Template:Active editnotice

Further comment

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

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

In short(ish):

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

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

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

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

RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:

I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.

I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.

I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  endorse unblock-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks

• His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That was in March. By June 9, things had changed.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time. Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You're kidding!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The edit was summary "bye". QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently NRP already [ran] a check and found nothing. Just below where he posted the request.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I’m not generally a fan of third chances. They tend to create unblockables. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: Just curious, where does the idea of the third chance creating unblockables come from? Crazynas ^t 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrators are as a group cautious, which means that usually a new block after any unblock requires double the disruption for it to stick. My standard for unblocks is similar to what BrownHairedGirl below is saying: does the potential for benefits to the encyclopedia outweigh the known risk for disruption. Once someone gets to their second justified indef, the answer will almost always be No.
  Unblocking at that point means they'll just keep being disruptive and we'll ignore them for 6 months to a year before trying a bunch of sanctions that don't work until they eventually lose interest in the project or get blocked after years of frustration. I'm not going to name any names, but it's something I've noticed over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support given the length of the time they've been blocked for and some indication they may have changed attitude. If unblocked they'd better understand that any more battleground behaviour will be the end of their involvement with WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the strict understanding that there shall be zero tolerance for battlegrounding, incivility or harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 41 mainspace edits, and a block log which isn't a whole lot shorter. Sockpuppetry, which wastes a lot of community time in cleanup. Note too that the sock was busy at ANI, from this dose of timewasting nitpicking on an admin's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=748686645#An_Inquiry

So I'm seeing a pile of negatives here on the conduct front.

But what positive things does this person bring to the project of building an encyclopedia? I see a poor command of the English language, which doesn't bode well for work on articles. Even if the new claims of good intent are sincere, they come without one of the pre-requisite skills.

Sorry, but I think this person has already wasted enough of the community's time. I don't see any point in trying again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the editor is young. Now that they are a bit older they want to come back and contribute. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. I'd rather give them a try with a known account than throw away the key and have them sneak back with an undisclosed account. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock somewhat strongly, per [6] (Alexis Ivanov being RussianDewey's confirmed sock). After pulling a one-month block for personal attacks, they spent the next month and a bit harassing the blocking administrator, and after being told to knock it off ([7], especially [8]), didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with prominently listing that administrator's name as a vague "future project" on their user page. That earned them a six-month block before being discovered to be a sockpuppet. They have not addressed that incident at all in their unblock request, and I see no reason to believe they've learned anything from it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: This may be a case that requires RussianDewey to work on a different project for a time without incident prior to returning to English Wikipedia. This could be another language variant of Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia), but could also be Commons or Wikisource. In particular, there would need to be evidence not merely of content creation without incident, but interaction with others without incident (i.e., work entirely within walled gardens that's gone under the radar, as is common on some low-traffic projects, would probably not suffice). As BHG notes, there are only 41 mainspace edits on this account, and all of those are in a two-month period in 2015. If we saw some more work elsewhere demonstrating a change, then perhaps those reticent to support an unblock would be more convinced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 4 years since anything substantial other than talk page contributions? Wants another chance? Says he's learned his lesson? Let's give him a chance to prove us wrong. Should he prove us wrong, instant permaban. Edits would be easy to undo, so I don't see that being a significant problem. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral but the comments from Ivanvector give me pause. I give weight to the vote of administrators who have access to tools that I do not. I also appreciate that Swarm supports another chance with a zero tolerance expectation. I believe the editor has showed contrition. However BrownHairedGirl's assessment of the edit history is alarming. Tough decision for the closer. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• boldly moving comment to right sectionI would give him/her another chance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the reasoning of BrownHairedGirl.Krow750 (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - last chance, I'm a believer. Also, @Mendaliv, Pudeo, and Buffs:, you refer to 41 edits / 4 years, but this editor's later sock account racked up over 3,500 edits until November 2016. [9] starship.paint (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from RussianDewey--

g/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RussianDewey&type=revision&diff=905724588&oldid=905717472&diffmode=source

I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

]  Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Dewey replied thusly (to @BrownHairedGirl:)--

I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check, please. What you call your "main contribution" was actually only 41 edits to articles. In those 41 edits, I see you asserting several points of fact, but I don't see even one case of you adding a source for anything you write.

As to your claim to be expanding/creating templates, I see only three edits in template space[10], all to the same template. They consist of you edit-warring, and misusing edit summaries to insult a long-standing productive editor.

And despite making only small changes to text, you still seem envisage that you will need other editors to clean up after your unsourced edits.

So I see nothing positive in any of what you did, and plenty of problem even in those article/template edits. It is clear that you were a significant net negative even before you began the battleground conduct and the socking, and even before you abused the sock to waste so much of other people's time.

With nothing at all on the positive side of the balance sheet, and a long list of problems on the negative side, I can only say a firm "np". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• response to BHG belatedly carried over from talk page.

  :: I think there has been a little confusion with the Brown Haired Girl, majority of my work was not under this name rather the other one. Contributions and also unfinished researches Subpages. I also made contributions to non-English Wikipedia by the way. RussianDewey (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more" and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable," had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.

The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [11], [12] and [13] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response by closer,

• It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
• The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
• The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
  • MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
  • MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
  • In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
  • Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP: [The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.[14]
• The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
  • It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure: ... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states ... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs. However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.

This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should "make readers want to learn more". That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead?

As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert closure and topic ban Cinderella157 - This is the second poorly executed RfC closure by User:Cinderella157 that I've come across in the last few days (the first was this one, which also prompted a closure review directly above this thread). I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems like a pattern to me. Either way, it's becoming clear to me that Cinderella157 doesn't understand a few key things about closing controversial consensus discussions:

1. These discussions often take place over a long period of time, and involve a large number of editors. A lot of time and effort goes into these discussions; participants feel invested in the discussion. To close such a discussion with a very brief and unclear closing statement can be very disappointing to the dozens of participants, and it represents a lack of respect for the time and effort that was put into thoroughly discussing the topic at hand. In short, these kinds of contentious discussions deserve a thoughtful and clear closure.
2. Even when a discussion ends in no consensus, the closing statement can still provide an important summation of the salient points of the discussion. It can point out aspects of the discussion where agreement was found, and other aspects where it was not. In many cases, this closing statement serves as a historical record of the overall results of the discussion, and future discussions will often point to this historical record as a way to review the path that consensus has taken on this topic over time. To close such a discussion with a brief and unclear closing statement obscures this historical record, making it more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus.

I don't have the time or interest to study Cinderella157's contribution history to see if he has been closing many other discussions in the same manner. If he has, I would support a topic ban on Cinderella157, preventing him from closing any discussions. Even if these two closures are outliers, I would still encourage Cinderella157 to avoid closing discussions and find other tasks instead.

I'm also not sure I agree with the result of the closure either. I briefly scanned the discussion and my hunch is that I'd lean towards finding consensus for the "Second" argument (opposite of Cinderella's closure) at best, or closing it as "no consensus" at worst. If anything, at least the voters supporting the "Second" result actually provide relevant guidelines and policies that support their decision. Not a single voter on the "Last" side provided any relevant guidelines or policies in support of their position; they simply expressed their personal preference for the order of the lead. Cinderella157 writes that he finds the argument for a chronologically-ordered lead to be "compelling", but provides no explanation for why he finds it more compelling than the policy-based rationales on the other side. He even admits in this very discussion above that there are no policies or guidelines that require the lead of an article to describe the subject in chronological order. If I were the closing admin, I would have likely closed this discussion much differently. I'd recommend that the closure is reverted, and an uninvolved administrator is asked to provide a real closure. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Given that one of the first things the editor did after being topic banned from "sorting, relisting and closing discussions at AfD" was...more delsorts [15], and that they've delsorted AfDs multiple times since then [16] [17] [18], I find the promises not to do those things a bit odd. Like Praxidicae, I see no benefit to the encyclopedia from lifting the ban early (or, in my opinion, at all). Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was in the AfDs nominated by me. While nominating articles for deletion we have to fill the box. From now I won't sort even AfDs created by me. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • [19] was not, and it happened right after the topic ban was placed. Simply put, on multiple occasions where you could have adhered to the topic ban rather than doing what you wanted in Twinkle, you repeatedly chose the latter. Bakazaka (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't know the difference between ban and block so I did that just to find out the difference. Apologies . ~SS49~ {talk} 22:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was SS49 warned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned for that, and did he violate it again despite such action? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did SS49 keep the promises they made in the previous ANI discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Answered above. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:Bakazaka there was that single transgression hours afterwards - but they also self reported it, apologized, and did not, as far as I can see, repeat the transgression. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • You linked to SS49 saying I recently nominated an article for deletion and sorted the deletion discussion. Sorry for the mistake. Thought sorting is not an issue. Note that they subsequently did the same thing multiple times (linked above), including only 3 hours after the apologystriking because I got a timestamp wrong, there are still two subsequent incidents, despite TonyBallioni clarifying that anything other than !voting in AfD was prohibited, and despite apologizing for it as a "mistake". Not sure which part of this is unclear. Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see two subsequent transgressions - unless you (User:Bakazaka) are referring to them creating an AFD in June, and another in July (that were both uncontroversial). Nor do I see a prohibition on creating AFDs. I see no behaviour issues related to the topic ban since the day of the topic ban. Nfitz (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict)@Bakazaka: My question was serious. I wanted to know, since you've done the legwork, whether there was discipline for that specific violation and whether there were subsequent violations. While I believe that SS49's topic ban should be lifted at this point, I'm also open to having my mind changed.
              At this time, I'm thinking that a single violation so close in time to the topic ban itself—which is generally a time of confusion and frustration for an editor—just as easily indicates a mistake as it does deliberately and knowingly flaunting the topic ban. People often screw up just after they're topic banned, and people often lash out just after they're topic banned. In neither case is it out of malice or a willingness to break the rules for rulebreaking's sake.
              I also credit the absence of harm from this one infraction—it being delsorting rather than the relist/NAC actions that originally got him in trouble—in addition to the fact that nobody seems to have noticed it until now as mitigating factors in my mind.
              I take your attempted inference to be that the violation indicates malice, or perhaps incompetence and inability to follow rules—you don't say exactly what you're inferring, so it's left somewhat up to me to guess. Neither inference rings true to me based on what you've pointed out. If there were a pattern of misconduct after the ban—whether repeated violations after warnings, or causing disruption in other areas not covered by the ban, that was sustained for a sufficient period after the ban was enacted—I could be convinced to oppose lifting the ban. But I'm not seeing a pattern, I'm seeing a single incident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, for example, if SS49 clarified with an admin that delsorting was not permitted under the ban, even for their own nominations, apologized for that "mistake", then did it again anyway, would that be convincing? Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • You know what, I took a second look and you're 100% right, there's no exception for self-created AfDs in terms of the delsort ban. I'm changing my !vote below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bakazaka, That was done just to complete the process. While AFDing a box appears which is required to be filled. If you say it is better not to complete, I won't do it again. I thought the box should be filled completely. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no prohibition from creating AFDs - and including sorting is listed as a step in AFD creation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. I'm not sure why we'd want to encourage people not to make the normal notications. And I only see that they've only created two AFDs since March (which were both uncontroversially upheld as delete). I can understand the desire to have the user avoid closing and relisting. But what's the concern with sorting User:Bakazaka - it's rarely controversial. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concerns about sorting were discussed in detail in the previous ANI discussion, which is why sorting was explicitly included in the topic ban under discussion here. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was a bit in the ANI (a couple of complaints over a month before the ANI discussion) - unless I missed something. One was just about formatting (some extra spaces), and the other was a request to only use sub-categories rather than the super-category, which was immediately agreed to, and not repeated. This didn't seem to be a lingering problem, even at the time of the ANI discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a reasonable request, articulated reasonably. (see below) I do not support the “don’t do delsorting after this or you’ll get blocked” condition since it’s just another way of saying “topic ban.” Either we lift the restriction or we don’t. There’s no middle ground. That said, if SS49 were to immediately go and start clerking at AfD after this is lifted, contrary to his assurances here that he has no such interest, then we could reasonably infer that he had lied to get out of his TBAN, and reimposing it or blocking him would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion with Bakazaka above. The original ban had no exceptions for delsorting when starting an AfD. Delsorting is optional when starting an AfD, and as far as I can tell Twinkle won't throw an error if you don't put anything in the delsort box (and it says "delsort" so there's no confusion there). And SS49's ban explicitly says that delsorting is covered. So, frankly, I'm not impressed with SS49's "oops", "if you say so", and "I won't do it again" responses to these issues. And let's be realistic: Even if Twinkle did require you to fill the delsort box when starting an AfD, this is not a new problem. The limitations of automated and semi-automated tools are never an excuse for violating policy or sanction. If SS49 thought it was required to fill the delsort box to make Twinkle work, he should have been starting the AfDs manually, like we all used to do years ago. All the instructions are still there at WP:AFD. And so, "Twinkle made me do it" is no excuse.
    With that in mind, all four of the diffs Bakazaka points out are relevant, and all four are delsorts after the ban was in force. The first was mere hours after the ban, and the most recent was less than a month ago. Earlier I defended SS49 on the basis of "no pattern" and that the one diff that was a clear, obvious violation was no pattern. Having realized my presumption that "own AfD" delsorts weren't covered by the ban was incorrect, it is now clear that there is a pattern that has continued without a clear end. Two would have made a pattern. Four makes a clear pattern.
    On the other hand, those were uncaught (presumably because they weren't disruptive). Moreover, the main way SS49 was originally disrupting was through relists and NACs. A reading of the thread that enacted the ban makes it feel like delsorting was just "lumped in" as part of "AfD clerking" tasks rather than a particular area of disruption. As such, this feels somewhat de minimis.
    But then we have all the clear statements to SS49 that delsorting was not allowed. There's the discussion at TonyBallioni's user talk and GoldenRing's statement in closing the ban discussion. And yet in spite of that, SS49 didn't understand or appreciate that doing any delsorting was a violation? It might be one thing if there was a policy-based argument coupled with a mea culpa, but what SS49 has done here has essentially been to plead ignorance. I'm sorry but in light of the issue raised in the original ban discussion—that there was a clear competence problem—I think this action needs to be tabled at least until the six month mark.
    I don't think there's a need to impose further sanctions as a result of the discovered violations, however. This is based on my observation that they are essentially de minimis. Let's just close this and get back to our normal activities. While I don't think SS49 would go and immediately break his promise not to violate the conditions of lifting the ban, that's not the problem we need to be careful of: It's little disruptions that go unnoticed for a long time. That, and my objection to "unbanning with conditions matching the original ban scope" (which is tantamount to making this an undocumented editing restriction) means I must oppose this request. Sorry, SS49. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:BLOCK guidelines

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

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

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

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

Move to close

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

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

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

• I've rescued this from the archive as it was not closed yet. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request review of close

Saxifrage appears to have supervoted a sanction into effect against a reasonable reading of consensus. In the above discussion, two admins, Swarm and GoldenRing (as proposer), and one uninvolved editor, GreenMeansGo, supported two-way IBANs between Buffs and CorbieVreccan and Buffs and Indigenousgirl. These were intended to handle three editors who have each individually demonstrated an inability to behave collegialy with the other, and in addition the issue of IG following Buffs while simultaneously demanding that he leave her alone. One involed admin, CorbieVreccan, !voted for one-way. There is also one illegible !vote, that of Mark Ironie, that they have indicated was meant to be taken as sarcasm and in favour of a one-way IBAN. Saxifrage closed the discussion in favour of a one-way IBAN on Buffs from CorbieVreccan and IndigenousGirl. This does not fit with consensus, if there is any to be found, wthat indicates that the problems are two-sided – Saxifrage even acknowledges that there is a consensus that two-sided following is happening, but then summarily ignores this as a non-issue. Really? Harassment is a non-issue? One-way IBANs are particularly problematic where issues are two-way because they open up a user to being hounded and harassed, and given that Saxifrage acknowledges a pattern of following, this close outcome becomes nonsensical. There is an additional matter, but it's not central to the review: Saxifrage, you have failed to do either of the mandatory tasks when implementing a sanction against an editor. You have not notified the sanctioned editor on their talk page of the imposed sanction, nor have you logged the sanction at ER – done by an uninvolved editor. As such, I am requesting that other editors and admins review both the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional detail at User talk:Saxifrage#Can you please explain your rationale? and User talk:GoldenRing#Saxifrage's close. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the worst close I have ever seen. There was absolutely no consensus for a one-way iban. While Buffs has not behaved perfectly in this dispute, there is ample reason to believe that he has been railroaded on numerous occasions. It is disappointing that this was handled so unevenly (against Buffs) before it came to ANI, but to apply such an unfair close, plainly unsupported by consensus, adds insult to injury. This needs to be overturned and re-archived with no consensus. I suspect Corbie V. and Mark Ironie won't like that, but maybe it will help them to avoid derailing future threads with one wall of text after another (and Buffs is not innocent in this regard either). Also, in light of Mark Ironie's condescending treatment of Buffs at Saxifrage's talk page, it's time to start taking a closer look at Mark's behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I already contested the close. All things being equal, I agree with the two editors above and restate my original edit summary. ——SerialNumber54129 11:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC) To clarify, I also support Overturning the close, in case it needs putting in black and white. ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you got reverted. This type of rogue action (yes, this supervote is a rogue action) does nothing to improve the already poor perception of legacy admins, and I hope that when Saxifrage responds here he will be a little more humble and a little less dismissive than he was in his replies to Buffs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is painful, as I'm sure Saxifrage closed the discussion in good faith, and put a lot of work into it. And his omission of the technicalities (logging and placing a notice on Buff's page) isn't something that I would make a big deal of. It's not a crime to be unaware of these requirements, and they can easily be performed by someone else. But the close is unfortunately a classic supervote and does not correspond to the consensus of the discussion. That is a big deal, and means the close needs to be undone. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  I did omit the technicalities — I was interrupted after finishing the close, and then was further interrupted by being called away from a real computer for a few days. I do regret that. I was just about to take care of that now that I'm back at a real keyboard, but I see the EDR change has been made, and in light of the review and Buffs being surely aware of the IBAN, I'll elide the notice at this time.

  Thanks for the assumption of good faith, it's deeply appreciated. The briefest summary of the summary was that I saw consensus for 1) applying a remedy (IBAN) to deal with the situation; consensus that 2) the status quo should not continue; but not a consensus for what for, except for the consensus that 3) Buffs regularly engages in overt and harmful hostility in content disputes, making them unresolvable except by the other party's exhaustion. Combining consensus for (1), (2), and (3) seemed reasonable. I welcome a review of the close, since more eyes make problems shallower, including resolving disputes like this. Given some of the contributions to the discussion, I wasn't surprised that it would need to escalate to another meta level of discussion. I somewhat expect that this will eventually reach ArbCom. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  When Buffs first approached you to request an explanation of your closure, he specifically asked for examples of instances in which he was uncivil. You provided no examples aside from the perceived hostility in his post on your page, which could hardly be cited as justification for a sanction that predated it. In the ensuing conversation, you advised Buffs that you didn't take "personalised guff" (none of which had been offered) and that you expected not to interact with him on the subject anymore. When GoldenRing registered his own surprise at your decision, you stated that you found that the argument for Buffs behaviour being egregiously hostile was overwhelming solid, and the facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors. If that's true, it really shouldn't be hard to provide examples that predate your soon-to-be-reversed sanction, should it? Yet you haven't done so. Buffs keeps asking 'when was I uncivil?' and you keep replying 'you were really uncivil!' Maybe this type of behavior was acceptable in your administrative heyday. It's not acceptable now. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am taken aback that the incivility is even in dispute, or that the failure to redocument what's already extensively documented when Buffs says "jump" is somehow more important to discuss than the incivility itself. What's "not hard" is not the same as what's reasonable. What's "not hard" can also be an effective strategy to waste the time of admins and the project as a whole, when it's deployed to avoid acknowledging the already well-documented behaviour. The only winning move for admins is to not play the game offered by offenders.

  If you want a simple example, if re-reading Buffs contributions to the discussion above and the diffs provided there is somehow insufficient as evidence, then I can give one example where not only was Buffs being given a last warning for incivility, his response was to launch into further incivility with accusations of partisanship and choosing sides. Not just one example though: Buffs regularly does this. Not just sometimes, but over and over again.

  If responding to sanctions for incivility with incivility were fine at Wikipedia, the community would be doomed. That cannot be how we handle egregiously incivil editors. The bar cannot be set so high that WP:CIVIL gets only lip service, and constant incivility-laden protests, constant demands to re-prove and re-quote what is already proved and quoted, become an effective way to be free to break a fundamental rule of the project. An editor cannot just constantly generate new threads of argument and then demand new responses, when they've already been responded to. That's especially damaging to entertain when they appear to treat every new uninvolved editor as a clean slate, offering a fresh opportunity to relitigate already demonstrated violations of WP:CIVIL.

  Regardless, providing proof to Buffs on demand is not the point here. The point is whether the contents of the so-far closed discussion contain the proof already, as that is what is referred to in the summary. Any failure to entertain Buffs requests for proof don't change the contents of the discussion nor my summary, both of which pre-date my refusal to entertain his unreasonable requests for fresh copy-pastes of existing documentation. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It would appear that you do not understand what constitutes incivility, nor do you understand your responsibility to be accountable for your administrative actions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to concur with the opinions above (especially @Lepricavark:'s remarks. I don't agree with the conclusions of those involved in the discussion, but I will abide by consensus...but I think it's clear that the closure was NOT consensus. Thanks to all who replied already. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I oppose an interaction ban at this time as I believe such an outcome would give an unfair advantage to a small group of editors seeking to impose their wishes, masqueraded as consensus, upon another user whom they have fought hard to silence. It seems clear that the discussion will eventually be reopened, and I'm somewhat surprised that it is still closed. @Buffs: When it is reopened, please keep your comments succinct and avoid the temptation for long walls of text. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you/noted. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Bishonen, this is a clear supervote. It bears no resemblance to the consensus of the discussion and is merely what the closer thought ought to happen. The closer has said in about as many words that they found no consensus and then implemented what they thought was a good solution. In as much as this represents a closure review, there is a clear need to overturn. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This is an egregious supervote, that has little connection to the actual discussion and consensus therein. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Whether or not the close was good, enough editors have disagreed with it that the closer should self-revert and let someone uninvolved reclose. Such a self-revert should not be construed as an admission of error -- the closer should self-revert even if convinced that he was 100% right, simply to put this to bed and let everybody move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An RfC[72] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [73] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [74], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [75], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [76] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [77] [78] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [79]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [80] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[81]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [82] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your altering of the header[83] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[84], Guardian[85], NY Mag[86], Vox[87], and Intercept[88]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[89]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[90]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another:

• United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of the same syndicated article, sourced to a different newspaper carrying the same article on each occasion, to give the appearance that it's more heavily referenced than it is, should go for a start. There's no possible way anyone reading the articles could fail to notice that (e.g.) [91], [92] and [93] are all the same article in a different font (and all from local newspapers in areas not remotely near Kidwelly), which sets off my WP:ABF right there. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, after reading the Snopes [94] article that talks about fake news site that specializes in voyeuristic clickbait in the guise of discussing pedo crimes: A User with the clickbaity name might want to ensure that others do not see his or her writing in that wink, wink, (Ugh) vein, even if 'TOTALLY the TRUTH', and invite others to edit it extensively. We are not here to promote anything in the guise of 'all the lurid details' and yes, BLP has a section on restraint in WP:BLPSTYLE among others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't just a red herring, this is disinformation. Tots etc didn't use that source. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may have misunderstood Alanscottwalker. Tots' MO seems creepily similar. Miniapolis 23:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (mother of three, grandmother of seven )[reply]
      • You totally misunderstood. I never said they used a source. It was an analogy to poor and worse writing, that Wikipedia does not want. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • MelanieN, I agree about the need for rewrites and a decision as to whether these cases are all notable. Also agree with Iridescent about the repetitive sourcing. There is a focus on salacious detail in articles, titles (e.g. BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures, deleted as a copyvio, and Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring, which became a redirect, now deleted by Iridescent), and in the edit summaries I revdeleted in March. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SlimVirgin and MelanieN:, to be honest, I'd personally be willing to delete under WP:BLPDELETE if there is agreement to it here. Tots is clearly an agenda driven right great wrongs SPA, and there have been numerous issues identified in their writing about living people in what is perhaps the most sensitive BLP issue there is. There are questions about which of these are notable, and sorting through that in combination with a rewrite on every page Tots has created would take substantial work on the part of experienced editors and admins and even then stuff may be missed. The best solution to me seems that they need to rewrite any notable incidents from scratch with rigourous application to the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What happened to "focus on the edits, not the editor"? I don't like these kind of articles anymore than you do, but they should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with other articles. By editing them to fix any issues. I dropped that very incomplete list of similar, pre-existing sex abuse articles here to make a point. Tots' editing and sourcing is no worse than the articles we already have. Possibly better. Take Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example. It has 10 redirects to it, including one for each of the four men who were convicted. Tots didn't create that article or even edit it. Why don't you ask them to read the policies about neutrality again, change their username and move on? Bitter Oil (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, actually, their articles are worse. They have significantly worse sourcing, significantly more detail about the perpetrators, and were also what was what I stumbled upon. Their behaviour is what we are reviewing here, not every other pedophilia article (which likely do have issues as well.) The concern is that there is one user who has made it their sole mission on Wikipedia to "tell the stories" of abused children, and in doing so is creating articles that need to be completely rewritten to comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't ignore that because the rest of the topic area has issues. We fix the problem we're presented with when we're presented with it, and then move on to the next ones when we can. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should it matter if their mission is to tell the stories of abused children if they do it in a way that conforms to our policies? There are editors here who have made it their mission to document every episode of the Simpsons. Maybe I missed it in all the hubbub, but I haven't seen a specific example of an edit made by Tots which is a BLP issue. Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? If Tots' username is a problem, why hasn't anyone asked them to change it? If their sourcing is an issue (and it is) let's deal with it. This seems to be a lynching because people are uncomfortable with the subject matter. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, as they are not complying with policy, as has been agreed to by everyone but you. Unless there is an objection from another administrator or editor in good standing, I will be deleting under BLPDELETE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? Actually they have. That entire section with all the excessive detail about the perpetrators has been removed. So have the ridiculous reference listings that showed the exact same article published in five or six different papers. That was done because it is under discussion here. But basically no-one wants to go to the effort of searching out all these overstuffed, lurid articles and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards until we know if they are going to be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Both of those excisions were made after my comment. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I notified the DRV community of this WP:BLPDELETE review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 28#Operation Voicer. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note: I wouldn't put too much weight on Bitter Oil's opinions. The primary purpose of the account (created in April) appears to be to post on Talk:Jimbo Wales (25/102 edits), and their articlespace experience, at least using this account name, is minimal (46 edits in 2 1/2 months). There's very little indication in the edits of this account to show that they are familiar with Wikipedia's standards. [95], [96] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have three questions about Operation Voicer:
  1. Was Operation Voicer created by the editor who is the subject of this discussion?
  2. Did the article violate WP:BLP prior to the editor's contributions to the article?
  3. Would the rest of the article still violate WP:BLP if the sections or paragraphs that "highlighted individual convicted criminals who were not otherwise notable in a way that we would not ordinarily allow" were removed?
  Cunard (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard, 1) Yes. 2) They were the only substantial contributor. 3) The main issue was the de facto stubs, but IMO the sourcing questions and issues with mission driven style editing were concerning enough and difficult enough to unpack that the BLP policies allowance for summary deletion and then discussion was warranted. That is to say, in my view the article would have had to be substantially rewritten in order to comply with BLP given the sourcing concerns and issues concerning weight and style. Deletion and recreation if found to be notable to me seemed the best option, and deletion followed by review as allowed by the BLP policy given the rapid creation of new redirects to the mini-articles seemed like the safest course of action. I’m obviously the deleting admin, but MelanieN can give her opinion on it, as she’s been looking at these issues and also has admin goggles. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the explanation. Since no other editors' contributions were deleted, that resolves my concerns about other editors' work being deleted. If the deleted article had the same problems as Kidwelly sex cult before it was significantly trimmed, then deletion is likely fine. Since this editor's contributions to this topic area have been flagged as problematic and to be cautious in ensuring BLP is not violated, I support leaving the article deleted without prejudice against allowing recreation of a new article. Any new article must be sourced to only high quality reliable sources and must comply with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paedophile redirects issue

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

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

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

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

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

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