fram (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that any 'User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam' exists". False: . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if they edit on other wiki language versions, it is not really clear how the deletion of subpages not created or edited by them, nearly a year after the editor was blocked here, would have a negative effect on this "wanted, novice contributor". Fram (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed the speedy tag from User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Dufferin Medal with edit summary: "Perfectly valid preparatory work for future Misplaced Pages articles", even though we already have an article on the Dufferin Medal and no one will look for material to improve it in a subpage of an editor with zero edits on enwiki. And even if they found it, there is nothing there that can be used to improve the target article, the eight recipients were already included with better descriptions. Fram (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"no one will look..." Having had your previous false assertion refuted, you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, back to the personal comments I see, making broad negative statements instead of dealing with the actual "false pronouncement". Why does this always happen in discussions with you? (If someone wants an example of similar unhelpful negative replies, look e.g. at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Convert to wrapper. Trying to have a useful discussion in this manner is next to impossible). Fram (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No personal comment; I was addressing - and very specifically at that (and just as I did in the linked dicussion) - what you did, not who you are. Unlike you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec: Can you stop constantly changing your comments. It is rather annoying to reply to a statement only to get an edit conflict because you have again added stuff to it). Let's see, "you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant." is a broad negative statement without any indication of what you base these claims on. Dismissing another editor's comment "just because" is hardly "very specifically" adressing anything that was said. It boils down to "you made an error above, so everything else you say is wrong". I prefer to discuss things in a more adult manner. Fram (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If you think I have deceptively changed the meaning of any of my comments once someone has replied to them, please provide a diff. Otherwise, I will continue to add afterthoughts, fix typos etc. My comment about your false comments was - as anyone can see - preceded with a specific example, highlighted thus: "no one will look...". If you wish to continue to attack me, rather than discuss the user pages at hand, I suggest you open a separate section. As it is, it is clear that the speedy-deletion tags must be removed, and nothing you have said refutes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The pages I de-tagged are now at AfD: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/ASEAN Young Scientists Network. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User page

I doubt that User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam warranted deletion under U5; please will someone restore it? It can be sent to AfD if anyone disagrees with me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the speedy deletion of a page, take it up with the deleting admin and, if they disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm ready to do so if necessary, but it seems pointlessly beaurcratc to require that given the context and volume of discussion here already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Other than a small header naming members of "GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" it's just a prettified version of Special:PrefixIndex/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason why it should not have been speedily deleted; and why it should be restored, then. It is absolutely not U5 material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Review" username spam accounts

Lately, I've been noticing a lot of new accounts with usernames containing the string "review", such as Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal ReviewTab2 (talk · contribs). That is the only example I have on hand, but there are others in the blocklist. One such account got globally locked for spam. Does anybody know whether these are human spammers or automated spambots, and what is the cause of this account creation pattern? Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fresh Flora Review 1 (talk · contribs)
• My Lottery Loopholes Review (talk · contribs)
• My Lottery Loopholes Review Tab3 (talk · contribs)
• Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal Review (talk · contribs)

With these types of accounts, it's difficult to say if it's a human spammer or some other kind of spammer. Needless to say not much thought is involved. Not much a CU can do, BTW. -- zzuuzz 07:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Results of earlier RfC not acknowledged or heeded

A series of misunderstandings and distractions has led everyone at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries to miss the results of a March RfC where the closer said that, although the RfC was "too messy to be completely certain", there was consensus regarding Part B of the RfC to include in the infobox all candidates who had either earned a delegate or 5% of the vote. A close read (summarized here) of the votes and comments there shows that 19 of 22 voters held that view.

The result of that RfC should have been honored when closed on May 22, but a now-banned a sockpuppet's introduction of contemporaneous and subsequent (and poorly-worded) RfCs have distracted and sown confusion even among well-intended actors. My last responses to such a well-intended actor (the proposer of an as-yet another RfC who hasn't recognized that the new one effectively duplicates the earlier good RfC) are here on the article talk page and here on that user's talk page. (The driving issue is not with this latter editor but rather with the confusion sown by the sockpuppet.)

As the page has been subject to too many edit wars, I am requesting help here. Can someone please revert the infobox template to my last revision? Humanengr (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve convinced the proposer of the ongoing RfC to request a close. In that request, however, the proposer mischaracterized the request as “due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs.” That is indicative of the confusion I’ve described. It is not controversial (only a small minority of editors object); in the current RfC, all votes were for including candidates who had earned a delegate; the one material RfC was clearly decided but the result was ignored; the others were distractions. Humanengr (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Due to recent misuse of multiple accounts, Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to editing with one account.

Support: Joe Roe, Maxim, SoWhy, Casliber, Bradv, Beeblebrox

Oppose:

Recuse:

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

Scunthorpe problem

I'm trying to add a link to the European STAMP workshop (an industry/academic conference about the STAMP accident analysis methodology, https:// www.stamp-workshop.eu/about-stamp/ ), to Nancy Leveson's biography, and encountering a Scunthorpe problem: an edit filter is rejecting the url because it contains the substring "shop.eu". Can someone help with this? Easiest way might be for an admin to just add this link to the external links section of the article. I think I can then move the link into the article text without hitting the filter again, since I would no longer be adding a new link. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WT:WHITELIST may be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. That way if it gets reverted out, you don't need an admin to put it back in, etc etc etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What a pain, I wonder if there is a way to fix the filter. Unfortunately the error message doesn't identify what filter it is that blocked the edit, since I wanted to check how often the filter actually triggers, though chances are it's one filter for multiple patterns. shop.eu spamming is probably rare enough that it can be handled by xlinkbot instead of a filter. Anyway I'll see about whitelisting. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And wait, will whitelisting even help? The substring is not in the mediawiki spam blacklist, that the whitelist counteracts. It's being stopped by an edit filter, which is different. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you had an account, you would be able to see the spam blacklist being hit. The entry is at m:Spam blacklist (listed as "shop\.eu\b"). Also, for the record, even admins can't add blacklisted links. -- zzuuzz 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it does say blacklist in the error box. Not sure why I thought it was an EF. Thanks. Can you see how often that blacklist item is triggered? And it's crazy that admins can't bypass the BL. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have whitelisted the link, basically a false positive on an intentionally wide rule after large attacks of XXXshop.eu spam. Sorry for the delay, I had to see the records first. --Dirk Beetstra 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Made mistake in moving article

I wanted to move the Nahal Hermon article to its english name Banias River, but it didn't work because the redirect already existed, so I changed the redirect to the article and made Nahal Hermon a redirect, the problem now is that the history of the article is now at the redirect. I probably should not have done this. Can some admin please properly move the Nahal Hermon redirect to the Banias River name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Supreme Deliciousness. I think I covered this for you (Let me know if there is something further, or I made a mistake). In future, see WP:RMT for page moves where there is a redirect at the target and it has more than one edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You will need to cleanup the lede due to the page move though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, It should not have been moved. The common name is Nahal Hermon, not Banias River. WP:COMMON applies. Sir Joseph 14:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph - I simply fixed the copy-paste move. I have no ties to the article. If it needs/should be reverted, I suggest that this should be discussed with Supreme Deliciousness. Although I agree this probably isn't a non-controversial move. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, you're an admin, you should have reverted and put it back to what it was and told Supreme Deliciousness that a controversial move should be discussed first. I'm a page-move and I know that a page move that is controversial should not be done without discussion. This is not his first time at the rodeo. Sir Joseph 16:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Please move it back to original title if there is any objection that I will do the move my self? Shrike (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the pages back to the prior locations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee, you picked the very worst of the options to mollify objections of process but not substance, but no worries will go through the normal process here. nableezy - 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've treated this the same as an opposed technical move. If a RM is inevitable, then it should come from the more stable name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Site ban proposal: SashiRolls

This ban can, of course, be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, and I or another admin can unblock SashiRolls for the narrow purpose of filing a case and pursuing an appeal there if he wishes. At the same time, it would be inappropriate to disregard the input of the >60 editors who have commented here in sending the case to ArbCom. There is clear community support for an indefinite site-ban, which should be the starting point for any further litigation through ArbCom. MastCell  17:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018 largely because the reason for his initial block was a dispute he was in with Sagecandor, a sockpuppet of Cirt. In this unblock, Sashi was warned That said, there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior

Since his unblock, Sashi does not appear to have heeded this warning. The following are the sanctions and blocks that were not reversed:

1. No personal comments restriction, May 2019
2. IBAN from Tryptofish, May 2019
3. 1 week block for "Personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior", June 2019
4. 1 week block for "Uncollaborative editing, aspersions, harrassment", August 2019
5. GMO Topic Ban and warning that an indefinite block was likely if behaviour did not change, November 2019
6. American politics topic ban, February 2020
7. 2 week block for violating the above TBAN 15 times, February 2020
8. 1 week partial block from Edward Colston for edit warring, June 2020

This is in addition to the sanctions he still has in place from before his unblock, which can be found at WP:AELOG.

Since his partial block a few days ago, Sashi has been on a vendetta against El C that in my mind is equivalent to harassment. See the following diffs:

1. Reverting a perfectly calm explanation of actions by El C as "escalation"
2. Implication that El C has no job outside of Misplaced Pages, which is obviously problematic given the current pandemic
3. Further attacks on El C's time spent editing here
4. Removing El C's response to not treat him as a punching bag as a personal attack
5. Editing El C's response to him with the edit summary "remove personal attack. you are not above the law" after it had already been reverted
6. This book-length rant which includes the following:
   • The implication that the El C account is used by multiple people
   • Attacks on two editors otherwise not involved in the dispute
   • Reference to a previous warning of El C to Sashi as "railroading"
   • Accusing El C of having an WP:IDHT attitude.

I'm sure there are more diffs from this incident should anyone else want to find them.

Sashi has been warned multiple times, at AE, in unblock requests, and even in his initial unblock that he is wearing the patience of the community thin. He has been subject to 8 sanctions and/or blocks since his unblock, multiple ones based on inability to interact well with others, a battleground mentality, or harassment. He is now using admin accountabliity as an excuse to harass an individual who is trying to hold him accountable for his actions. Enough is enough.

Based on the above actions, which demonstrate a long-term inability to interact with others on this project, I am proposing the following:

SashiRolls is indefinitely site banned from the English Misplaced Pages by the community.

• Support as proposer TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is far too much drama associated with this account and the diffs above show entirely the wrong approach for a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It feels like every other day we're here with another thread about SashiRolls. I believe I said exactly this when their last unban conversation happened. They take up a lot of oxygen and time. --Jorm (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Please open an ArbCom case. I will not have time to respond to this until the weekend (as obviously every single line of it is one-sided). -- SashiRolls 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I had seen the unblock request and found the partial block to be too lenient, but didn't want to take unilateral action. And we don't need an arbcom case to implement a community ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Why does it say that Sashi is blocked from an article that's fully protected? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  GoodDay, the protection happened after the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I reckon his current 1-article block should be reversed, since it serves no purpose now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  GoodDay, this discussion is practically about whether it should be converted to a full block. It will be closed after at least 24 hours, when consensus exists for how to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The pattern of behavior after the 2018 unblock shows that we've moved beyond second or third chances. Reading through the 2018 unblock discussion, the community extended a healthy amount of AGF: while the behavior in pursuing a sockpuppet was concerning, we assumed good faith particularly because Sashi was ultimately correct about the editor. Since then, the behavior that led to that block has not improved. Restrictions for incivility, multiple blocks for battleground behavior, multiple topic bans, a block for violating one of those topic bans---we have long since reached the point where the benefits outweigh the costs of having to manage these issues. This would be my position without considering the recent hounding of El_C, and when that behavior is considered, it simply reinforces my concern. Those opposed to unblocking in 2018 frequently pointed to WP:NOTTHEM saying that the unblock request focused on others rather than the behavior that led to the block. In these engagements with El_C I see the same behavior where SashiRolls seems to be trying to impugn El_C in order to get unblocked rather than grapple with their own behavior. The past year and a half do not give me confidence that their behavior will improve in the near future, and until it does, we should not continue to waste our time on this treadmill. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month block, not a site ban--MONGO (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • MONGO, they’ve have several blocks before, as well as other editing restrictions such as topic bans and interaction bans, and they haven’t modified their behaviour. Do you think the 9th block will be the charm? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• SashiRolls, I think the best thing you can do, and you can do this right now, in less than 30 seconds, is to repudiate your hounding of El C and say you will not engage in that kind of behavior anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I will not continue to discuss El C. Nor will I respond to comments they make about me even if they refer to me 5 times in the comment. Upon further reflection, I cannot make this claim and defend myself. And since I will likely be banned before I have time to defend myself, I don't feel like leaving such a promise lying around. -- SashiRolls 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • User:SashiRolls, you had time for almost a dozen edits here; surely you had time for a defense of sorts. I imagine that your "fix the lynching" edits took you quite a bit of time and energy, which would have been better applied in an actual defense. I can close this discussion right now as an overwhelming support indefinite site ban, and if you don't take the time to post an actual defense that is probably how this is going to end. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

      No, you can't close this discussion right now. It has to be open for 24 hrs; there's still 8hrs to go; I'll be posting an oppose vote before then, perhaps others will as well. Levivich  15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:. Hi. You asked me to post a statement despite my being busy. You also asked me to say that I would "stop hounding" El C. Hounding, as it turns out, has a precise meaning:

Hounding on Misplaced Pages (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.

I made a comment on my TP. El C deleted it. I deleted his follow-up comments on my page as there was no reason for him to be making comments on my talk page while preventing me from doing so. Then, he created a talk page section with my name in the header to chide me. O3000 chimed in. They chuckled a bit. IIRC I replied and El C deleted my reply. This is the escalation I was referring to. I did respond to their tone there and only there.

The only other place I've interacted with El C this month (one comment) was at the thread where Slatersteven reported my 2RR "violation". The story I mentioned about the copyvio image they were poking around with (some time ago) was discovered by happenstance insofar as the account that created it (Wikicreators) edited the 2019 Haitian protests page to promote a guy named Wesley Nortreus (again). (I am the principal author of that protests page.) This is how I found El C repositioning the copyvio image, rather than investigating it. Other than that, I'd be very interested to see if you had any evidence to back up your claim of "hounding", Drmies. You see, in an ArbCom case, you would submit such evidence during the "evidence phase" and people would frown on casting "aspersions" without evidence (see the 5 ArbCom cases on this). Here at AN... not so much, even administrators get away with it. Have a good one, Drmies. It was nice hanging out here with you for a while. -- SashiRolls 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK then. I retract "hounding". You win that battle, because I won't be able to make the argument, probably until the weekend. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – How many times do you get to use as an excuse for ongoing problems an event litigated long ago? You cannot hide behind this to continue battleground and harassment behavior. The editor is a negative (forget the modifier “net”) to the project and a time sink. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support This says it all. Enough is enough. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support They have been even too many "last chances" and continue to be a drama-sink for the project. Enough is enough as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was in favor of unblocking Sashi Rolls when I commented at 02:00, 29 October 2018, and within three days, I was dismayed to see this editor engage in the very behavior that they had been warned against by so many other editors. After reading the evidence above, I have concluded that Sashi Rolls has core personality traits that makes productive, collaborative participation in this encyclopedia impossible. Their recent harassment of El_C is the straw that broke my back. Thanks to TonyBallioni for doing the work to assemble the evidence. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The point of lesser sanctions like IBANs/TBANs/partial blocks etc is to reduce disruption. There are cases where people get heated up when editing a particular topic area, or interacting with a certain person, but having been sanctioned, are able to remain reasonable when editing elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's obvious from the number of different sanctions that have been enacted on Sashi since the 2018 unblock that this is simply not the case for them. When removed from one area, they become heated in another, and another, and another. It seems clear to me that they are not suited for working on the kind of loosely-structured collaborative project that is Misplaced Pages, and that we have given them enough chances to prove otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Sashi just edited my initial post changing my words about his behaviour to suit him, and referring to it as a “lynching”. This is worth adding to the record here, as it demonstrates why this site ban is needed. This is not someone who is compatible with a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This shocking display of disruption and clumsy attempt at deception is additional rock solid evidence that Sashi Rolls must be site banned from this encyclopedia. Comparing a discussion about whether a person should be allowed to participate on a private website with an extrajudicial murder by a violent mob is reprehensible and grotesque. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment I highly suggest editors look at the diff. Aside from the edit summary describing this report as a “lynching”, it’s basically multiple swipes at various editors and administrators. I also suggest that interested editors look at the link for the AP topic ban and especially, the diff to the violation of said restriction. Honestly, his conduct in both areas seemed to me evidently disruptive and dismissive, but nor was it a particularly great look for some of the editors defending that latter page. A lot of this seems pretty petty. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    Purely disruptive, should be blocked for that alone. As TB says, not compatible with a collaborative project. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Far too many last chances. Use of the word lynching when that is actually happening in real life is repellent in the extreme. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Well deserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This user has been given more than enough chances to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Previous disruption and absurd "lynching" claim aside, editing another's signed comments like that would be enough all by itself for me to block if he weren't already in the middle of a banning discussion. —Cryptic 09:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not everyone is well-suited to collaborative encyclopaedia-writing, and sometimes a contributor needs to be shown to the exit.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I blocked Sashirolls for 6 months back in Dec 10, 2016, and while he mistakenly thinks I ""realized the error of that" block, it was designed to be a last chance. In fact, it was done at AE as a non-AE block for the sole purpose of making it easier for him to appeal once he realized it was his disruptive nature that was the problem. I'm not as optimistic now as I was then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, that 2016 AE report was rather tainted by having been brought by SageCandor, a sock of ex-administrator Cirt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but the block was about his behavior in a number of areas rather than the issue at AE, if memory serves me, which is why it was a non-AE block, and why it was not indef. SageCandor certainly stirred the pot, but that didn't excuse the behavior across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support This was it for me. Sometimes, some people just aren't suited to the nature and community norms of Misplaced Pages, that appears to be the case here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yep, this was a last chance. There's absolutely no point in going through the drama and time-wasting of an ArbCom case for something so obvious. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I can't believe Sashi changed Tony's opening post, and changed it in the way that he did. What is that — is he trying to make sure he's sitebanned? Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
• Support and please weld the door shut behind him this time. SashiRolls' bellicosity and the resulting disruption have been an intractable problem for far too long. Attacking El_C and deceptively editing TonyBallioni's post are the latest in an exhausting series of misconduct by this editor. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• The only reason for changing the opening statement of this section could possibly be that this editor wanted to be banned, so we should grant that wish quickly without waiting for loads more pile-on "support" votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  (probably stating the obvious, but 24 hours are mandatory; "snow" closure of such a discussion is forbidden per WP:CBAN) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Then I guess we have to wait another eleven and a bit hours. Fwiw put me down as a support. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Multiple final chances, and their deceptive editing of TB’s opening post is the last straw. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping we might have been able to come to an agreement short of a site ban, but I in light of the evidence presented, I cannot possibly consider that. I find their attempt to modify the discussion here particularly egregious. That level of deception combined with the lack of awareness (did they think we wouldn't notice) and contempt for the community is clear evidence that we are unable to trust them and that their editing cannot be safely continued. Nick (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL. This was not done to deceive you, but to indicate the neutral subject headings which would have been appropriate for the matter. (Since I will not have time to put together diffs until this weekend). Here are few. 1) editing a user-page to fix misrepresentations, many of which were about me, in preparation for an eventual ArbCom case concerning the cabal did not seem to me to be a violation of a US politics topic ban. Fixing the misleading information about El C's mutual IBAN of Trypto & I was similarly simply correcting TonyB's POV presentation. I forgot to reorder the diffs concerning the subsequent El C story, the chronology was: 1) El C deletes a post on my page, 2) I delete his post on my page. (Not the other way around as it is currently presented.) Concerning GMO, there was a call (not made by me) for someone to show evidence of any disruption whatsoever in the topic area in the preceding 90 days. No diffs were ever added. Similarly, it would be good to note that AWilley is responsible for three of those actions and was criticized for them, just as the GMO ban was largely recognized as politically motivated, so too was the AP ban. Let's see what else? Oh yes, there's the real reason I was brought here... for noticing that El C had edited the site for 27 hours straight without a single 20 minute break. This, along with the minor issue of correcting a mistaken author name & misrepresentation of what the author wrote at Edward Colston is the reason for this ban. Don't blow the whistle on the cops... (in fairness, even if El C works 27 hour shifts, they often get it right, of course, which is not always rocket science...). So no, Mr. Nick... I'm fixing a deceptive prosecutorial statement not creating deception. As for the pile-on... have fun! As for the two-bit psychologizin' from the wiki-faithful, I'll take that with a grain or two of salt if you don't mind, since this is all about the backlash for criticizing a pseudonymous account for contributing for 27 hours straight without a break. (rather regularly I'll venture to guess, given their contrib totals). -- SashiRolls 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• strong support It's clear the community's patience has been more than exhausted and if Sashi still hasn't learned after endless warnings, sanctions and blocks the only option is an indef and ban. Praxidicae (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's been pretty clear they won't recognize the issues with their behavior, and we've already been punting the football around to different parts of the community. Pretty much the same stuff was going on back with their GMO-related sanctions where I edit starting in 2016 and into last year. Especially in those last two, those being targeted by Sashi often were drug through the mud while trying to get the harassment to stop at AE, etc., in part because of the WP:NOTTHEM issues that inflamed battleground mentality and encouraged others to join in or dismiss Sashirolls' behavior.

Based on my experience trying to get help with Sashi, especially when it comes to this kind of behavior that has already been occurring with many "final" warnings, I would ask admins to not be so dismissive of this behavior in the future at AE, etc. for any editor. Letting that continue like it did only harms the community, and getting a lesser sanction imposed (topic/I-ban) for such obvious cases before reaching this point should not be that drawn out as happened in those cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Still no diff of disruption in the 90 days before that case you brought. Show us your diffs! :) -- SashiRolls 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (although I realise this is probably symbolic by now) provided SashiRolls agrees to stay away from El C and to raise any future issues with neutral intermediaries. The six problem edits listed above all look reasonable—assuming SR is correct that El C was editing for 27 hours solid (I haven't checked) it's in my opinion completely legitimate to raise concerns. As such, the issue is whether the sheer number of posts regarding El C constitutes harassment, and I'm not convinced that this has been demonstrated. To my mind, some variation of "I understand what I did wrong, I won't do it again, and I agree that anything further along these lines and I'll be kicked out" would be enough. SashiRolls is a long-term editor (13000+ edits over 8 years), not some random troll who's wandered in trying to start a fight; given how active they've been in contentious areas, it's understandable that they'll have been in more disagreements than a typical editor. (In the event that this doesn't result in an indefinite block, I would urge SR to stay away from contentious topics for a while. We have 6 million pages and 5.9 million of them are uncontroversial; just because an article on a controversial topic doesn't say what you want it to say, doesn't mean you have to be the one to fix it.) ‑ Iridescent 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is probably as much as I'll add here, but plenty of us work in contentious areas without resorting to the things Sashirolls has done either above or before their 2018 block. There are some in contentious topics who get heated and can be reeled in a bit with sanctions that keep them in check. That hasn't worked here, and it's the battleground pursuit of editors like El C that goes beyond the pale in addition to all the warnings here.

You say not some random troll who's wandered in trying to start a fight, but it basically does come across as trolling when you see how they respond to attempts by admins to address their behavior or how they tend to jump into battleground behavior. Add in the sort of odd wikilawyering where they find small gaps between their many sanctions/warnings to say they haven't done anything within X days as sort of justification for continued poor behavior too. They've been building the case against themselves for years. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I largely agree with Iridescent's summary. The behavior is not ideal, but certainly doesn't rise to the level of a ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I usually agree with Iri, but not in this case. I was uncomfortable with unblocking years ago, but definitely understood the reason (basic fairness). But in the 1.5 years since they've amply demonstrated that they're here primarily for the battles. After so many topic bans, it becomes clear it isn't about the topics, it's about the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if someone causes more than a certain amount of disruption then we should show them the door, regardless of who they are or what they've done. This goes a long way beyond that. And this is beyond the pale. Hut 8.5 17:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. I also echo concerns with El C's 27 hour editing binge. I'm not sure the best administrative judgment can be exercised on such a rigorous editing schedule. Indeed the "edit warring" partial block which kicked this all off is completely unnecessary, and by nature punitive, given the protection to the page in question. El C has a history of questionable blocks on Sashi, and should have stayed away from that one. A check at El C's editing timecard shows no real difference in editing levels regardless of time of day, or day of week. Such round the clock editing really isn't necessary at a volunteer project, and next time when such concerns are raised it would be better to simply address them instead of circle the admin wagons. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  The next time someone makes snide comments about El C's editing schedule, they're getting blocked for a week. This seems to be a new talking point among a particular cohort here. It is going to end now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  You don’t get to dictate what I’m allowed to be concerned about. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't care what you're concerned about. I care what you choose to say about the personal life of another editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Editing stats and time cards are open and public. They are entirely appropriate to bring up and discuss when one has concerns, especially as they may pertain to admin accountability. I'm explicitly referring to Misplaced Pages activity, which has nothing to do with someone's personal life. Put away your block weapon and engage with discussion, not threats. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There was nothing snide in Ernie's comment and you and I both know that a block would be a unhelpful escalation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose rather than being immediately blockworthy, a small group of friends repeating creepy talking points about someone else's personal editing schedule is more like evidence of a shared character defect than a personal attack. Even if I'm right, it might take focus off the actual problem. Which is perhaps the intention. I'm confident the closing admin will see it for what it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that this talk of El C's editing schedule is creepy, none of anyone's business, and pretty clearly a derailment. Reyk _YO! 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's nothing creepy about the suggestion that someone who has been editing for 27 hours straight might find themselves making less than optimal administrative decisions. It would be nice if those responding to this concern could do so without resorting to ad hominems. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Describing this as creepy is certainly no more an ad hominem than suggesting (as it seems) that El C must have been irrational and delirious through sleep deprivation. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's a big difference between 'must have been' and 'might have been'. And anyway, I'm more irked by Floq's insinuation that this is a group of friends (false) attempting to change the subject (also false, these concerns were initially raised before this thread was opened). Ernie's initial comment here was not 'snide' and Floq's threatening response was totally inappropriate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  In the interest of de-escalation... now that it's been brought to light, I don't see any point of continuing to torment El C with it. Also, I notice El C has been entirely absent from this case, where he is presented as the victim. I wonder under what conditions they would be willing to pardon me for looking into their edit history to see how long they deliberated before blocking me (it looks like it was 17 minutes) and discovering what I discovered. I mean is it really worth banning someone over?

  On June 6th, I asked in the ArbCom Harassment thread, quite a while before this began, whether using WMF tools was an invasion of privacy. I don't personally like the timecard tool, because it shows I have a strange sleep schedule. Unfortunately, nobody responded. -- SashiRolls 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm pleased you've admitted to "tormenting" El C. That's a very clear admission of the type of toxic behaviour we should be striving to remove from our project. Nick (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  This would have been settled long ago had it not been brought here by Tony Ballioni or had El C been willing to compromise... I wouldn't have had to look into the matter. -- SashiRolls 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit unfair, Nick. You know that's not Sashi admitting they're "tormenting" anyone on purpose. Reyk _YO! 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ernie. The six magic bullets that are supposedly precipitating a site-ban each stem from the same—frankly, poor—block, which became increasingly pointless after the page SR had "edit-warred" over was itself fully protected. (FTR, I raised this with El_C the other day and was told it just seems pointless, to act on or even discuss this further and that it was inconsequential) Since we traditionally allow and respect the right of blocked users to vent over the block, why are we so up in arms in a case where the blocked editor clearly had a case against it and which can only have felt punitive folowing the page's full protection? In a similar situation, TB would be providing you with 100 diffs, if that had happened to a few other people here!By the way, why is diff #1 being used against SR when we explicitly state that Policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages...? ——Serial 17:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I provided 8 additional incidents, so I didn’t provide individual diffs for those. We allow individuals to vent, but we don’t allow them to attack and harass others (which as Floq has pointed out speculating about a users personal life is.) As for diff one, removing stuff is fine. Calling a reasonable response “escalation” when critiquing someone for not being accountable isn’t. It’s a diff that shows the battleground mindset here when taken as a whole.But the larger point here isn’t about the six magic bullets. It’s a question of whether or not one person should be allowed to consume so many resources of time on this project. Is there any other editor who has three outstanding topic bans (two above and one from AE), an IBAN, multiple battleground and harassment blocks, and multiple warnings that an indefinite block is around the corner that we tolerate? I can’t think of one.I usually dislike disagreeing with you and Iri, and I get the idea that we should try to keep good faith editors, but how many good faith editors has Sashi driven off this project by his behavior? Probably more than one. Is it really worth the potential loss of volunteers who do not take up so much of our time to save one person who takes up substantial time? How many topic bans and IBANs do we need before he reaches site ban level? TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't bring this to AN. I would guesstimate that the number of people I've caused to leave the projects is 3. Cirt (sock). Dan the Plumber (sock). Wikicreators (blocked by El C and possibly by Callanecc). I tend to be pretty nice to people who aren't too powerful or rude to me, for example. Were this ArbCom, you could submit evidence to the contrary in the evidence phase. -- SashiRolls 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Even if this is assessed independently from the conflict with El C, there are serious issues here. The long history of disruption and recent continuation, together with this blatant disregard for discussion guidelines and civil discourse (e.g. replacing American politics topic ban with Pissed folks off working on Media Coverage of Bernie Sander in the filing of this AN thread), are just not acceptable. Given that these have generally been long-term issues, this is a preventative measure. — MarkH₂₁ 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral - I've been banned a year (2013–14) for far less. Not sure how to view this situation, other then it depends on how many toes you've stepped on & whose toes they are. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: SashiRolls has been a longstanding member of the community, and in that time has contributed a lot of helpful content to article pages and to community discussions. Even in the disputes listed above, SashiRolls has typically based their arguments on reliable sources, and their perspective has been valuable. I think it's fair to say that SashiRolls has too often lost their cool, either by hitting "revert" or by creating drama, often with the same editors on political articles. I'm not sure what the best path forward is but I think a site ban is too extreme. I'd also like to note, both on SashiRolls' behalf and for others as well, that the last few months have been very stressful for just about everyone on earth, and two-thirds of the diffs from the original post here are from that period. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough, Sorry to sound morbid but Sash has used the last bit of ROPE they had and at this point has hung themselves with it. Sash you need to get a grip and to be frank you seriously need to sort your shit out. I see no other option now unfortunately. –Davey2010 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I've not had a lot of direct interaction with SR, I don't think, but every time I've come across their name over the last few years, I've been left with the same impression: that they seem to have a particular kind of consistent battleground style characterized not by outright name calling or direct accusations of bad faith, but by pervasive winkyfaced insinuation, subtle personalization, and conspiratorial musing. It makes it harder to point to one or two diffs to hold up as especially egregious, but I find the effect much more damaging (and even chilling) than a more typical battleground approach. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  We interacted here where you empathized about dealing with difficult editor styles: "Most of us have been on the other side of an argument with a highly-active, highly-particular/fastidious editor enough to empathize with Sashi here". You told me not to dig into evidence of past socking and just put up with it as patiently as possible. -- SashiRolls 19:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. The user most recently known as FKC is/was a difficult person to work with. It was in later discussions related to ownership behavior that his socking came back up (and subsequently led to a block). Sanctioning a prolific editor based on WP:OWN is a massive undertaking, though, and rarely successful. My take from that thread, as I remember it, was that FKC was indeed being a bit OWNy, but not in the way that could realistically lead to sanction in that case. IIRC it really just needed additional voices. (On reflection, there, too, I had a rare attempt at humor at ANI fall flat (at the time I was proud of the number of Deleuze references I was able to squeeze into a noticeboard context, though)...). For the relevance to this discussion, while I don't think you did anything really egregious there (I would've said so at the time), I did find it concerning that it seemed like your instinct was to win a dispute by going after that person, looking for things from his past to use against him, with implications (or insinuations) for the present, whether intentional or not. That you were ultimately right about FKC and socking (and maybe even the content dispute itself) doesn't, IMO, make that ok, because that's a case that needs to be made at SPI, not ammo for an ANI thread about article ownership. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I listened to your advice and became the main author of that entry. This despite the fact that I find that book very difficult to understand. Some say that stopped clocks are right twice a day. Cirt, FKC... (see also Bulldog Antz. -- SashiRolls 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would be skeptical of anyone who says 1kP isn't difficult. Kudos on your efforts there. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Attempting to work with an editor who consistently displays such a battleground mentality is exhausting; given SashiRolls' history of such behaviour it's not surprising we've ended up here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent, Ernie, and Serial. None of the six diffs presented seem particularly problematic to me. Diff 1 is explicitly permitted by WP:OWNTALK and #6 was far from a "book length rant". I've written AfD rationales longer than that. What I see here is a user who is seriously concerned with a block he sees as unfair, and is disputing the block with the admin who implemented it. That's far from a vendetta. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm quite frankly stunned at the deceptive editing in this thread alone. A longstanding member of the community (as Darouet puts it) should know better. Nick hits the nail on the head here - they are exhibiting exactly the sort of behaviour we do not want in the community. stwalkerster (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reserve judgment for a while, please. I'm with MONGO here. And Iridescent, too. There is absolutely no doubt that we can justify banning SashiRolls, based on the block log and history of extremely quick escalations to additional blocks in the past, but the more I look at it, the more it feels a bit like "give a dog a bad name". Kicking back at admins who sanction you is understandable. My question is, can this be de-escalated without resorting to a block or siteban? Looking at the state of the world right now I don't feel especially comfortable adopting the role of cop in a situation where on the face of it we might have been able to de-escalate. I don't know. Maybe I am wrong. Yes, SashiRolls is being a dick, and undoubtrtedly knows it. Can we get him to stop without the banhammer? Should we at least try? Guy (help!) 19:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• With that Guy. I was about to post earlier but decided not to. I don't like to see the ban hammer come done and sometimes it seems a bit like a pile on. I agree that SR's is working hard to earn a ban but I also see how in this case it was a small(ish) thing that grew. I think the deescalate is a great idea. SR needs to be part of that deescalation. Perhaps shelving the discussion for a week so everyone can cool down? Springee (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not really sure what could be tried that hasn’t been tried already. I’ve been saying this a lot lately, but the biggest issue this community has is that we insist on giving people who are negatives every opportunity to prove just how negative they are. Is there really any doubt that if he’s not banned Sashi is going to continue exactly the same behaviors he’s been displaying for years? What does kicking it down the road get us other than saying we gave them another chance? I get that people don’t like the idea of sanctioning someone for harassing an admin who just blocked them, but that doesn’t make it acceptable conduct. If someone is “working hard to earn a ban” we should give it to them. ROPE does no one any good here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    TonyBallioni, no, and neither am I, but the whole situation never seems to have got below shouty from the first block onwards. We used to be much more reticent about sitebans. Guy (help!) 23:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Not a net positive to the project, as interactions that I've had with this user demonstrate. Has been given plenty of opportunities to adopt a more constructive course of conduct; has opted not to do so. The time to deal with this behavior takes time that could otherwise be used to actually improve the encyclopedia. This additional diff, from four years ago, demonstrates how long-standing and serious these conduct problems are. I don't get any pleasure out of supporting a siteban, but enough is enough. Rhododendrites, MrX all got it exactly correct here. Neutrality 20:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent and Serial Number, and based on the evidence:
  • The first list of 8 is slightly out of order. #2 happened first. That was an AE report filed by King of Aces falsely claiming that Sashi was under a GMO TBAN. Sashi had never been tbanned from GMOs, as was pointed out in that thread by an admin. The thread was closed by El C with a two-way IBAN.
  • #1, #3 and #4 were all sanctions imposed by one admin for things Sashi said to X and others, including "dishonest" and "childish". I note that multiple editors have called Sashi's behavior "deceptive" and "creepy" in this thread, but none have been blocked for it (not saying that they should be).
  • #5 is another AE report where KofA again falsely claimed Sashi was TBANed from GMOs. This is again pointed out, by admin and non-admin. Also pointed out was the fact that Sashi had made zero edits in the GMO topic area since the previous AE thread, six months prior. The result was: a GMO topic ban being instituted. Single worst AE decision I've yet seen.
  • #6 Brought by MrX again over Sashi's complaints that X and others tag teamed. Diffs of the tag teaming were provided. The tag teaming was not addressed by admin reviewing the report.
  • #7 - "2 week block for violating the above TBAN 15 times" is a misrepresentation. Those "15 times" were 15 edits to one page (User:James J. Lambden/sandbox), which wasn't even an article, it was in userspace, and those were 15 edits in a row, which we all count as one edit. This mischaracterization should be stricken. The page was taken to MFD and kept. The page is a log of AE decisions that had not been updated in a couple of years. IIRC Sashi said they edited the page in preparation for an appeal of the TBAN issued in #6.
  • #8 - The partial block that leads us to the current dispute, and the "list of 6". As I understand it, after the partial block, the page at issue was full protected, which more or less proves that the partial block did not prevent the disruption, that is, Sashi was not solely responsible for the disruption.
  • List of 6: I agree with SN that #1 is policy compliant; it and should also be stricken from the list. As to the rest, if anyone edits for 24+ hours straight without taking more than a 20 minute break, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether the editor is sharing an account, whether the editor is using a script or some other kind of automation, and whether fatigue is compromising the editor's judgment. This is especially true when the edits are admin actions. I don't believe El C is doing anything wrong here, but it's a legitimate inquiry. Nobody functions at 100% after 24 hours of sitting in front of a computer. And I very much disagree with the efforts of several admin here to treat this line of inquiry as if it were a personal attack.
  • Overall, Sashi has been uncivil, but to a very small group of editors, with whom there has been this long ongoing feud. I have said in those past AE reports (with diffs) that I believe Sashi was targeted since being unblocked by the same editors who got him sanctioned years ago. This feud has snowballed with each new sanction coming as the result of the previous unfair sanction. But the incivility from Sashi is narrowly focused at very few people, who frankly aren't blameless themselves. I would support two way IBANs all around, but not a site ban. Levivich  20:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, since you are referring to Sashiroll's last GMO AE case, please do not misrepresent what I said, as that has only exacerbated trying to get Sashirolls' behavior dealt with. I never said that Sashi was under a GMO TBAN in the broad sense at the time. I only mentioned the Jill Stein ban where both politics and GMO DS applied to the content at hand. That broadly construed ban did not happen until later.

Instead, their original 2016 AE case resulting in a topic ban from Jill Stein was opened under both politics and GMO DS due to the focus of the behavior issues being related to Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides. If you actually read through the case, admins were very clear both sets of DS applied and that it "shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from poor behavior", as has unfortunately happened here. Sashiroll's issues in the GMO subject began there, and it's just silly to try to claim that because the the sanction wasn't double-logged under both sets of DS after the formal close that the Jill Stein ban shouldn't have been mentioned when additional GMO problems came up or the GMO DS didn't apply to issues at Jill Stein. That's just WP:PETTIFOGGING. The end result is they were still banned for disruption in a GMO subject.

In later cases, El C did close the 2nd GMO-related AE specifying a modified interaction ban that included an article ban, resulting in Sashi being banned from most GMO articles when you read their clarification on Sashi's talk page. That was related to hounding of Tryptofish. That was later clarified (3rd AE) and retooled due to logging confusion after the article ban was violated as a standard 1-way interaction + full GMO topic ban. That was easier to enforce, and an article restriction was basically intended in the 2nd AE case anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a more summary note, trying to paint your very small group of editors, with whom there has been this long ongoing feud pursuing Sashi narrative falls apart when you try to reach like that or when someone like me who had next to no involvement with Sashi had to bring them to AE when I first saw disruption going on. That's just projecting Sashi's behavior problems on to those who have been subject to their behavior. Not to mention you were warned about battleground behavior at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:Levivich_long-term_tendentious_editing, which seems to be following Sashi's footsteps. When Sashi is continuing vendetta-like behavior towards El C that most of the community sees, that isn't an excuse to WP:SEALION about El C, and Floquenbeam has already given caution about that above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the diff in which you wrote, e.g.: "Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months", "They are already extremely short on WP:ROPE in terms of sanctions already being topic-banned in this area once", "1RR was partly why SashiRolls was topic-banned in this area before", and "Sashirolls was topic-banned for behavior related to GMOs as we're essentially having a repeat of that behavior all over again". However, it was pointed out to you by an admin that the topic ban was from Jill Stein under AP2, not GMO.In the second report five months later , you again wrote, "Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months". You also wrote, "SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the last AE had tamped down". That's odd because the last AE ended with a two-way IBAN, so there's no reason to think it would tamp down on Sashi's participation in GMOs.In that second report, the same admin wrote: "Kingofaces43, I pointed out to you in a previous AE discussion that SashiRolls' TBAN from Jill Stein was under AP2 discretionary sanctions, not GMO discretionary sanctions. You've repeated that erroneous statement here. The enforcement log is here. That's borne out by the administrator comments at the relevant AE discussion. It might seem like a minor point, but it is very relevant to establishing the locus of bad behavior; and if you continue to misrepresent it, it reflects poorly on you", and later, "Playing holier-than-thou isn't doing you any favors, Kingofaces43. I'm not going to excuse SashiRolls's behavior because of your choice of words, but his behavior doesn't excuse your throwing the kitchen sink at him, either. He was sanctioned for his behavior on the article on Jill Stein, including, but not limited to, material related to GMOs. And that's what you should have said. What you typed in your initial request is a misrepresentation".And yeah, that two-way IBAN was appealed into a one-way IBAN while Sashi was blocked (the block is #3 on the OP list). Sashi wasn't given notice or an opportunity to participate. I asked for Sashi to be allowed to participate; the block was only one week; but the AE report was closed after one day by Tony. Levivich  04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remember it is inappropriate to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like that (especially bludgeoning false claims, which we have restrictions about in GMOs), just as it violates WP:NPA the misrepresent editors like that. In this case, trying to argue over extremely minor details and manufacturing something different from the context of what I said despite repeated clarifications is in violation of that and the definition of a red herring tactic, which admins in the case in question warned directly against doing. You obviously should know better at this point after your ANI warning, so I'm confused as to why you would want to double down on trying so hard to misrepresent those who've had troubles with Sashirolls.

At the end of the day, admins were extremely clear both GMO and politics DS applied in the Jill Stein case with Clarification as requested: the Pesticides and GMOs section of Jill Stein certainly falls under discretionary sanctions regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". NW (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC) When I directly said and linked that Sashirolls was sanctioned in a subject where GMO DS applied, but you try to claim I'm falsifying that somehow because the AE log only listed it under the AP DS (when admins often don't double log for such cases), that goes well beyond violating WP:NOTBUREAU. The admin in question was later corrected and shown the relevant case. Even if someone misinterpreted my straightforward comment you quoted, a normal civil editor would just see all the clarification out there and continue on rather than to continue hounding me across admin boards. It's time for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Grudging Support - Whilst I think Sashi lists a few good points, and El C isn't acting much better, the fact that the user has been warned over and over again and continues to be disruptive shows that further action seriously needs to be taken. However, the siteban does not need to be permanent. I'd say maybe the user can make an appeal in at least 12 months time. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've been trying to stay away from Misplaced Pages for the most part, because I've become sick and tired of the acceptance of incivility. I do look in sometimes, and I was aware of this ban proposal, but I intended to stay out of it because SashiRolls is under a 1-way IBAN with me, and even though that does not restrict me from commenting, I felt that it would be fairest for me to just stay out of it. But given what Levivich posted, that reflects back on me, and KingofAces' ping to me in his well-reasoned rebuttal (thank you!), I feel the need to express my support. As in, I've been saying this for years, and there have been enough second and third and umpteenth chances, and we long ago passed the enough-is-enough point. Levivich seems to be saying that we should let things go because only a "small group of editors" were on the receiving end. That's not even true, but even if it were, that would put me in that small group. Since when does Misplaced Pages think that if you are only incivil to somebody else, who cares? And this is way, way beyond just incivil. Ample reason for me to be sick and tired of this community. I see that some of the editors opposing the ban are "the usual suspects" and some, well, should know better. For those who should know better, TonyBallioni's opening explanation is spot-on, and you should take it seriously. In particular, there was a site ban some years ago, where SashiRolls was given a second chance after an appeal, and I told you so then. Enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Editor is a net negative unfortunately. -FASTILY 01:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The actual volume of problems this year are simply not site-ban worthy. Would not be opposed to an interaction ban with El C. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The initial block was of dubious value, and looking at the content of the edits leading to the block, I am not in favour of the white-washing and misrepresentation that was taking place and which SashiRolls was actively countering. I refer to this (broadly) (source being misrepresented) and this (specifically) (whitewashing). That's some context preceding the block, which came 6 hours after the edit-warring stopped and with several intervening edits and no further conflict. With regard to the specific charge here, I paraphrase, 'pursuing a vendetta and harassment', I see little evidence that would go beyond 'a frustrated editor venting'. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I looked at this when it was first posted, and thought it was worthy of considering a site ban but at the same time thought it looked like the admins were circling the wagons. After reading thru this again with all of the diff-backed opinions, I serioulsy doubt this is something that should be left to AN. With the accused's statement they would like an evidence phase, etc., this almost looks like it is too complicated to be !voted on and really should have an organized ArbCom decision. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Grudging Oppose. I was ready for SashiRolls to be sitebanned when I requested an ArbCom case against him last year, but what I am seeing here is two people being offended by each other and SashiRolls removing comments from his own talk page. Most of us are not able to edit at our jobs nor able to edit for 27 hours straight, and Floquenbeam 's threat to block anyone for daring to question that behavior is a shocking abuse of power. In the future, if a single instance of deceptive behavior can be shown by SashiRolls within a year's time I will support a site ban. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya Butternut that Floquenbeam 's threat to block anyone for daring to question that behavior is a shocking abuse of power is indeed shocking and worthy of further scrutiny if not struck soon, which I recommend. Jusdafax (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding my agreement as well. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I have concerns about your threat also. I know you're reading into the comments as a personal attack. However, I believe that that is not the only way to interpret those comments. starship.paint (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark, Kolya Butternut, Jusdafax, CactusJack, Starship.paint, and Boing! said Zebedee: If you go back and read carefully, you'll see I already backtracked on the block threat yesterday. I do stand by the non-block related comments I made, so if you have a problem with that, please open a new thread at ANI. I don't want to help derail this discussion more than I already have. I will not discuss it anymore in this particular thread. I'll be happy to address it elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You should strike the block threat, so those seeing it don't have to read carefully the rest of the section trying to work out if you've actually retracted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- This is an extreme reaction to very minor civility violations. The first diff is even actionable, as far as I know, editors have free range to delete someone else's post on their own talk page. Everyone supporting this just has some type of vendetta against Sashi, the evidence presented here doesn't even come close to warranting a site ban. How about an IBAN between SashiRolls and ElC? Could that be a solution?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  It’s hardly true that Everyone supporting this just has some type of vendetta against Sashi. I’ve never interacted with SashiRolls before, for instance. — MarkH₂₁ 06:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Try deescalating - per Guy. starship.paint (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- per El_C, whose statement below is clear, direct, and compelling. I salute him. Having indirectly worked with him a bit on vandal reverting, I understand what he is saying about simple rollbacks. As for Sashi, it's my view that he needs to seriously cool it and edit with collegial intent at the top of his concerns if he is to continue as a Wikipedian. I hope he will take El_C's statement and actions to heart, and extend the hand of friendship. I also feel this should be closed asap, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Jusdafax: - frankly, the faster this is closed, the more likely a siteban would be implemented IMO. starship.paint (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- per El_C, although as note of advice to Sashi, please try to address the concerns raised. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per EL_C below, but I've also been sleeping on it and I'm going to say the rest of my piece anyway. In the recent events, I see nothing that comes close to harrassment. And by the very nature of this kind of request, SashiRolls' past has been cherry picked. Sure, SashiRolls reacted less than optimally to the block (and has reacted less than optimally a number of times in the past). But people are allowed to vent a little when they believe they have been blocked unfairly, and having a long block log should not deny them that consideration. I think it is also reasonable for a blocked editor to comment on an astonishingly long editing session by the blocking admin, and to question how much time the admin spent analysing the current situation. That brings me to something I just have to raise, and that's Floquenbeam's appalling behaviour here yesterday. No, Floquenbeam, it's not "a small group of friends repeating creepy talking points" or "evidence of a shared character defect", and your making those slurs (which are personal attacks, yes) has damaged my (very high) respect for you. As for trying to dictate what we can and can not discuss by threatening to block anyone else who mentions it, that's an abuse of your admin power - so don't try anything like that again, or you know where it will end up. Anyway, to SashiRolls, if this ban request does not succeed, please really try a bit harder to cool it and step back when you're in a dispute - and perhaps edit on less controversial subects? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is the second time in less than a month that TonyBallioni has proposed sitebanning an editor based on out-of-context, cherrypicked, and/or misconstrued evidence (see here for the other one). Perhaps a restriction preventing him from proposing site bans is in order. Let's say for the next 12 months. There is no shortage of other admins and established editors who can propose site bans for truly banworthy editors. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  CactusJack, the number of good faith Supports above suggests that this is not a capricious proposal. Something needs to be done. I just don't think we've run out of options quite yet. Guy (help!) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Both proposals had significant support because both users had been warned in the past that they were on their last warning and would be indef’d if they continued disruptive behaviour. The former I had been involved with administratively in enforcing sanctions. This current one was unlikely to be proposed because anyone who deals with Sashi knows that he takes things to the extreme and it would likely not be a fun experience all around. I was willing to propose something a significant portion of the community supports. Two proposals isn’t a trend, and both were well founded, and in all honesty should have passed. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have also noticed this concern regarding User:TonyBallioni and also feel he should step back from these kind of multiple proposals, we don't need single admins becoming excessively central to control of any aspect of the project, User:Bbb23 comes to mind as a similar situation. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is not helpful at all, Govindaharihari, and I suggest that you retract it. There's no need for gravedancing.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that comment to be gravedancing under any circumstances (it's a perfectly valid point), but it is worth noting that Bbb23 is basically back despite his protestations to the contrary. He may not be editing at the same rate as before, but he's not gone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent, Serial, Darouet and Levivich, with a nod to El C below. I don't condone SR's occasional incivility (which I've never personally witnessed, I should add), but I don't think they should be targeted for an indef block after a series of questionable bans. Misplaced Pages is as much an adversarial system as it is collaborative, and on occasion people get "pulled in" and a minor infraction evolves to a full blown case. This is what happened here, and it owes not only to SR's comments but also to the admins, who in good faith kept the ball rolling. Does it merit an indef block? Let's put it this way: editors have been known to avoid less for worse. I encourage everyone to do some soul-searching on their role in this, and SR to take a few days to cool off. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. If you doubt this, then ask yourself how is it that we have almost 40 policies and guidelines on conduct and order, and not a single tool for real-time collaboration.

• Support - I've had enough experiences with SR to know that this isn't isolated, and is part of a pattern of personal attacks against editors with whom he disagrees politically. --WMSR (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Because I understand that SashiRolls became frustrated when the same admin that has previously placed sanctions and warnings on an unrelated matter blocked them, and they felt it was unjust because there was no 3RR violation in itself. In particular, the previous indef block and talkpage access removal was turned on its head after this deletion review. But with the comments by El C and SashiRolls here, everything seems to be alright and de-escalated now. Tryptofish above notes that some of the editors opposing the ban are "the usual suspects". This is equally true with some of the editors supporting it, as some editors from both the GMO and American politics seem to have a reunion party each time sanctions are on the table for SR.--Pudeo (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The potential list of named parties for an ArbCom case practically writes itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent and others. I'm particularly moved by El C's statement below. Calidum

• Oppose too many people are relying on evidence-less posts and cases to make a decision in this thread. Besides, I kind of like being able to contribute to "knowledge equity" and have shown that I am somewhat useful in that endeavour. -- SashiRolls 21:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no need to jump straight to the nuclear option. Also, the diffs do not show a pattern of harassment. The first is, quite simply, allowed. The fourth and fifth diffs are just POINTy. The sixth is understandably a bit fiery in tone because the user was recently blocked, but does not appear to contain harassment or personal attacks. #3 is a justifiable concern—I know I at least would have a hard time functioning after more than 24 hours without sleep. #2 is the only problematic diff, and even that one isn't outrageously uncivil. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple of editors have now made the point that it was not harassment and therefore should be allowed. If in fact this does end up at ArbCom, one of the key questions they will have to examine is why the community could not resolve this. And that's a very important question, that we should all be asking ourselves. After all, this really is a no-brainer, or at least it would be in a more healthy community. And I think one important part of the answer resides in this perception that we have a dial with only two settings: zero and harassment, with nothing at all in between. It's like: he didn't actually stalk anyone at work or out anyone, so it's just the normal rough-and-tumble that we have come to expect on the internet. That's never been what our policies say, but it's a growingly popular argument for editors to make. And shame on us all if we let that stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I assume that's at least in part aimed at me, as I was the first in this thread to say it. What I'm saying is that going by the diffs presented there's nothing among them that I'd consider to be unambiguously inappropriate. In the absence of anything that meets the "that's clearly unacceptable, get out" test, we have to consider whether the diffs as a whole demonstrate an inappropriate course of conduct intended to needle El C. Given that El C doesn't appear to think so, we don't even have the (unsatisfactory, but sometimes necessary) "one or the other is going to end up leaving over this, so we need to pick a side" consideration to fall back on. Whenever it comes to any kind of editor conduct case, I'll always default to the position that the conduct should be considered unproblematic unless it can be demonstrated that it's problematic, and as speaking as someone who has no opinions on any of the topics SR has been editing (and AFAIK has never interacted with SR before although I may be misremembering), I'm not seeing anything thus far to demonstrate that SR has done anything more problematic than "got a bit tetchy when discussing a contentious topic". ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe in very small part, but I was far from thinking of you in any primary way, not by a longshot. (Earlier, I distinguished between "the usual suspects" and "those who should know better", and I guess you're the latter.) But let me say this: if you think that this is only about a couple of recent edits, then I doubt that any site-ban should be based on just that. There is a long, long history here, and "the straw that breaks the camel's back" doesn't have to be the entire load on the camel's back. And if you regard, for example, the refactoring of this AN page as less than harassment, well, I'd agree it's less than that. But my larger point is that if you think it's OK, then you are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I think this is what it's come to. His intransigence and long block log make me feel that the odds of improvement in the near future are slim. TonyBallioni has made a solid case that these issues have gone on for too long.Hko2333 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Sorry for my absence here, but I've been a bit overwhelmed by recent real life events of some gravity. For my part, although the exchanges on my talk page got a bit intense, I seek no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls. I also now regret not having lifted the partial block once I fully-protected the page from which they were partially blocked from. My mindset at the time was that a note in the block log to that effect would have been pointless, since I continue to stand by the partial block itself. But in the spirit of deescalation, I have lifted the partial block from both SashiRolls and Defacto. I realize it's late in the day, but I hope that, even in some small way, it helps to better facilitate a calmer editing environment. That said, I don't think my day-long editing (it was the weekend and I found myself with an excess of free time) compromised me in any way. Most of these edits were simple rollbacks that took a few seconds to parse. Still, I appreciate good faith concerns regarding my health and well-being. Thank you, but I am doing alright. El_C 05:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Based on comments above, how about this?

1. SashiRolls is banned for one year from "drama boards" with the exception of neutrally stated appeals against any sanctions against SashiRolls applied by an admininstrator;
2. SashiRolls is warned that personalising or escalating disputes may lead to escalating blocks.

Or something else? Guy (help!) 08:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we need to do, but I'd certainly Support this over a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think an escalating blocks approach is far better than banning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, maybe a "final warning" may be in order, broadly construed. I am not an admin, but this is what got me to make more productive edits to the encyclopedia.
  
  Instead of what you have for bullet 2, maybe "SashiRolls is given a final warning regarding disruption on the encyclopedia, broadly construed. Should an admin determine that they are causing any sort of disruption whatsoever, the user may be blocked for any period of time, up to and including indefinitely." with WP:SO still applying.
  
  I know from past experience that we do not want to block or sanction good-faith contributors, but sometimes it is necessary to ensure that further disruption does not occur. Aasim 08:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - better than an indef, given El_C's response above. SashiRolls would do well to note that they are on extremely thin ice now. If it's a final warning, I'd support also. starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, We need a "This user is drinking in the last chance saloon, please don't provoke them" userbox. Guy (help!) 09:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as third choice especially on point 2. Escalating blocks have been tried and failed. The only solution to this problem is a site ban, and we don’t need formal instructions that he’ll use to require another 18 months of disruption before it occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Edit:Supporting as third choice because I believe some community resolution here is a much better outcome and would be less divisive than an ArbCom case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - He has had plenty of final warnings and blocks. His involvement with "drama boards" is not even a significant problem. He is not getting it and all the evidence makes it clear that he never will. - MrX 🖋 13:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been tried already. They were already banned from AE boards in a similar manner, and have received multiple "final" warnings similar to 2. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think escalating blocks makes the most sense. If SR violates CIVIL then start with 24hr ban. The next time it's 48hr then 1wk then 1m then 3m then 6m then indef. Each time is longer but we go through all the steps. By sticking to the escalation path there is no question, no misunderstanding regarding what is happening. There is also no case where the next penalty is far more severer than the last one. They should also understand that they need to stick to the facts and avoid personalizing the description of disputes. Springee (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've been here before. This just kicks the can down the road. We'll be right back here again in 3,6,8 months and in the meantime they can continue to eat up our time, patience, and frustration spoons.--Jorm (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This kind of nonsense makes me ashamed to have ever been associated with Misplaced Pages. Really, what I am seeing here is institutional failure happening in real time. All of this argument over something that should have been a no-brainer! Anyone who thinks there is a need to tread carefully over someone who still can make positive contributions is living in an alternative universe. In a normal real-world workplace, someone who acted this way would have been fired years ago. Someone who is maybe 90% a net negative should not be pampered out of concern for the last 10%. Jytdog was site-banned, with support for the ban coming from many of the same people who are defending SashiRolls here, but Jytdog contributed a lot more good than SashiRolls ever will. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I wrote below. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - already had enough warnings. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been enough warnings and escalating blocks to know if that would work. I'm not convinced that anything has changed since previous warnings and blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed final warning

In case the site ban does not pass, I’m proposing this because I think the above proposal will create more harm than good, so let’s try this:

SashiRolls is warned that future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct may lead to an indefinite block or site ban.

• Support second choice SashiRolls has behaved in this thread in ways that would have gotten any other editor a lengthy block. He needs to know he is on his last bit of grace here. The sanction above would constrain us. This is clear and gets the point across while taking into account the significant portion of the community that does not think Sashi should continue to be a part of the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure 15-20 editors active at a noticeboard represents a significant portion of the community, but I understand what you mean. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support second choice I'm surprised that so many apparently want such an obviously disruptive editor to be allowed to carry on being disruptive, so this is a bare minimum.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I disagree that the site ban will not pass. By the numbers, it has rough consensus now. By the arguments, it probably has consensus. If this can't be meaningfully resolved here, it needs to go to Arbcom. There is zero evidence that another final warning would resolve this. - MrX 🖋 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • True, I’ve updated my wording: the site ban might yet pass. I think the community handling this issue would probably be better then ArbCom, which would probably be a few weeks for an outcome that has another topic ban or some form of civility parole. Neither of which would work that well, in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't go to Arbcom with a case as flawed as this.  I don't think any new warning is necessary either; I think it should just be acknowledged that Sashi has already had a final warning.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I don’t really see the case as flawed (obviously), I just don’t think ArbCom will really do much. They don’t historically have that great a record on user conduct cases focused on individual users. For those, community solutions work best, even if short of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I think the evidence-based comments in this thread show that there might be some things that ArbCom could do. -- SashiRolls 13:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I also don't see it as flawed at all and I don't understand the basis for such a remark. I'm 99% confident that Arbcom would take the case. If people are going to oppose a workable remedy based on the their unwillingness to see past the isolated incident involving El_C and the blatant editing of another editor's comments, then I don't think there will be any other option but to let Arbcom handle it. This wouldn't be the first time that the community was unable to deal with a persistent user conduct issue. In fact, I would postulate that it's the norm. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that by !votes the above is a rough consensus for a site ban. However, in the case of something like a site ban I would hope that the standard would be a clear and convincing consensus. Additionally, as the discussion has progressed more information has come to light. Early on I would have said the need for the ban is obvious based on the evidence presented. However, some of the later arguments have changed my mind. Specifically the parts where editors have noted some of the blocks were bad and the levels of incivility, while not a good thing, have not risen to the levels previously needed to justify a site ban. This does smell of a misdemeanor prosecuted as a felony. Hopefully the fact that so many editors were happy to kick SRs off the island will be a clear warning that they must avoid personalizing disputes and that community patience with them is at an end.

Since the issue here was started by a 3RR, would a 1RR and strict civility mandate be OK? Basically if they violate those things then they get escalating blocks (24hr, 48hr, 1week, 1month, 3month, 6month, indef)? Absent obvious cross the line personal attacks I don't see why escalating blocks aren't sufficient. Springee (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer something along the lines of the Revised proposal above, but I'll support this as second choice and ahead of a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've given them many many warnings. They've had enough rope. --Jorm (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• A better way to word this would be: "SashiRolls is warned that future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct may lead to another discussion that will lead to another warning about future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct." That, after all, is exactly what is happening here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't supported many sitebans/indefs of experienced editors over the years. There's usually another way. Sometimes it's a tban, sometimes a warning, sometimes a more creative solution... In this case, the issue is SR's fundamental approach to interaction with people he disagrees with. There have already been blocks, warnings, restrictions, etc., and a really-real-no-seriously-we-mean-it-this-time warning isn't the answer here. Pre-voting on an ArbCom case isn't either (in addition to being like using a case to vote on whether to appeal that case, we can't compel them to take it, and besides, I think it would cause more hurt than help and would likely result in some sort of ban anyway).
  If there's going to be an alternative to a siteban here, I'd like to see that proposal come from SR himself, earnestly reflecting on what's going on here and putting forward an argument for whatever remedy he thinks would be effective. I don't know about others, but I feel like if I'm going to be convinced, only SR can do it. If that's unsuccessful, we assess consensus of the siteban proposal. If there's no consensus for that, then see about arbcom. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, you make an excellent point. Guy (help!) 10:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:AN cannot assign "final warnings". Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And you think that why, Reaper Eternal...? ——Serial 23:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I support a stern warning to SashiRolls regardless of whether we go to ARBCOM; their behavior has been sub-par despite their being offered many opportunities for course correction. For clarity, I understand "final warning" to mean "next time you do this, any uninvolved admin may indef you without further discussion, and that indefinite block carries the same weight as a community block". I don't see how this is outside AN's remit, if backed by consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only if the site ban doesn't pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the final warning is not heeded and this sanction comes to pass (e.g. block post final warning), won't it still end up at ArbCom anyway? Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose ArbCom case rather than this RfC/U

I would suggest that Tony (or anyone else who wants to) start an ArbCom case where evidence is required. This reliance on a series of severely flawed cases to continue to escalate blocks, warnings and deprecations does not seem fair to me. The GMO case is the most obvious case, since no diffs of disruption whatsoever could be provided. Similarly, my principal complaint concerning tag-teaming in the AmPol case was not addressed at all. Here too we see a number of people making evidence-less assertions about, for example, "hounding" (as was the case in the December 2016 AE where I had responded to an RfC Cirt started when I was subscribed to the RfC topic area). I've been sanctioned for calling someone's actions "childish" and "dishonest". Fair enough. Here we've seen claims of "creepy" cabals, claims of "deception" and have editors opining that I should be banned and then telling me to "get my shit together". While that last particular comment (above) is particularly exemplary of the lack of evidentiary basis, there are precious few evidence-based supports above. A sequence of bad cases has indeed given me a bad name.

All that said, I am willing to accept that I should not have given El C such a hard time about maintaining a block that was no longer preventive (leaving aside the question of its potential original merit), and latching onto what I thought might have been a plausible explanation for what I perceived as being nothing more than tired stubbornness. -- SashiRolls 13:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the community is perfectly capable of dealing with this on its own. Many of those opposing the ban agree the conduct as a whole is inappropriate and just want more intermediate steps: when the community is handling something (which it has been) there is no need for an ArbCom case. I have faith that community outcomes here will solve the problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think it is important for Arbcom to look at this, as the behavior of those routinely antagonizing SashiRolls will be able to be examined as well, instead of the very one-sided nature of the evidence presented at community ban discussions. Levivich, for example, has produced a great many diffs of behavior that doesn't reflect well on those who pop up at every discussion regarding Sashi. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support agree with Mr Ernie. The community is plainly divided on what further actions, if any, need to be taken. So, let's punt this to the committee that we elected for situations such as this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very grudging support. Based on experience thus far this year I think my cat probably has more likelihood than the current iteration of the committee of coming up with a equitable resolution to an long-running dispute that touches on both content and conduct—and I have no desire at all to spend the next month being dragged into what's likely to be a foul-tempered timesink of a case—but if a case split (at the time of writing) at 31 supports and 20 opposes with both SashiRolls and El C among the opposes isn't a textbook example of a serious conduct dispute the community has been unable to resolve, I don't know what is. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have to support this, as I don't think SashiRolls is getting fair and balanced treatment here. I do pause, because I'm not confident that the current ArbCom (despite having some excellent individuals) will provide that either. But the more this goes on here, the more it really does look like a dispute that the community is unable to resolve. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Boing! said Zebedee and Iridescent: I guess my main reason for opposing this is that I’m not particularly confident in this iteration of the committee. Not even on the Sashi getting fair treatment vs. not or even on a ban vs. lesser sanctions than that field, but on a “would we actually get a resolution that everyone can live with even if begrudgingly” standard. I don’t think we would, even if like you say, there are some good members of the community on it. That’s why I’d rather let some form of community action play out, whether it be a warning, a ban, or something like Guy’s suggestion above. Getting a resolution people can broadly get behind is ideal, and I think that’s much more likely at this point in time via community action, even if it’s saying “Tony’s proposals are crap, let’s move on.” TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a set of circumstances I've never seen before on Misplaced Pages (although it probably has happened), in which the supposed victim doesn't appear to see any problem, but a bunch of other people are insisting that a problem exists. (In an ideal world SashiRolls would say something like "I appreciate that I'm having difficulty controlling my temper on contentious topics, from now on I'm going to limit myself to writing about the traditional cheeses of Belgium or biographies of 19th-century poultry breeders", which would likely put an end to it, but we can't force someone to constrain themselves in that way.) As there's clearly no obvious consensus in either direction, and no indication that the situation is going to resolve itself, this falls squarely into Arbcom's remit. Like you I have very little confidence in this version of the Committee—there are some very intelligent and well-intentioned people on it but for whatever reason, they're just not gelling this time. However—as I said last year in a similar context—we can't drag Misplaced Pages to the point of open civil war in defense of the principle that Arbcom has ultimate sovereignty over editor conduct issues, only to then decide we don't trust Arbcom and we're going to ignore them. ‑ Iridescent 15:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I understand your points, yes, but at the moment I'm really not seeing the community coming to any kind of useful consensus here. If that should change in the coming days, I'll be happy to revisit my support for taking this to ArbCom. But as it stands, I think it's the lesser of two evils and all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing, that’s fair, I just really don’t like the idea of having a proposal to start a case when there’s currently greater than 60% support for a community resolution. That might not be consensus, but what we have here is the opposers of that suggesting a case, and the supporters saying “no, the community can handle it”. There might be a case needed, but I think waiting for the close to see how it ends is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

        TonyBallioni, if it’s closed as no consensus or oppose site ban, would you consider the community having solved it and it no longer necessary to go to Arbcom? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

        • Yes. I’m fine being on the “losing” side of community consensus. I propose what I think is best, and if others disagree with me, that’s fine. I really don’t like the ArbCom idea because previous cases on one user haven’t really worked out well: the TRM situation springs to mind as the most obvious, but there have been others. I’d personally rather get some community resolution, even if it’s that I’m off my rocker, than have a 2 month case, a compromise sanction that no one really likes, and then repeated attempts at enforcement that no one can come to a consensus on. I think that’d be the most likely outcome of a case. I don’t think those type of situations are ideal for the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

          Pardon me, the the TRM situation? I thought it would be polite to let people know when you're talking about them, especially as an admin. I'm happy to report that in the past few months I've reviewed a couple of hundred GANs/FLCs, written a couple of dozen GAs, had a handful of FAs pass, and I'm enjoying it all. Bringing me into this needs to be contextualised, and if you're doing it to prove something negative, then all I'll say is that I've been nothing but positive for the project for quite some time. Next time you choose to drag my name into things, at least have the courtesy to let me know. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

          The Rambling Man, it wasn’t a comment on you (to my knowledge we’ve never had a bad interaction, even when we may have disagreed.) It was just a statement that the case on you and the subsequent enforcements, ARCAs, etc. have shown that one person cases don’t usually go well after the fact. Whether it be because the principles were flawed, the enforcement is heavy handed, or whatever reason. My sincere apologies. It really just was about the case as an example of how complicated these things turn out, not about you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It would actually be a better idea to have more than one named party. There are certainly enough enablers that, if this goes to ArbCom, a bunch of other people could be in line for lesser sanctions than a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and aspersions like that would likely be removed. It may be helpful for you to take a look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop#Aspersions.

Also, thank Tony that was well put. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you think I meant you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. ArbCom is for intractable issues the community cannot handle. That wouldn't really be an option until the above proposal is closed (e.g., if the community doesn't find a solution). We're still at a point that the closer can weigh the above and make a decision, so this seems premature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - if this isn't intractable, I don't know what is. The poisoned tree has borne a bounty of fruit, and SashiRolls' sanctions and blocks have thus escalated far beyond what is reasonable for the circumstances. At the same time, there is clearly behavior that needs to be addressed. I have very little faith in the current ArbCom, but I'm not sure what good it would do to punt this until next year, while the poisoned tree continues bearing fruit in the meantime. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I wasn't sure at first per the comments above, but what's put me into the support column is the posting of a GMO DS notice and accusations of misconduct on my talk page in response to my oppose !vote above. I view this is the same kind of needless escalation that Sashi faced. We can't go on like this forever. Arbcom may not be perfect but who is, and at least they will make a decision and perhaps put an end to the never-ending exchange of accusations. Levivich  16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that Kingofaces43 should be a named party to the dispute if such a case is made to ArbCom. -- SashiRolls 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support with regret. Any situations that get to an Arbcom case are saddening, not because I don't think Arbcom are capable of dealing with them, but because it inevitably means that people have had a great amount of time lost and strife caused during the processes which led them there. That being said, reading through the above, I don't think anyone could reasonably deny that these are some very, very complicated issues we have going on here, and I think it would be very difficult for a discussion closer to make a well-judged, well-informed and proper close for this in a community fashion. I do think that it's important that we have trust in Arbcom's ability to handle these sorts of things, and the format of the forum there will, I feel, be significantly more conducive to resolving the matter at hand than a standard community discussion would. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue is that this discussion has not been exhausted. There are at least 30 members of the community who are willing to let this be settled here and now via a community action. They might not get consensus, but the discussion needs to be closed first. If after the close here, people still want to file a case they can, but we should let someone close this first. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I'm happy to wait for a close, but unless anything earth-shattering comes up, I can't see how the close would be anything other than no consensus. I agree with you that many of those opposing the ban agree the conduct as a whole is inappropriate and just want more intermediate steps, and I can totally see why you've proposed what you have; the only bit on which I disagree with you is as to the appropriateness of Arbcom where there is disagreement on what the community's response to problematic behaviour should be. Of course, I could be proven wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) - maybe something dramatic will happen and there will be a clear outcome.I suppose the other thing worthy of mentioning is that "take it to Arbcom" is inherently now an option for the closer, so I don't think this is precluding a close so much as it is offering additional options for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a community problem, not an Arbcom one. Arbcom is for intractable problems; in this case, our intractable problem (SashiRolls' behavior) is easily solved with "siteban", above.--Jorm (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Meh. The community is not capable of dealing with this, because the community has become the same kind of toxic culture that pervades so much of the internet. Maybe ArbCom will do what the community cannot. I wish whoever ends up as the filing party good luck and a strong stomach. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The case request could be filed as either something like "SashiRolls and others" or something like "Battleground editing", and should probably have something like four or five named parties in addition to SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've looked back over this entire discussion, and also thought about previous discussions about sanctioning SashiRolls, in regard to how an ArbCom case might be constructed, and particularly in regard to who the named parties might be. And as I look back, I notice a pattern. There are multiple assertions of administrative abuse, and they are entirely one-sided. (Now don't get me wrong here. I've always been a strong advocate that administrators must use their privileges appropriately, and that misuse should not be tolerated.) El C edited continuously for too long: admin abuse! TonyB started this discussion: admin abuse! Floq told editors to stop badmouthing El C: admin abuse! All of the admins at AE have been getting it wrong every time: admin abuse! COVID-19: admin abuse! (OK, I'm joking about that last one.) But very seriously: AE isn't decided by just one or two admins, and when so many different AE admins have come to the same kinds of conclusions over and over again, across multiple DS topics, are they all really that wrong? And over all the history of the disputes about SashiRolls, it's always come from his defenders, and never (that I can recall, maybe someone will find an exception in an ArbCom case) from his critics. It will be important for ArbCom, if it ends up there, to examine why the community could not resolve this problem ourselves. Who repeatedly stymied it? It would be an oversimplification to say: just look over this AN discussion, and anyone who asserted admin abuse, there's your list of named parties. But it would not be too far off the mark. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    I find it rather amusing than when I did a ctrl+F for 'admin abuse', the only results in this thread were the 6 instances of the phrase in your own comment. Obviously, that same point can be made with different words, but in this case I think you've mischaracterized (or perhaps miscaricaturized) the opinions of several people. Not all criticism of an admin is tantamount to an accusation of gross misconduct. Perhaps it would be more instructive if you could point to the specific accusations you found objectionable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This meets the test of materiality (we are talking about a site ban, for which there is significant support), and recurrence (the block log is long, the underlying issues can't be avoided further). However, having read the above, the situation is too complex, as evidenced by the diversity of opinion, for a solution here. The situation demands long-term resolution, for all our sanity. Surely this is what ArbCom is made for? Britishfinance (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I wrote above. Only really bothering to !vote because this proposal has the dangerous possibility of getting support for something it can't actually deliver. We can't compel arbcom to take a case. They're the ones who vote on it, and it's based on whether our processes worked. If we use our process to try to make that decision for them, that misses the point (and, I think, runs the risk of creating a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!). — Rhododendrites \\ 19:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Hopefully we won't destroy the universe here That being said, I get what you're saying for sure. I think the thing that I'd probably note with that is that, whilst we can't compel arbitrators to take a case, it'd be very unlikely in my view that they would decline a case where the community had chosen to refer it to them. Further, even if they did do so, that would be an answer in and of itself - much like "re-open nominations" is a valid result from various election systems in organisations. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I'm not sure whether this is a deliberate echo of the close with no action of Crossswords v. Sagecandor where Cirt accused me of being a Russian agent or not? it's probably best to close this before it creates a singularity of wiki-ridiculousness that sucks the entire Internet into a parallel universe. Also, did you happen to notice that the ANI comment I mentioned in response to your comment above (about our previous interaction) related to a recently-blocked sock? Just for information, I had been informed off-wiki that they were a sock of the user they were blocked for "being", but chose to walk away rather than create further drama. That is one of only two "drama board" threads I've ever posted in my career at en.wp. -- SashiRolls 20:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No, it's not a reference to anything other than the voice of Doc Brown that entered my head as I thought about a process intended to begin upon the failure of the community to act based on the community acting to begin that same process. I'm usually critical of attempts at humor at ANI, so serves me right that I was misunderstood (it's a direct quote from Back to the Future). Sorry about that. I'll respond to the other part inline. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support it's self-evident from the discussions above that the community absolutely can't resolve this so this is precisely what Arbcom is "paid" to deal with. No brainer, and would be good to see this year's crop earn their living. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that we need to !vote on this when any interested user may take this to ARBCOM. I'm beginning to feel, more and more, that we need a more structured environment to explore the conduct of all the involved parties here; not El C, but the ones SashiRolls has had longer-standing conflicts with. I've seen a lot of SR's disruptive behavior as an admin at AE and elsewhere, so I'm sympathetic to Tony's argument above, but I think the heat to light ratio here is poor, and it may improve at a different venue. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, this is precisely why I proposed a drama board restriction - to see if the problem is reduced when SR is focusing on content rather than drama. Guy (help!) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I see where you're coming from, but I don't know if that goes far enough; I think SR's problem is that they handle conflict poorly, and as such removing him from the drama boards will only deal with one of the symptoms. Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that they're the only one here whose behavior has been sub-par. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, you are probably right. And since we don't seem to have anything between drumhead and ArbCom, it's hard to see what to do for the best. Guy (help!) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Well, if this isn’t resolved here now, and arbcom correctly rejects, see you all here yet again in a coupla months. Meanwhile, as Vanamonde suggests, anyone can go bother arbcom anytime they wish. O3000 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • SashiRolls, this is your opportunity to start your own Arbcom case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think I can Support- I read through everyone else's comments on this and came to the conclusion that this might be necessary. The case would have to involve a lot more people that just Sashi though. A good starting point would be for Arbcom to review AE enforcement actions against Sashi. He wasn't treated fairly there (especially here, but that's part of a larger problem that probably requires reforming or replacing the AE process. I also still have faith in the community resolving problems, but this is complex and AE actions that have been taken need to be reviewed.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to the extent that anyone can file a case at ArbCom, consensus isn't required or necessary for that to occur. It also appears to me that the community is currently handling this issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. One example of differing civility standards and associated penalties that this thread reminded me of: this contribution (only admins can see the comment). I asked Bishonen to remove the diff of Mr. Antz / Sayerslle calling me a fascist here. Rereading, I see Bishonen told me my request for removal was too complicated and blocked the LTA for 48 hours, then explained to him 48 hours later that he would be allowed to contribute to en.wp again shortly. In the end, I took the time away from contributing to the encyclopedia to track down the evidence necessary to make clear that it was yet another case of block evasion. -- SashiRolls 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You sure you want to go the Arbcom route? I've been there before & it ain't smooth sailing. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No. I don't intend to file an ArbCom case against myself. However, if someone does, I think this thread demonstrates that a venue requiring evidence is necessary. ps: I had a look at the case you mentioned yesterday. -- SashiRolls 09:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

And in summary ...

Close this and send it to ArbCom. One way or another, it is going to end up in ArbCom regardless. I think there is little to be gained in posting further. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, this should be closed with a serious assessment of whatever the consensus might be. I've become as cynical as anyone else, but there is a community discussion here, the consensus is actually not self-evident, and everyone who has participated is entitled to have their views weighed appropriately. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal concerning WP:OUTING / Appeals

I've entered a proposal to update the outing process on Misplaced Pages to allow for appeals where it concerns outing. Feel free to add your voice Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_update_the_Outing_procedure_to_allow_for_appeals Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit of concern

To be as brief as possible, could an admin review this edit which I quickly reverted? I am quite concerned, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the revision and have notified the WMF about the concern. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Tumbleman specialist to the bridge please

I reverted an edit by an IP to Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) earlier, and I was puzzled because I knew it to have been permanently semiprotected due to, as far as I recall, Tumbleman socks (this is one of Tumbleman's focus topics, here and off-wiki). Turns out that the article was temporarily fully protected in Feb and of course when that expired, it went back to no protection. I restored SPROT for now, as the status quo ante as it were, but can anyone familiar with Tumbleman please say if this is still needed? I think Tumbleman is still active, certainly he is still active and bitching about us off-wiki. Maybe ECP would be better? Does someone want to do that? Guy (help!) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ECP should only be applied if and/or when semi proves inadequate. El_C 12:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I like ECP because it allows IPs to edit, but removes isues of bonkers content being visible to the reader. Guy (help!) 13:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think you might be conflating pending changes (WP:PC) with extended-confirmed protection (WP:ECP). El_C 13:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, d'oh. That is what I meant, of course. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Tumbleman is involved, but there has been a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article. Most of the active participants are either autoconfirmed or ECP-confirmed but they have been sticking to talk pages and not edit-warring. So they aren't a concern and even ECP wouldn't do anything anyway. PC would likely be enough to catch evaders. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article". Do you have evidence for this? There are significant problems with the article, but nothing that any sort of protection would help remedy. The issues are essentially content disputes and there has been no edit warring. PC or SP are not needed here. Arcturus (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, what, apart from the fact that everyone is asking the same thing, with pretty much the same arguments? Guy (help!) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I see this has been on Gary Null's show recently. That may go some way towards explaining the observed facts. Presumably we can also expect some of Null's fans at his article. Guy (help!) 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Legacy Visual

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

I removed TPA for Legacy Visual due to a series of off-topic misogynist posts. If anyone thinks that's unnecessary, feel free to reverse. Guy (help!) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly looking at their edit history, and the recent ANI thread, an indef for WP:NOTHERE may have warranted. Adding those replies that caused the TPA revoke, I'm inclined to do so now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that editor before. I just went over many of their edits again--they're definitely NOTHERE, except to argue a political point, and even that they're doing ineptly. I dropped the NOTHERE block, and I think the template restored TPA--but since this is an indefinite block the situation is a bit different and they might sing a different tune. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Protecting 2020 China-India skirmishes

About two times the request has been made on WP:RFPP for WP:ECP, however both times they were rejected by admin Woody and his actions were indeed made in good faith. Nonetheless the page should be ECP already due to disruption (not vandalism) by inexperienced editors and the subject is really contentious. Aman Kumar Goel 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning in the decline is available here and still seems to stand. We don't normally protect articles because they are busy. It didn't seem to meet the normal interpretation of disruptive at that time. Please discuss your issues on the talk page. I notice there are a number of discussion requests that haven't been answered. Having discussions in edit summaries doesn't count. As always, I have absolutely no qualms with any other admin protecting. Woody (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I went through the article...last 500 edits or so., and I concur with my colleague above. Semi-protection is enough imho, ECP-protection should only be used when semi-protection has been proven to be inadequate; we are not at this point yet. Lectonar (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Technical question about what kind of blocks are possible.

Re: Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Can I block a user or IP from leaving messages on my talk page? could our new "block from editing individual pages" ability could be used to block that IP from editing that talk page? Assuming that it is possible, would it be desirable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using partial blocks of that nature without some formal dispute resolution (likely at AN or ANI), simply "please don't post on my page" isn't exactly an "enforceable IBAN", as has been demonstrated by unregistered and registered users time and time again. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Worst case is that you get your talkpage temp. protected for a while. Speaking of what is possible, it would be great if you could partially block an IP range from editing a group of pages in a given category. Lugnuts 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech answers only: @Guy Macon: yes, a block can be placed against a user/ip/ip range that would prohibit editing only a specific page, and that could be a user talk page. @Lugnuts: Category blocks were declined in general (c.f. phab:T190349) as they would allow non-admins to extend the block by adding the blocked category places. — xaosflux 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. Shame that can't be done (at the present)! Lugnuts 06:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

block user:A.B.Siddiki

Please block user:A.B.Siddiki, sock puppet of User:Prince Shobuz aka User:Abu Bakkar Siddiki (Shobuz). Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You can file a report on WP:SPI if you really think that this is a sockpuppet and you will get better response there. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, আফতাবুজ্জামান is a CheckUser on bn.wiki. Admins here can block based on their comments if it matches. আফতাবুজ্জামান, you might get a quicker response via email to checkuser-l. I’ll block here, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin

Please delete these revisions . --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Revdel'ed. Thanks for the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.

Support: Joe Roe, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Maxim, David Fuchs, xeno, Worm That Turned, SoWhy, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, DGG

Oppose:

Recuse: KrakatoaKatie

Inactive: GorillaWarfare, Mkdw

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Hi, There is backlog from Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 27 March 2020 to Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 10 June 2020. If any admin have time clearing this then it would be great. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Waterwizardm and NOTHERE

• Waterwizardm (talk · contribs)

Part of me just wants to disengage from them, which I have, but another part of me would like to see them at least warned to take their WP:FRINGE theory elsewhere. I admit it is tempting to continue debating them but I shall no longer contravene NOTAFORUM myself. @David Eppstein:. I would just like other eyes on this situation because I believe my further contribution to it would serve no purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

They have been told to take their fringe theory elsewhere, repeatedly, in Talk:P versus NP problem. At least they migrated from article space to article talk space to (now) their own user talk space, but I don't see any evidence that they are giving up their crank views or their desire to push those views into Misplaced Pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards