---

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

Hey, I am posting this on the behalf of User:SuperSucker, since they requested a renaming and are blocked on English Wikipedia. (A little discussion about this is here). 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1997kB (talk • contribs)

User:SuperSucker is still under an indefinite block per this ANI from 28 March. Their block notice refers to WP:NOTHERE plus repeated IP socking. Since the editor still has access to their talk page, they could post an unblock request at User talk:SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock has been declined by NRP per IP socking. I see no reason to grant a rename here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see a reason to oppose renaming since they seem in good standing on commons and they can be required to ensure to mention their previous username on any unblock request here. I mean if there's fear someone will try and push their images onto articles and people won't recognise the creator, we could always notify of the username change on relevant article talk pages. Or in other words, I don't see how them being renamed harms us in any way and they have a reason for wanting to be renamed, despite being blocked here. (It's obviously normally a waste of time to rename people if they're not editing anywhere.) After all, if they were to ever successfully unblocked, we'd surely allow a rename right after. And while people sometimes have to put up with the consequences of their ill advised choices, having a username SuperSucker must be super sucky. But I'd oppose an unblock if they've been editing with an IP less than 6 months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - if they can convince one of the other wikis to rename them then fine, but if they're blocked here and socking, I've no interest in doing them any favours. Username's inconvenient for editing other projects? Not English Wikipedia's problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ivanvector: AFAIK the user is not asking the English wikipedia to rename them. They asked at meta, but were denied because they are blocked here. It may not be the English wikipedia's problem, but I don't see a reason to deny them the right to rename on meta, which is what we are doing by opposing a rename since meta has explicitly told them that they need to convince us to allow a rename. (Not implement it, but allow it.) Refusing a user the right to rename elsewhere because they've been disruptive here, and the rename will not actually make one iota of difference to us reeks of punishment rather than preventing disruption to me. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose unblock" is I suppose what I should have said, owing to their ongoing block evasion. If their disruptive behaviour here means that meta won't honour their request, tough shit. Don't evade blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ivanvector: But why oppose a rename? As I've said, there's no reason it has to concern us. We can oppose an unblock, but have no objection to a rename elsewhere as I've done. Tough shit is fine, but you seem to me to be intentionally punishing another editor by refusing to allow them a rename for no reason. IIRC it was you who reverted one of my comments trying to help another editor because you regarded is as grave dancing. While I can understand this was comment was poorly phrased, I find it a little surprising that you're now effectively advocating punishing another editor by refusing to allow them being elsewhere, because they are blocked here. Now if meta refuses to allow them to be renamed without being unblocked that's fine, but the original discussion is ambigious and seems to suggest that it's possible they can be renamed, if they convince us to allow it, despite being blocked here. All we have to do is say oppose unblock but don't give a damn about a rename, as I've done. What happens from there on is none of our concern. Instead we're wasting time IMO trying to punish an editor simply because they were badly disruptive here, but I've seen absolutely no reason why it harms us if they are renamed elsewhere, nor how it prevents disruption here, by allowing the editor to get on with whatever they want to do elsewhere, hopefully in accordance with their policies and guidelines so they aren't blocked there too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to this, and I don't exactly recall the circumstances there but I don't see what that has to do with this. If you think I'm opposing this because of some grudge I hold against you, you are very badly mistaken. The disruption that would result from this blocked user being renamed is all of the admin time we would then have to waste jumping through hoops (as you've helpfully itemized in your reply to Dlohcierekim below) for an editor who has repeatedly ignored our policies (via block evasion) but has suddenly learned that, oh shit! they need us to do them a favour. I'm not here for it. If you think that's punitive then so be it. Score one for the "being a jerk on the internet should have consequences" crowd. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear even if you're intending on not following the conversation any more, I respect your approach here and very highly value any editor who is willing to assume good faith and go to bat for someone asking for help. I find the user's request highly disingenuous in this case, but had you come here with any other editor in this situation who wasn't evading a block as recently as last week, I'd be right there advocating with you. I'm sorry that we disagree in this instance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• regretful oppose The reason for not renaming is the block. not visa versa. This is to prevent problems from cropping up. Any unblock can accompany a renaming at that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Dlohcierekim: Can you outline what problems you believe may crop up? As I've said above, it seems to me any possible problems can be resolved by ensuring that they mention any previous username in an unblock request and perhaps keep a message on their user page or talk page or both clearly mention the rename, at least until they've been unblocked. if it's felt that admins may still miss it, or that the editor may remove the stuff and not mention it on their unblock request, their block log can always be annotated although yes that would require someone here to take action which is unfortunate but IMO so minor that it's not worth worrying about. We can notify on relevant article talk pages if there's concerns over IPs trying to push images they've created onto articles. Heck I can do that myself if people feel it's necessary. I'm fine with opposing a rename if there is some real problem/disruptive it would cause, but I just can't see how it would do so here so IMO even though unintentionally we're actually punishing them by refusing a rename rather than preventing disruption. Again if there's some possibility I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to let people know, if this rename is implemented and people want me to do anything like inform editors on relevant article talk pages, please let me know on my talk page as I won't be following this discussion further, for personal reasons. (I excluded the explanation from here since it's probably not helpful, but if you're wondering I did post it here [1] although regretfully on my talk page. I don't think it has that many watchers but I've removed it to reduce canvassing concerns as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Do you mean besides the issues that led to the block and the loss of community trust in the first place? What Tony says below. Oh, Floquenbeam, you say the darnedest things. Besides, with what I've been through this (expletive deleted) week, Karma (expletive deleted) owes me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s no local or global policy on this, and it’s handled mainly by convention. The norm is that we don’t rename blocked users unless it’s a new account and there are compelling privacy reasons. I don’t see a reason to deviate from that here. I’d also suggest closing this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, why not. Don't unblock but allow a rename. It's good karma to do a favor for someone who doesn't really deserve one. And God knows AN needs all the karma it can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If the user's in good standing at another wiki, why get in the way of its processes? Maybe we need to revisit our renaming-while-blocked standard, if they have the effect of impeding editing at other projects. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting they have already withdrawn the rename request on meta ([2]). Also note that while it's not noted in the log, they are blocked by a checkuser for IP socking, have had their unblock declined by a different checkuser for ongoing IP socking, and have two more checkusers in this thread suggesting they not be unblocked given the circumstances. For what it's worth. If they can be renamed in a way that does not involve their being unblocked here, I am not opposed but neither do I support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanvector, if I understand rightly, the thing from Meta is basically "if you get permission from en:wp, you can be renamed", so this is basically a request for permission, rather than a request for us actively to do something. If I can misquote WP:BAN — what's going on here is a social decision about the right to be renamed, while a block is a technically imposed enforcement setting. [At least that's the understanding by which I supported the request; I'm not supporting a change to the local enforcement setting.] I continue to support the request, since a user's actions on one wiki should never result in sanctions on another wiki where they're behaving fine, unless the situation gets bad enough that a global block/lock/ban is warranted. Should SuperSucker decide to make another Meta request, the request shouldn't have to be put on hold because we haven't granted permission. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. So long as whatever they want to do on the other wiki does not require them being unblocked here, I don't really care. I object to the view of "giving permission": this is a matter of meta policy, and if the admins at meta (or stewards, or whatever) want to make an exception to their policies for this user, that's out of our hands. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea that we have to give permission seems rather nutty to me too. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a global renamer I see no policy-based or common-sense reason for preventing an editor who's in good standing on another project from being able to use the name they want on that project unless the proposed name violates one of our username policies here. That the account is blocked here should have no bearing on the global login they want to use on other projects where they are not blocked. However, as the request has been withdrawn, this particular thread can be closed, which I will do now. 28bytes (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, I am here by requesting appeal against the TBAN which was enforced almost a year ago on me on the all AFDS, so now the minimum time duration of TBAN 3 months have passed reequest and appeal to lift TBAN please. I have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines as well. JogiAsad  ^Talk 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban was imposed in this discussion. It was appealed in this discussion (May 2018), this discussion (September 2018), and this discussion (November 2018). JogiAsad seems to post these "please lift my ban" messages intermittently, then wander off without answering any questions. He did answer a question last time, but he did so by editing the archived discussion after it had been moved to an archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad, on 30 September, Galobtter asked you to provide "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better". You did not respond at that time, and now you are back here with another appeal that again fails to address the problem that led to the topic ban. Your topic ban was imposed on 9 April 2018 so that is nowhere near a year ago. Accuracy is important. What you must do is convince the editors participating here that your understanding of notability has improved and that you will not be disruptive at AfD in the future. Stating that you have read GNG is not enough. Until we hear from you in much greater detail, I oppose lifting the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, appeal is obviously inadequate; the repeated appeals without being able to explain himself are further concerning regarding his competence to evaluate sources for notability. Oppose obviously, and suggest a further six month moratorium upon decline of this appeal. JogiAsad please provide that explanation to show that you have "have read and understood the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines". Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per the above, and endorse Galobtter's suggestions of a 6 month moratorium on appeals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After the dialogue in the section below, I maintain this position. The OP does not believe he or she did anything wrong to deserve a TB, and therefore it is impossible for them to assure the community that their future behavior will be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It was my comment that JogiAsad responded to in the Archived post. Their editing is so sporadic that there's no real way of determining that they really do get what they are topic banned for. Furthermore, as has been said, the appeal statement is inadequate. --Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and support moratorium per Galobtter; it's slightly worrying that these appeals keep getting made, and the same questions ignored, with no actual reflection—perhaps even understanding—at all. ——SerialNumber54129 10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Unfortunately, if this sanction passes appeal is denied, and the OP comes back after 6 months and appeals without responding to questions, I think the next logical step would be a CIR-based CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lifting of the topic ban and support a 6 month moratorium on any further appeals. GiantSnowman 10:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Editor refuses to engage in timely discussions over his prior behavior, or demonstrate that he intends to change his behavior. Also support the 6-month moratorium on appeals noted above. --Jayron32 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lifting of the topic ban for @JogiAsad:. Period. A bad faith user who still hurling canvassing accusations at me. --Saqib (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lifting the Tban, and support a 6-month moratorium on appeals. While JogiAsad might have an intermediate linguistic competence in English (that's purely a matter of which grade a certification examiner gives you), their communicative competence is clearly not sufficient for participation in XfD discussions - their statements and responses in this thread make that very clear. On top of that, there is still a refusal to listen, not just an inability to understand, and that has been part of the problem all along. --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response by JogiAsad

Hi Everyone, I have read all the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), and you may ask me anything about the GNG I would respond. And regarding those who said above comments that I have appealed repeatedly, no I just had replied to the comments and when I was advised to appeal and then I appealed, and I have some personal reasons that I didn't be active all the times. I did replied to the archived due to there was asked me queries during which I was not active/online, and when I managed to be active or online I had no choice but to respond and I am sorry for that If I have replied in the archived discussion. The and this discussion was a misunderstanding the the nominator, which I had not done any spamming and neither I did any on-wiki canvassing or any kind of off-wiki canvassing, all those users voted as per their own. Even if some of the users who are saying that my this appeal is inadequate, sincerely I didn't have any idea how to appeal in a better way. So here I request that this TBAN be lifted as I have understood all the GNG, you may ask me anything about the GNG. Expecting a positive and a dignified role from you and I request arbitration committee to do a justice please. Thank you all...JogiAsad  ^Talk 17:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not beeen asked to repeat by rote what you just read, you were asked to provide:

• "an explanation of how your understanding of notability has improved so that your behaviour at AfD will be better"

Please do so now. Be certain to focus on your behavior, and how it will change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, could you please guide me or provide me the sample how to respond to that query's which you have written in italic. Or should I repeat each and elaborate each words in GNG i.e. what is Reliable, sources, primary or secondary etc?, Here I ensure that I have read and understood all the GNG and I ensure that I have and I will show an improved behavior at afds.JogiAsad  ^Talk 17:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be drifting into CIR territory. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OP appears either not to understand, or not to want to understand that the question is not about his or her knowledge of the notability guidelines, but about how that knowledge will change their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an intermediate understanding of English in written, reading and listening, The question was about the GNG not about WP:CIR, If you ask me anything about GNG I would answer.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And despite of assurance by me about GNG and improved behavior at afds, If any user is still Oppose or in favor of TBAn ,Then its making a sense to me that nobody wants me to remain here as a Wikipedian Editor and they wants me to leave Wikipedia forever.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody has said that as of yet, but you're making a pretty good case for it yourself by your inability or refusal to answer the question put to you. Again, no one wants to quiz you on GNG, what everyone wants to know is this: Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently? Can you please answer that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simply yes, I Think that I have understood the WP:GNG after reading it, and I ensure that I'll behave well manner.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad please explain what you mean by, "I'll behave well manner." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll behave well manner, means that I'll follow the GNG guidelines when participating in discussion and I'll try to respond timely as well.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's try again. JogiAsad, why were you topic banned from XfDs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was Topic banned because the nominator assumed that I have done any kind of On-wiki canvassing, Which I had not....JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, you're off to a bad start. The first step to having your topic ban lifted is to recognize what you did wrong which deserved the TB. If you don't know what was wrong about your previous behavior, there is no way for you to change, and that's what the community is interested in knowing, that your behavior will change.
  I'll stop now, as there's little point in proceeding. I maintain my position as above: no lifting of the topic ban, and a moratorium on appeals for 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why was topic ban, but how can I recognize, I didn't any wrong neither I had done any canvassing, but If you look at User:Saqib canvassed onwiki-canvassing by asking an admin to participate in the discussion, I have ensured that I have not did any wrong or any type of Canvassing, If I have not did any wrong or Canvassing, why should I recognize such activity which I have not done.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

It seems JogiAsad is having trouble articulating what he would do differently in AFDs were the topic ban to be lifted. Does anyone think it would help if, for a period of time (let's say one month), JogiAsad keep a sandbox in user-space where he links to some current AFDs and writes (on the sandbox page - not on the AFD itself) what he would write if there were no topic ban? That way we can better judge if his understanding of GNG and his discussion rationales have improved. Then he can come back here and we can try this again with something more concrete to go on. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more interested in knowing why JogiAsad wants so badly to be able to edit at XfD. Is there some problem that they are seeing that only they can fix? Maybe it's my own relative disinterest in XfD, but it seems to me that a ban from XfD is one that would be very easy to endure. Why is JogiAsad so determined to delete articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not determined to delete any article.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you determined to save some kinds of articles? Why is editing at XfD important to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not determined to save any article if it does not meet the criteria of GNG.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was keeping this question for a later time, glad to see Beyond My Ken asked already. But User:JogiAsad has either not understood the question properly or decided not to answer it. If there is nothing that you want to delete or save, then please explain why it is so important for you to contribute at AfD ? Are there any problems you are facing with this BAN ? XfD contributors should have enough language competence to be able to review multiple sources and understand the policy and guidelines. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem but If the time period of TBAN is passed and I am appealing with ensuring that I have read and understood the GNG and I ensure that I would be politely and will not vote for any save or delete article afds until that article don't meet the criteria of GNG. so why still this ban is lingering over me.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as to ONUnicorn's suggestion: I doubt it would be of much use, since the majority of problems at XfD have to do with interactions with other editors and behavior related to it, so a "dry run" sandbox just wouldn't be the equivalent, in my opinion. If they were TB'd because of canvassing, why would they be tempted to canvass to a sandbox, since nothing is at stake? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Here I say that I have not canvassed in any way neither I did any on-wiki canvassing nor I did it through any type of Sandbox, try to understand my point of view that I didn't canvassed neither I determined to save or delete any article unless it meets the criteria of GNG.JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:ONUnicorn, nice idea but oppose this idea for now. May be we can do this exercise to gauge his understanding, the next time JogiAsad comes up with a decent appeal. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please guide me how to appeal decently, is there any sample of previous appeals which I could read and get an idea how to appeal decently?, And please put some light on which type of understanding you intends to gauge?.Thanks..JogiAsad  ^Talk 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer this Question I added above ?--DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered please read...JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So based on your answer, it seems it is not important for you to participate at AfD, then I see no pressing reason to remove the ban. This ban was an indefinite ban, and it will continue to linger because the community feels that your answers and understanding of Questions are not sufficient in convincing them to lift this ban, at this time. So just wait some more and contribute in other areas where you are not banned for now. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ban was for 3 months which have passed, and I have tried to convince and assure that I have read and understood the GNG and will participate politely as well.JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad, with all due respect, you have been given a great deal of guidance in how to "appeal decently", but it appears that you are unable to follow that guidance. I can't help but think that your somewhat weak command of English is part of the problem (you call it "intermediate, but I would judge it to be less than that). In my opinion, judging from this discussion, your English language abilities are not sufficient for you to be editing or creating articles on English Wikipedia, or to be participating in XfD at all. I note that you are a sysop at Sindhi Wikipedia, where you have twice as many edits as you have here, and yet en.wiki is marked as your home wiki. I think this is a problem. Writing an English-language encyclopedia requires a high level of English language competency, which you do not seem to have. There are still many things you can do to contribute here which don't require such skills, but I'm afraid that with your current ability with English, writing and editing articles and participating in XfDs is simply not one of them. I know this is a harsh appraisal, but it is the situation as I see it, and I think you're going to be caught in this loop for a long time, and perhaps eventually be site banned from en.wiki, if you don't recognize it and adjust your expectations accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that you asked I responded in well manners, you asked me "Now that you think you understand GNG, how will you behave differently?", I answered I have understood the GNG after reading it, and I have also ensured that I am not in favor of any save or delete any article until it doesn't meet the GNG Criteria. are these not sufficient answers? so satisfy your query?. And regarding my English language command I have appeared in the Competitive Examinations of Pakistan CSS and I also write in newspapers and blogs as well, English Wikipedia is my home wiki because its where I had started my journey as a Wikipedian in July 2011, and since then I have contributed in enwiki. English language is not a problem, almost all over the world people read, speak and talk in English even if its not their native language, so sorry to say your judging and appraisal is not 100 percent precise. If you people are stubborn and insist on embargo, then its very disappointing for a sincere contributor. JogiAsad  ^Talk 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry to say, my judging is quite correct, and the paragraph above is an excellent example of the problem: you don't know English as well as you think you know English, I'm afraid. I salute you on the ability to speak another language to the extent you do, it's one that I don't share, but the harsh fact is that it's just not enough to be working on articles here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No your judging and appraisal is not correct dear, and you are neither here certificate issuer nor here is the test of English competency, So please avoid personal statements.JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you provide us all with an example which verifies my estimation. You might wish to read First Law of Holes, because you're not doing yourself any good. And, BTW, don't call me, or anyone else that you do not know very well, "dear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I take back that word and dear word be omitted, and thanks for sharing the First law of holes.JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, AFAIK, home-wiki is nothing but the wiki, wherein the account was first registered. Many editors do register in en.wiki (courtesy it's prominence), then move to own-language-wikis, once aware of it.∯WBG^converse 20:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBG, Thanks for elaborating it .JogiAsad  ^Talk 21:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mine as well. I also understand that the prominence and influence of en.wiki is why many other-languaged editors wish to edit here, but sometimes that unfortunately gives rise to situations such as what this seems to me to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this lengthy exchange, I want to reiterate my opposition to lifting the topic ban. JogiAsad, congratulations on performing well on your English proficiency exams in Pakistan. You definitely speak English far better than I speak Urdu or any other language. But I am sorry to have to say that you are not fully fluent in written English. You have made quite a few English mistakes in this conversation, but that would not be a problem if you had given fully responsive answers to the questions you have been asked. If you had, minor errors in grammar and phrasing could be excused. But you have failed to convince me that you fully understand the question and your answer seems pro forma to me, and unresponsive and inadequate in the final analysis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Thanks for drawing my attention towards my English fluency in written, may be I am not fluent in written English and thanks for excusing my minor errors in grammar and phrasing but I have tried my best to answer the queries which were asked here, and I'll also try me best to convince you and respond to your queries in better and concise way.JogiAsad  ^Talk 09:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JogiAsad: I have had to work with a very large number of people in real life who do not speak English as a native language: as such, I'm familiar with the issues involved. I'm afraid I agree with what others have written above: your English is not quite good enough for us to remove this topic ban. Part of why I say this is that you still seem to believe that your ban was a temporary one, that would be lifted in three months if you did not misbehave. That just isn't true. Your ban was indefinite; it will remain until you can show us it is not required. To do that, you have to explain what was wrong with your behavior in the first place; and despite a number of requests above, you have not done so. It's not that you've been rude, or that you've behaved badly; it's that you haven't understood what's being asked of you. In fact your request for a "sample" is a part of the problem: if you need to copy a "sample" to be able to provide an answer that's satisfying, it's clear you haven't understood the question in the first place. This isn't an English language exam: it's a place where we need to be able to communicate clearly, and you're not able to do so. This isn't a moral failing on your part, but it seems fairly clear you are not able to understand the complexities of discussions on the English Wikipedia, and you shouldn't participate in them until you do. In fact I'm hesitant to even suggest you should stick to working on articles, but at the moment I'm okay with that. I would suggest that this appeal be declined, and that you do not appeal again for a few months, because people are going to lose patience with you if you keep doing so. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also: while I applaud ONUnicorn for their abundance of good faith, I cannot support their proposal unless and until we have a set of editors willing to take on the role of mentoring JogiAsad through the XfD process. It's not a responsibility I'm willing to take on; I cannot inflict it on someone else unless they're explicitly stepping forward to take it on. Vanamonde (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me clarify that I have never ever been rude, neither I am rude nor I can think so and I have never misbehaved, I am always remained polite. Initially it was stated that TBAN is for 3 months after that can be appealed so I appealed here after some users advised me to do so, My behavior in the first place was not rude never I intends to be rude. I have ensured that I have read and understood GNG and I'll never be rude neither I have been rude ever nor I intends to be. And if you perceive that this appeal be declined and I shouldn't appeal for a few months, then its Okay I shall keep patience, do so what you think is right at the moment and also let me know how much time (months) I shouldn't appeal and I know there is also Wikipedia Teahouse where some senior Users teach and mentor.JogiAsad  ^Talk 18:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JogiAsad: Do you have any plans to go to deletion review for Iqbal Jogi and Amb Jogi? --Saqib (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Further evidence of English comprehension related WP:CIR by JogiAsad on Vanamonde93's talk page--DBigXrayᗙ 08:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. I can't unravel this at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

A question was asked of JogiAsad in the previous section, if they intended to go to Deletion Review about two deleted articles. I have a question for admins: since JogiAsad is topic banned from XfDs, and since Deletion Review is a place where XfDs are discussed, does JogiAsad's topic ban preclude them from participating at Deletion Review? My inclination is to say that it does, because topic bans are generally held to hold anywhere on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"JogiAsad is indefinitely topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). This editing restriction may be appealed after three months of the closure date. Clarification: the topic ban includes all deletion discussions, including deletions for review and requests for deletion."—WP:RESTRICT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mea culpa, I should have checked the original ban notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tg Thanks for elaborating it, And what is closure date?JogiAsad  ^Talk 07:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am a content creator, I don't pay much attention to administrative goings-on and I was shocked this morning to find that an article I re-wrote and have maintained for years, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire had all its content removed, completely blanked and replaced by a notice that it was up for speedy deletion -edit summary 'delete|per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 and WP:copyright violations#Addressing contributors; created by copyright violator'. This is an important article that gets up to 1000 views a day and is linked to on many other pages. Blanking it is very very disruptive, I would call it vandalism.So when I look at that page Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 I see diffs from when the article was created back in 2007, apparently by an editor suspected (?) of copyvios. I left a note on the talk page of the article saying that the article has been completely re-written since then,Lurking shadow, who blanked the article, says it doesn't matter, it has to be deleted anyway. No evidence has been supplied that the article currently contains any copyvios or that it ever contained any copy vios, just that the article was created eleven years ago by someone who somebody else put on a list of "copyright violators" although that editor wasn't blocked for such activities. Lurking shadow did the same thing with Criticism of the Catholic Church , Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Heresy in Christianity,History of the Eastern Orthodox Church,History of Christian theology, Catholic Church and slavery, History of the Russian Orthodox Church , and Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States, without supplying any evidence whatsoever that the articles contain copyvios, only that they were created by supposed "copyright violator"s and has made it clear that this is only the start of a campaign to delete thousands upon thousands of articles. I restored all the articles. If there are copyvios in these articles, they should be identified and re-written or removed, not have the whole article blanked because all versions are "tainted" by being created by a "copyright violator" (also asserted with no evidence). This must stop now.Smeat75 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a comment on Lurking Shadow's talk page: with 175 edits to the project, they're not in any way qualified to be deleting huge chunks of articles based on the vague possibility of copyvio contamination. I have strongly suggested that they stop, and report their concerns to admins and experienced editors who work in the copyvio area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a campaign to delete thousands and thousands of articles(in a RFC), these articles were merely a test on how long such a process needs. I will not continue such things until conclusion of the RFC(and then there will be likely a more drastic measure taken).

But these deletions are actually not vandalism at all. They are based on policy. Addressing contributors allows everyone to assume that all contributions by repeat copyright violators are copyright violations(because there is no trust that they are not, and a pattern of violations. It allows full removal of any and all content needed to be removed to fully heal the copyright violations if the community is unable to examine these suspected cases in detail.

As there is a backlog of over 80000 contributions to be checked(these were from 2010), this is obviously the case. Unfortunately, this old backlog necessiates the deletion of thousands of pages, maybe even nearly all 80000 pages - some with thousands of versions - but the exact method is something I won't do on my own anyways.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, someone who doesn't even know how to properly indent their comments is just not the best person to be blanking articles because of copyvios. I suggest that if Lurking shadow returns to this behavior they be temporarily blocked until they agree to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked on the talk page of CCI that an admin or editor experienced in copyright violations comment on this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of these page blankings is highly suspect imo "all versions are tainted because the article was created by a copyright violator." User:Pseudo-Richard created Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and look at that editor's block log, he was never blocked for copyvios or anything else. On what basis is he labelled a "copyright violator"? Certainly not a reason to insist that an important article be deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work is an issue with articles that once were copyright violations. If an article gets to the present state through incremental editing of a previous copyright violating version, then it could be considered a derivative work and thus a copyright violation itself even if it's fairly different. If at some point someone decided to throw out the old article content wholesale and to write their own version (as I did on Coropuna here, notice the odd mismatch between my first edit - which was on a sandbox version - and the preceding edit - which was on the overwritten page) or if the current version is totally, completely distinct, then it may not be a problem. Does it apply in this case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is whether the presumptive removal of suspected copyright violations is appropriate in this situation. Sometimes it is. Is that the case for this copyright violator? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the comment previous to yours, where is the evidence that User:Pseudo-Richard, the creator of these articles that were blanked today, is a "copyright violator" at all? He was never blocked, there are no warnings on his talk page about copyvios (although he might have removed them of course). Somebody decided to list his articles on WP:CCI "Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114" Open investigations seven years ago, that's the only evidence I can see. An investigation is not proof.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Examine this section.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 a substantial part of the reviewed contributions were identified as copyright violations. The answer is yes(This is the oldest case still open(from 2010) so part of the work was already done(although more than hundred pages remain).Lurking shadow (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a page has been up for 10 years it is going to be tough to prove copyvio. Wikipedia gets copied all over the place so many hits will be copied from here. Lurking shadow seems ill prepared for dealing with such a difficult area of editing so early. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's literally the point - there is already evidence that the contributions could be copyright violations(because the contributor made many copyvios) and this means that you need to prove that every of their contributions to the page is not a copyright violation.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken a look at Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, created by Pseudo-Richard. If someone has a substantial record of copyright violations then policy does permit us to deem their other contributions as copyvio even if we haven't got hard evidence of that (which for edits of this age is going to be difficult anyway). The editor in question here does have a significant copyvio record, even though they weren't blocked for it (they were desysopped).
  However Lurking shadow is taking this rather too far in blanking the entire article. Policy only allows you to blank Pseudo-Richard's contributions to the article, not the article itself. Although Pseudo-Richard did create the article originally the edit summary indicates he merely copied the text from another page. Some of his additions do smell rather strongly of copyvio, e.g. [15], and [16] also appears here (which claims to predate Wikipedia's existence). However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now. I am aware of one important case in which we did pre-emptively blank all pages contributed by someone with massive copyright problems, but that was a very different situation and it isn't general practice at all. I suggest that Lurking shadow stop blanking these pages unless s/he can get consensus for it somewhere. Hut 8.5 21:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"However this text appears to have been edited out of existence in the intervening decade, so it can't be used as a reason to blank the article now" Thats not actually the case. See Jo-Jo's explanation above. Even if the original text has been removed, if it was a copyright violation, the incremental editing over time taints all subsequent versions unless there is a very sharp cutoff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the intervening edits are enough to effectively constitute a rewrite of the content then it's a rewrite and not a derivative work. Hut 8.5 22:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if done in a short enough timespan that rev-deletion of the affected content is feasible. Given you said 'in the intervening decade' that is way beyond the span of time where that is possible. (in the event the original content was a copyvio). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there may well be some copyvio revisions in the history and it wouldn't be practical to revdel those, but that's not a big deal. Provided the current version is clean we can leave those if necessary. We certainly wouldn't delete an article just because the edit history has too many copyvio revisions to revdel. Hut 8.5 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These revisions are copyright violations - they can not just be left alone, they have to be deleted(and that's not possible without making further copyright violations. The result is the deletion of the entire article(or, in one case of these, the revert to the version before copyvio("reverted to version X by Y") and the revision deletion of every edit in between)Lurking shadow (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening to what people are saying here, you do not get to pronounce that important articles "have to be deleted". If you do not drop this I think you should be blocked.Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening. Did you see me undoing your edits or writing new speedy deletion requests?Lurking shadow (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A useful piece of information in all this would be Lurking shadow's previous edit history under whatever other accounts they've used before. The odds that this meets WP:SOCK#LEGIT hovers around 10%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I am actually not a sock. I edited under IP for a long time(and not only here), then made this account. Shortly after, for reasons I will not disclose here, I stopped editing, mostly. Until - now.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1268 edits by scores of different editors suggests what exists today is incrimental creation. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You should read what User:Jo-Jo Emerus said about derivative works.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The people commenting here are all long-term experienced editors, so you can assume that they've read this relatively short thread before commenting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus's opinion is certainly to be given weight, but so are those of the others commenting. What you should be taking away from this is that dealing with copyright violations on Wikipedia is not as cut-and-dried as you appear to believe it is, it's a complicated thing because of the way our cumulative copyright works. And please note that even Jo-Jo Eumerus has not said that your blankings were justified - they were certainly made without due consideration for the overall status of the article. The long and the short of it is, you are simply not qualified to be making those blankings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered that all the full deletions were subject to tens of big edits by the copyright violator. Yes, copyright is complicated, but these deletion cases are cut-and dried: A repeat violator edited them in a manner that could violate copyright, I am allowed to assume that they made copyvios, revision deleting copyvios isn't possible but necessary(versions are distinct articles and copyrighted versions need to be removed, obviously; but revision delete creates further copyvios), which means total deletion.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to assume that they made copyvios - says who?Smeat75 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking shadow can take the fact that an article has been created or edited in a major way by a person suspected of serial copyright violations as a reason to investigate those edits, or, better still, to report the articles to CCI, where people competent in copyright can examine it, but Lurking shadow cannot simply blank an entire article and the contributions of all the non-violating editors who contributed to it on the mere assumption that there must be copyright violations in it. I know of nothing in policy that supports that contention. If Lurking shadow has a policy to cite to back up their statement, I think everyone here would like to see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Copyright violations#Addressing Contributors;Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted Cases(Sentence 4);WP:CRD(criteria for revision deletion, not possible)Lurking shadow (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted Cases is not a policy, it is an instructional page for dealing with the CCI process. It is addressed to editors who presumably have sufficient judgment to be part of such an investigation. Sentence 4 does say:

• If contributors have been proven to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and thus removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

But it is immediately followed by sentence 5:

• If such indiscriminate removal would be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort must be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions.

The fact that we are here at AN is a pretty good indication that your removals have been deemed "controversial". Your judgment in these matters is being questioned and found wanting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and then it is followed by sentence 6: If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal is allowed. The current state of WP:CCI is very good evidence that this is the case. There are not enough volunteers to manage it. Yes, the removals are controversial. But no, the volunteers are simply missing since 2010.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking shadow, I must point out again that you don't know how to indent your comments correctly: any response to a comment should have one more indent that the comment itself. (I fixed yours above.) This is a totally trivial matter, but I point it out because it's a clear indication that you're trying to fly a commercial jet liner when you've only just learned how to walk, and haven't quite tackled running. Again: dealing with copyright violations is, at this time, well above your pay grade (mine too, for that matter), and you should not be blundering around in it. WP:BOLD has limits, and you have hit one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the standard in written English is to put a space between the end of a word and the open parentheses mark which follows it. You constantly write "word(like this)" when it should be "word (like this)". As to what you are "allowed" to do -- the bottom line is that you are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia, which is what you are doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your point about "derivative work"? A derivative work generally creates a new copyright for parts of a work that were not in the original.[17] The copyright is then held by the creator of the derivative work, and if the derivative work is created on Wikipedia it is under a free licence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. User:Lurking shadow are you going to stay away from copyvio voluntarily or should we be formalizing a topic ban for you? Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I will certainly not continue any mass deletion(or something like that)of copyvios unless it is being agreed upon(which I currently do not see here, there is significant opposition). I am reading what you say(did you see me continuing mass deletion?). What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not responsive to the question. Again, will you voluntarily stay away from anything dealing with copyright violations? If not, then someone here is almost certainly going to craft a proposal that you be forced to stay away from it by a community topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing as someone active in copyright who still manages to get yelled at. We have too few volunteers willing to work on this largely in this area, so I have mixed emotions when I see someone interested in helping yet stumbling a bit. I'd like to make an observation which will lead to a suggestion.

Copyright review is hard. While some investigations are almost mindlessly easy, that's a trap, as some others look almost identical yet turn out to be reverse copyvios, or properly licensed (with a proper license on an obscure sub page) or other minefields. There are three main areas in which volunteers can work:

• Copypatrol
• Copyright problems
• CCI

These are roughly listed and increasing orders of difficulty, for the simple fact that copy patrol deals with very recent (last day or two) edits, copyright problems deals with older edits, and CCI deals with edits that might be many years in the past. The main problem with age is the proliferation of Wikipedia mirrors, and the tendency of some lazy writers to create content by copying from Wikipedia. The Wayback machine helps, but is sketchier on older information.

I suggest that an editor with very little copyright experience should not start with the toughest of problems with the easiest of problems. It would make some more sense for @Lurking shadow: to start there for several reasons:

1. these are the easiest to evaluate (but I'll emphasize the scale doesn't run from easy to hard, it runs from hard to hair pulling)
2. the tool makes it easy for experience copyright review is to monitor the actions of others
3. mistakes can be easily rectified and are somewhat less significant (accidentally removing a two day old article is a little less upsetting than removing a 10-year-old article; both require fixing but if fewer ruffle feathers)

I can't speak for @Diannaa:, but I hope that she would agree, along with myself, to monitor some of the decisions and provide counsel. I do say this with some trepidation, because I take on board the comment by @Beyond My Ken: that someone who doesn't know how to indent on the talk page is raising some red flags, but my hope is that understanding wiki markup and understanding copyright are very different skills.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, if someone with a strong copyvio background would volunteer to mentor Lurking shadow in copyright matters, and if Lurking shadow would voluntarily agree not to make copyvio-related edits except as approved by that mentor (with the exception of talk page comments), until the mentor agrees that LS is ready to go it alone, then a formal topic ban may not be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is). Someone complained, and we talked about it.

I continued to defend what I did until the matter landed here. There are comments in this discussion that some of these articles might really have to be removed, although more people argued against. It is a mere disagreement - nothing more. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking shadow, The CCI page clearly states that blanking is permitted if there aren't enough volunteers to address it as clean up. I think reasonable people can disagree whether that situation applies, but I think it's clearly a good faith assumption, given the volume of old CCI's, that we are short of volunteers to do the cleanup. I think this is merely a matter of disagreement not a fundamental misreading of the instructions. That said, I put some time into a good-faith proposal which deserves a response.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lurking shadow. User:Sphilbrick pinged me to comment here. I noticed yesterday your report at WP:CP about Health in Rwanda, which you noticed had a lot of overlap with this page. Have a closer look at the page: it's a copy of the Wikipedia article on Rwanda - it's got section headers, notes, references, external links - what to me are obvious hallmarks of what we call a Wikipedia mirror. In other words, the Wikipedia article Rwanda is the source of some of the content in Health in Rwanda. This type of error is not helpful; in fact it generates work for other users. I do wish more people would help with copyright cleanup, but I don't think you have the experience or skills at present to do the work effectively, and I don't have time to assist you. My opinion is that you need to find a different way to contribute please, unless there's someone who has time to mentor you for this extremely complex and time consuming task. Blanking or deleting articles is not a good solution, because it does more harm than good. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I know that content from Wikipedia can also be copied somewhere else, but I erroneously skipped the part with the import and just assumed that the contribution had been made in 2018 - an error I will strive not to repeat.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments User:Sphilbrick and Diannaa. I hope User:Lurking shadow will heed them. On the talk page of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations [18] Lurking Shadow has declared that he is on a mission to delete every article that was ever edited by any of the "copyright violators" on the main page, some 80,0000 articles. He doesn't think that would be any big deal [19] The deletion of 80000 articles is not the end of the world. He caused a lot of disruption yesterday and must stop before causing any more.Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

In the absence of any positive response from Lurking shadow:

Lurking shadow is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia in regard to copyright violations, with the exception that they may comment about copyvios on any pertinent talk page. Specifically, but not exclusively, Lurking shadow is banned from blanking any article or removing any material from articles which they believe to be copyright violations. The editor may report suspected copyright infringement to CCI, WT:CP if they can show that they have investigated those suspicions to a reasonable extent, but repeated false CCI reports may lead to an extension of this ban to cover those reports as well. Lurking shadow can appeal this topic ban after 6 months from its imposition, and may do so earlier if they engage as a mentor an admin or editor experienced in copyright matters to advise them and guide their actions.

Edited to change "CCI" to WT:CP per Hut 8.5's suggestion below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Support per nom. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, obviously. Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the avenue for reporting copyright violations, while CCI is the avenue to report editors who repeatedly violated copyright and need their contributions checked. Banning me from the former while allowing the latter does not make any sense. I made a mistake(in labeling Healthcare in Rwanda as possible copyright violation) and I made a decision to ask for the deletion of pages that was disagreed with. You are trying to ban me from copyright violation investigations just because you strongly disagree with the deletion(understandable) and because I made a mistake(which unfortunately can happen, but should not happen repeatedly).Lurking shadow (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support absolute refusal to understand they are going about this wrong and the stated desire to kill 80,000 articles is the wrong attitude. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. It is very troubling that the editor continues to insist that there is no problem or that the problem is minor, despite many more experienced editors telling them that they are unprepared for this highly complex and sensitive work. Their refusal to back off is disqualifying. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lurking shadow has not accepted any of the advice given him above but continues to insist that we are all wrong - I blanked and tagged a few articles for deletion that happened to be made by a copyright violator. I assumed that WP:CCI and WP:Copyright would allow that, and that it was necessary(and I still think it is), What I'm trying to do here is to convince you that I'm right, among his comments from the above section. He has not backed off his plans for further disruption and there needs to be action taken to prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support doesn't appear to have the necessary judgement/skills to work in this area (which is tricky and not very suitable for inexperienced editors). I suggest that the exempted venue for reporting copyright violations be changed to WT:CP, as WP:CP is the usual venue for general copyright investigations. Hut 8.5 18:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made that change, if anyone wishes to reconsider their !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support amended proposal. Lurking shadow doesn't have the experience or skill set to do this work unsupervised at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per everyone above. When someone simply won't listen, there's little option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) Support Per support comments above, and also after witnessing the blanking of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without a satisfactory explanation or warning on talk. I also don't see any reflection on the part of this editor to indicate even the slightest understanding of the problems s/he is causing. This approach to editing is wp:disruptive and should stop. Dr. K. 01:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question- Since there is unanimous support here for a topic ban for Lurking Shadow as defined by User:Beyond My Ken, except from Lurking Shadow of course, why doesn't an admin go ahead and impose a topic ban? I have never understood why clear cut cases like this one need to be dragged out the way they are.Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume that admins are simply waiting to see if anyone else chimes in with an oppose, or if the SNOWing will continue. In any case, as long as Lurking shadow doesn't start up their behavior again, there's no particular rush to impose the TB -- although that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be put it place, it should, if only because the editor has not acknowledged the problems discussed here. It may also have something to do with the extended Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have acknowledged the problems discussed here - I already said that missing the backwards copy was a mistake I don't intend to make again, and I have acknowledged that there is not enough support for the deletion of the articles at present(although I still disagree with that, but that should be ok). Right now I am waiting for this discussion to be closed(whenever this is).Lurking shadow (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You have not acknowledged the sense of this discussion that you lack the experience and judgment to work in the copyvio area. The fact that you are "waiting for this discussion to be closed", presumably to begin taking similar actions again, is an indication as to why the topic ban is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for close

• Once again I ask that an admin act on the unanimous request for a topic ban on Lurking Shadow. Or tell us that we are all wrong. Or something. Rather than just letting this sit here until it is archived.Smeat75 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this really should be closed with suitable action per the clear consensus of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins have been preoccupied with having their accounts hacked lately, and some threads like this one are falling by the wayside. Thanks for your patience. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) cast aspersions against Praxidicae (talk · contribs) without providing evidence ("although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it"). When called out, Ritchie333 declined to provide any evidence and effectively said that no, Praxidixae was in fact not close to Strickland in any meaningful way beyond having declined unrelated drafts, and Ritchie333 didn't remember anything specific that they might have done or not done, and then went on with accusations of misconduct without evidence: "if you spent more time writing the encyclopedia and less time bashing people over the head who disagree with you, people wouldn't get that impression". The thread on Ritchie333's talk page, beyond some back-and-forth bickering, contains multiple third-party requests to clarify those accusations, none of them followed up by Ritchie333. Instead, Ritchie333 tried to shut down valid concerns over his personal attacks (see WP:Casting aspersions: Yes, those are personal attacks) by complaining about the tone of the concerns.

There's apparently quite some history between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae. Ritchie333 has previously tried to bait Praxidicae (that "smile" comment is a deliberate provocation because it refers to this conversation on Ritchie333's talk page and Ritchie333 knew exactly that it would be seen as sexist and telling a woman to better conform to her role as eye candy).

If Ritchie333 has a genuine concern with Praxidicae's conduct (and I'm not saying that Praxidicae is blameless, though I haven't seen anything close to these examples), they should know where WP:AN/I is and what to do about it. Maligning another editor, refusing to provide evidence or retract the accusation, and engaging in further personal attacks is not the way to go and is unbecoming of an administrator. I would have thought that this could be resolved by a trout and an apology, except it's not a one-off and no acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour, much less an apology, seems forthcoming. So instead of joining the chorus who has expressed concerns on Ritchie333's talk page I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Praxidicae's conduct rises to the level of ANI; I just want them to be more reflective and recognise that other people have different views and opinions on notability and procedures, that AfC has caused problems in the real world by people doing things in good faith, and that they have an overly aggressive attitude. Part of the problem with diffs (such as this) is that they were made on an old account and I didn't want to fall foul of WP:OUTING, and the problem is not so much the incidents themselves (which were only a handful) but the overly aggressive and defensive attitude towards them. If that means I come across like Gordon Ramsay berating a chef in a loss-making restaurant, well that's just the sort of person I am I guess and I do apologise as I'm not here to upset people, though in my view "Your attitude is harmful and drives people away, please stop" is not a personal attack. I have tried to be conciliatory towards them in the past, but was ignored. I know they had a huge bunfight with The Rambling Man on my talk page, but I stayed out of that as it was unproductive, and they don't work on any articles I do so I find it easy to switch off and do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drag me into this again... I was threatened enough last time round, and I don't want to go over it all again thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I wonder how long it will take for people to realize that piling onto someone isn't going to make them change their ways even if they are unequivocally and irrefutably wrong. Never, of course, but that's beside the point. Ritchie333, may I calmly suggest that you strike the comment about Praxidicae on compassionate grounds (if none other) from User talk:Micha Jo#Outsider view. It's obviously upset them – valid/invalid understood/misunderstood isn't important now. Then may I suggest that this be let go. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion isn't what's needed, a recognition of unbecoming behavior, in my opinion, is. This doesn't change the overall issue brought up here and that is the purposely antagonistic comments but also the flat out lie and aspersions cast, not to mention the constant deflection even after being asked directly to substantiate these claims, of which they've made several. Instead calm requests even from outside parties have been met with non-response, changing the subject or hostility by pinging unrelated users into the conversation. Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if editor retention is a concern here regarding my behavior, please look into the mirror first. Your constant attacks on people who don't participate the way that you like but are valuable editors, is what forces people out, not someone reviewing a draft and declining it when it is poorly sourced or otherwise unsuitable for mainspace. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone here could work harder on their tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get any introspection in this heat. An amicable resolution may be possible to arrive if approached in better temperaments. I've long since taken Ritchie's valuable advice and moved away from these dispute boards for solutions, only for punishments [and I generally don't aim to punish]: resolutions are rare, just look at this 150k+ byte abomination over at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely confused as to how this discussion even started. Looking at the message left on Micha Jo's talk page here, it appears that Ritchie333 got nearly every detail of that post wrong.

The draft was declined by several reviewers. After it was accepted, I worked on it for several hours trying to find additional sources to verify what was written. The best I can tell is that Jovanovic is a very controversial figure, but there aren't enough sources written about him to qualify for GNG, and the existing article was very one-sided and promotional. Any changes that I made to the article were undone by Micha Jo, and any attempts to work with them to provide better sourcing were met with arguments and accusations. I then nominated it for AfD.

Andrewa then got involved and voted to keep the article, and began trying to work with Micha Jo to improve the sourcing. At the same time, he left me an email in defense of Micha Jo, which I responded to on his talk page. Ritchie333's assertion that Andrewa has been unnecessarily aggressive and badgering towards Micha Jo is unfair, as he was on Micha Jo's side throughout the AfD, and on Micha Jo's talk page.

Praxidicae voted delete on the AfD. Once additional sockpuppets voted on the same AfD, Praxidicae opened an SPI, which was then reviewed by at least two checkusers and other administrators, who blocked Micha Jo and all the socks. Outside of these two (the keep vote, and the SPI), I'm not aware of any other involvement by Praxidicae. Ritchie333's comment I am disappointed that Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles, which started this whole thread, is unfounded and unfair, as Praxidicae did no so such thing. The follow-up comment although Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it is even more confusing, as I was the one who declined that draft, not Praxidicae.

I would urge Ritchie333 to read through the deleted article's history, the talk page thread, the thread on Andrewa's talk page, and the history of Micha Jo's talk page (the talk page has been edited and rearranged extensively, so view the history), and then form a fresh opinion. The "Outsider view" posted on Micha Jo's talk page misses the mark on almost every point, and should be removed. Bradv 15:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to write a new article on Jovanovic, but I can't make head nor tail of the sources (is "Le Quotidien" as in Quotidien, Le Quotidien (newspaper) or Le Quotidien de Paris?), not so much over the French language as that I'm not really familiar with the range of French media and what normally counts as a reliable sources or not. It's frustrating because it sounds like the sort of person we should have an article on, if only we could find the sources. I spent time talking to Andrewa on this yesterday, and I think we're both in agreement that that's what needs to happen. (As you have probably seen, I have given Andrew a barnstar for his efforts as he gave a well-reasoned, accurate and civil account of events that was persuasive and convincing). Everything else as far as I'm concerned is just noise and I think people just got carried away a bit.

I did say that I am sympathetic to your situation at the moment Bradv, as you're being gently roasted on a spit by the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation for making one simple mistake months and months ago, and that people should go easy on you for it. But it is key to my central point, which is that Wikipedia is in the real world, and even though we can do things to chapter and verse and adhering to our policies and guidelines with absolute impeccability, we can still get bad press. The Independent is factually wrong to say "Someone had created a Wikipedia page for Strickland, which was subsequently flagged for deletion and removed from the encyclopaedia. The entry was determined not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, and all three of these criteria are biased in favour of men". However, it's also one of the most respected British newspapers and one of my "go-to" news sources that I would trust enough to generally use on BLPs. So it seems reasonable to me that if we want to change this perception, we need to go easy on people who are trying to help and not bash them over the head with policies. And if I see somebody declining AfCs and being (in my view) unreasonably defensive about it even though they may be right when examined against policy, then I think it's a reasonable concern to suggest they may want to think about how the outside world views them. Otherwise we will continue to gather bad press and those of us working on the administrative side of things will probably start to feel like it's a siege.

Despite the impression you may have got, I do actually want to find out why people have different views for mine, even if I struggle to articulate that. Because once I know that, I can try and see if we've got a solution that will please all sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: This really doesn't address the issues I raised above. I fear you have misread the history of the article and our interactions, and somehow blame Andrewa and Praxidicae. I'm glad you have resolved things with Andrewa and struck your comments, but I believe Praxidicae also deserves an apology. I'm particularly confused by your comments about blaming Praxidicae for Strickland, and not me.

That said, I believe that AfD can be treated as a soft delete (not deleted and salted as on the French Wikipedia), so if you feel there are enough sources to write an article no one will stop you. This will probably be easier to do with Micha Jo blocked, as they were quite insistent that the information be presented only one way.

I share your concerns about the reputation of Wikipedia in the wake of the Strickland incident, but I do not believe that the solution is to lower our standards of inclusion to a point where we keep unverifiable and promotional material. I would be happy to discuss this further with you on a different forum if you like. Bradv 15:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did say that this was my opinion and that I might not be right and everyone else was allowed to disagree (or maybe I didn't make that clear enough :-/), and my viewpoint was primarily geared towards whether we could get a decent article produced above everything else. I'm happy to apologise over misreading Praxidicae's intent in this specific circumstance, and I am sure they do everything in good faith; however I can't change my views over their attitude because I've got no evidence. Supposing that instead of running to my talk page and screaming "You're either being fed lies by someone or outright bullshitting." (as I said elsewhere, that basically has the same effect as "Fuck you!"), they wrote something like "I understand Wikipedia's problematic reputation with the press, but we can't just lower standards to assuage hurt feelings. Happy to chat more about this." (which is kind of chapter and verse in WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility, and basically the last line of what you've written above) then I am certain the discussion would have taken a more productive route. I think also part of the problem is I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it - if more people shared that view, I probably won't feel as motivated to do something about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it that's not true. I agree, and have said as much here and elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You still made bad faith accusations against Praxidicae though. Your admission of that error should not be dependent on how they react to the accusations. Bradv 16:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I could agree with you here, and you can call what I did misguided, foolish, ill-advised, unnecessary, overblown etc etc .... but it was done from a genuine concern for the project, so I can't describe it as bad faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Making unfounded accusations toward other users is bad faith though. I would still urge you to recognise that your comments were inappropriate, and demonstrate good faith towards Praxidicae in an effort to heal this rift between you. You have an opportunity here to make steps toward resolving your long-standing disputes, and for the good of the project I hope you take it. Bradv 17:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unfounded. I have formed the opinion that Praxidicae has a civility problem and their attitude (formed primarily from incivil and unsolicited messages on my talk page like this - this was for an AfD that closed unanimously as "keep", or seeing a continual lack of response to good faith questions on their talk page such as this, this, this and this) is likely, in my view, to cause an incident like Donna Strickland sooner or later if they don't appreciate there is a problem. You might not agree with my assessment, or might think it was inflammatory, or might think my reasons are spurious, or even bringing this up is likely to be productive, but you can't say it was without foundation. Anyway, it wasn't bad faith, and if you can't accept that, I don't think there's much else I can say to persuade you, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how implying that someone is somehow responsible for something they had nothing to do with is bad faith and a personal attack, I don't think you should be in the business of evaluating anyone else's actions. zchrykng (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that. If you thought I did, then you have misunderstood my intentions. Assume good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The two comments left here, namely Praxidixae wants to bash people over the head for writing articles and Praxidixae is not named nor the specific person responsible for Donna Strickland, I know from first-hand experience they are close to it are both unfounded. As I mentioned above, Praxidicae's frustration in dealing with these accusations does not justify the accusations themselves, and certainly do not warrant additional personal attacks. The comments you make now are just deflecting, and still do nothing to heal the rift between you. You are both respected editors, and the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along. Bradv 17:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All of this aside, are you going to substantiate your claim that I initially asked about or are we going to continue this charade of everything being my fault for your actions? Or are you just trying to prove a point? I don't know how this question can be asked of you in a more clear or direct way. Provide diffs. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also your further accusations that I'm uncivil or otherwise disruptive are ridiculous. You're just making things up now and you're just trying to find something to justify your own behavior. This diff you provided is adequately explained at the AFD. This one I helped via the help chat. This was straight up someone spamming their own website and my warning adequately explained it. And the last one, well frankly, I've gone back and forth with that editor to the point that it got nowhere and I forgot about it. None of this is justification for you treating editors like trash and making false accusations. And more importantly, your perception that I don't respond is way off base as I help most of these people that I interact with via our help chat and if you have a problem with that, like everything else you've brought up, take it up at the appropriate venue. This is about 'your behavior and conduct. Since you've also seem to take a liking to trashing me at AFC, please go get consensus to remove me or drop it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way IBAN proposal

As much as I'd love to agree with Bradv's comment that "the project would be a lot stronger if you two got along", it's rather clear that's not going to happen - this has gone on for far too long, and is causing upset on both sides. I would like to propose a two-way interaction ban to stop this escalating further. Please - TNT ^💖 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am proposing this IBAN between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae - TNT ^💖 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer - TNT ^💖 18:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, an IBAN between which users? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus - clarified above - TNT ^💖 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support assuming the one-way proposal below goes nowhere. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Support – although I was hoping this would be resolved with an apology, I agree that does not appear to be forthcoming. While I'm not sure I see the advantage in extending this both ways, I do note that most, if not all, of Praxidicae's interactions with Ritchie333 are in reaction to comments he made about her editing, so both varieties of IBAN will essentially accomplish the same thing. Bradv 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further review, I can't find any evidence of wrongdoing or "abuse" on Praxidicae's part. The messages left on Ritchie333's talk page were a justifiable reaction to the unfounded allegations made against her, and there is no reason that she should be punished for this. I realize that a one-way IBAN is difficult to enforce, but a two-way in this case is simply unfair. Therefore I'm changing my vote in favour of the option below. Bradv 20:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I realise administrators should take it on the chin and deal with stuff, and WP:CIVIL is a busted flush, I have to say I found this message quite mean-spirited and was upset by it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, yes, she was clearly quite upset when she wrote that. But it was in reaction to something that you wrote about her, which she termed a "total, unsubstantiated and outright lie". You've agreed above that the accusation was "misguided, foolish, ill-advised, etc.", but you still have not apologised to her for it. It's completely unfair to then punish her for being upset. Bradv 21:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a justifiable reaction, unfair, punish... I'll have to remember that for next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was nowhere near as mean-spirited as this, given Ritchie had been reminded just a few weeks earlier that telling women to smile when you disagree with them is inappropriate. That was not even in the same league. Fish+Karate 10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have been naive and ignorant over that. In this case "Don't forget to smile" means "Good grief, if you can't accept my point of view, at least be nice about it", and specifically this. Yes, I shouldn't have been sarcastic and I apologise for that, but why is gender important? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start here. Fish+Karate 10:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this would prevent any further talk page abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as first option. Nihlus 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Two prolific editors with diametrically opposed views on content creation vs maintenance and who are continually rubbing each other up the wrong way. A formal two-way ban is the best option. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Second choice if the 1-way i-ban doesn't pass. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) strike in favor of GMG's proposal, see below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Certainly preferable to a one-way IBAN pbp 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This needs to stop. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Hmmm. I'm surprised to only be the second opposer here. Perhaps there is more to this than I can glean through the diffs in this thread, but I cannot see an evidence of major long-term disruption that would merit this. Beyond that, I cannot see substantial disruption in mainspace/article talk. Perhaps I am missing something, but if it's primarily on each other's talk pages, then they can request the ibans themselves. I.e. I would want to see that it's something they want, rather than something imposed on them. Otherwise I can see this iban causing more disruption than not having an iban. A couple trouts earned, but that's all, pending more diffs showing a longer-term disruption by one or both parties. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as someone who considers both of these users to be friends I think this is the best option. I respect GMG's option below, but I honestly don't think it will work. I also would like to clarify that I see this as no fault: neither party particularly seems to like one another, and they tend to be drawn to conflicts involving the other.
  It's easy to say "let's all get along", but like TNT above, I think this has reached the point where it is having a negative impact on both of their experiences on Wikipedia, and, now that it's at AN, its starting to impact others. This is the sort of things that 2 way IBANs are good for: taking good faith contributors who don't get along and giving both of them help not to have to worry about it going forward. If we go with a "let's all get along" option, I think there's a halfway decent shot this will be back here again, and I'm not particularly a fan of kicking the can down the road. I respect and like both users, and I think this is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we don't have to fly headlong into an IBAN every time two editors fall out. It's intended for preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But in this case there is no disruption being caused to the encyclopedia, nobody is being particularly harassed or vilified, it's just a bucket of snark on both sides. An apology from both to one another and a willingness to move forward and do something else would be ample. Fish+Karate 10:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in favour of voluntary ban rather than something binding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- I agree that a voluntary effort to avoid each other is a better option than a strict ban. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per TonyBallioni. Talk of a voluntary effort seems redundant when it's clear that has failed in the past. Formalise it, and the two can hopefully live their lives without antagonising each other. I also don't think either one is more to blame than the other. In fact, as Tony says, no need to blame anyone because they just don't get along and we're all human.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not really happy with this proposal. In my experience, users recently have been too keen of immediately jumping on sanctions. We have seen a user with over 100K contribution site-banned after a day (or was it two days, I do not remember) of a discussion at ANI. We have recently seen that a former arbitrator who behaved weirdly for an hour but had no previous blocks have been proposed to be site-banned with piling up a couple of dozen votes in an hour or so. I have on this very forum a month or so ago advocated that an indefinite block of a user with several hundred edits, one prior warning and no blocks, per NOTHERE is not necessarily the most optimum solution, and nobody listened to me, and the block still stands. Now we have two users, both with between 50K and 100K contributions to Wikipedia, with no prior warnings related to their interaction - and we start with the interaction ban? With an option of snow close? Is this really the first measure which needs to be taken? And next we will have site ban snow closed in two hours? Seriously? Give them warnings for incivility (on the talk pages), advise to stay clear from each other, and see what happens. If they really can not avoid each other and stay civil, fine, propose a two-way interaction ban. But of we continue behaving like this, soon we are just out of editors, and then usual outcry "Wikipedia is falling apart" would resume.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with most of this. Blocks, interaction bans, and so on should be last resorts, not first options. Fish+Karate 13:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per arguments from others, and better option in the section 2 below this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This project seems far too keen on banning and blocking users. I feel sure the two users concerned can moderate their behaviours and we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As suggested above, this way is 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) it goes something like this: 'we need to ban the article creator for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the reviewer for their alleged misfeasance, we need to ban the admin for their alleged misfeasance.' Now, I agree that the admin is most to blame, here, they should have reversed the cycle not accelerate it, but now all that's left is for us to not jump on the MAD train, and tell the admin to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think interaction bans are an excellent tool in situations where one editor brings out the worst in another without there being anything wrong with their behavior as such. We've plenty of examples of such seemingly allergic reactions. This is not one such. I do wish Ritchie had not said what he did, and I do wish Praxidicae had not responded with a certain aggressiveness (yes, there were mitigating circumstances, but mitigation only runs up to a point). Still, this does not rise above a level where it could be talked out: I for one trust that Ritchie has received enough feedback in this very thread to prevent any further incidents (and in saying this I trust to the fact that he is reasonable enough to take this comment and the feedback above in the spirit in which it is intended, which itself is indication that no restriction is required). Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One-way IBAN proposal

Generally two-way IBANs should only be used when the provocation is coming from both sides. I'm not seeing that here, so I think a one way IBAN on Ritchie333 from Praxidicae would be more appropriate. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. zchrykng (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above (first choice). Bradv 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've already said "If Praxidicae stops leaving abuse on my talk, I'm happy to leave him alone and do something else." (and have ignored them in this thread), but if you want to make it formal then that's consensus for you, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ritchie333: Are you agreeing to a formal, one-way IBAN from Praxidicae? If so, we can cut short this bureaucratic crap - TNT ^💖 19:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to take a de facto interaction ban - by that I mean I will not consciously go and look for trouble or criticise them; however, if I accidentally see an article at CAT:CSD that they happen to have tagged as CSD G11 that I agree with and delete (without noticing who tagged it, as often I just evaluate things on their own merits), I don't think that should be block worthy (and that is the stuff that interaction bans trips up on). In return, I ask that they stay off my talk page. I am pretty comfortable with all of that, and hopefully you are too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think any administrator here wouldn't "consciously go and look for trouble". I'm not comfortable with anything less than a formal IBAN, be it a one-way or two-way. We can wait for a consensus either way - TNT ^💖 19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I really want is for them to leave me alone and stay off my talkpage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like the IBAN needs to be in the other direction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need to know what happens if they tag an article for administrative assistance (most obviously CSD) and I agree with it and delete it without realising it's them? What if they tag a gross BLP violation as G10? (In fact I would say probably 90% of the time at least I agree with their CSD tags and delete the article, but these never generate controversy so nobody hears about them). These questions need to be asked up-front, because (as Black Kite suggests below) I've seen too many occasions where people have used IBANs as "aha" gotchas. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, they're definitely there for the "gotchas". You will be left in a position that you will not be able to do anything about anything they tag, rightly or wrongly. You'll need to double check who added the tag and walk away if it's someone you're one-way IBANned with. It's a horror show. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ritchie shouldn't be subject to an open house on abuse left on his talkpage. No way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you have diffs of something that can objectively be called abuse, since you are leveling accusations? zchrykng (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all you need to do is look at the threads on Richie's talkpage, and the diffs he's already offered. But thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as second option. Nihlus 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose You only have to look at the original message that Praxidicae left on Ritchie's talk page to see that this should be either a 2-way ban, or nothing. (Edit: but support the below suggestion by GMG) Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite, that message was in response to the unfounded allegations made here. Bradv 19:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevertheless, 1-way I-Bans are rarely useful, and only where there is only abuse being thrown in one direction. That isn't the case here - there's clearly an issue going in both directions. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That would imply that the blame is all on one side, which is not the case. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I do not see sufficient justification for a one-way interaction ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what's gotten into Ritchie here, and I'm disappointed but not surprised (this being WP) that this couldn't have been worked out without resorting to formal banning. I know a lot of people I respect disagree, but I'm not personally persuaded that 1-way I-bans are inherently impractical; if Praxidicae abuses it, then she can always easily be sanctioned, but I see no reason to believe a priori that she will. The annoyances of having an Iban imposed are part of why people usually try harder to change their behavior so as not to be subject to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC) strike in favor of GMG's proposal below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's not true at all. What happens is people get slapped with a one-way IBAN, sometimes ex process, with no opportunity to "change their behavior" (sic), whether they need to or not, and then it's impossible to have that IBAN removed. No-one on Wikipedia works to avoid one-way IBANs, no-one, ever. And in any case, Ritchie's concerns are less with the ongoing talk page abuse, more with inadvertently carrying out an admin task and infringing those "terms". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that. I really am all ears for what I could have done instead, Floq (and if you find email easier, I'm willing to listen). I didn't start this thread, it happened in response to an unsolicited message on my talk page, which in turn came from a ping I got from a blocked user who specifically wanted my help. I've apologised for going over the mark - why can't other people? I'll even accept a two-way interaction ban because it at least sounds fair. Now, my challenge is: will the other party agree to a two-way IBAN and we can close this down with the minimum of fuss? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much, this is snow-closeable shortly with universal consensus in favour of a two-way ban, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - For basically the same reasons as above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If anything, Praxidicae's confrontational approach is equally at blame here if not more. Alex Shih (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfair to blame one side when it's a mutual failure to get along.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in principle, all 1-way IBANS. They're too easy to game. And this one in particular is wrong headed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The admin is most to blame, but just tell him to do better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per above. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose being growed-ups

• IBANS among two of our most active users who are also active in similar areas is going to be a nightmare. Propose ending with the strong suggestion that both users be growed-ups, leave each other be, and go do something else, without all the bureaucratic minutiae of an IBAN either way, and with the understanding that if that doesn't work, the bureaucratic nightmare is the next option (and with all the ensuing bickering about who edited what first, and with what intention). I like both these folks; I wish they liked each other, but they don't seem to. So put on your adult pants, and go your separate ways without needing the forms filled out in triplicate. GMG^talk 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• GMG is right, of course. An I-ban sucks bad enough (with blocks for screw-ups) that I have some faith that they will observe an unofficial near-but-not-100% i-ban. With a 1 or 2-way i-ban in our quiver if this comes back here. Thanks for the reality check, and de-escalation, GMG, I think I got swept up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as sensible. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What rnddude said. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a nice thought, but "being growed-ups" hasn't worked for the past several months (or however long this conflict has been going on). An actual solution is needed. Natureium (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've interacted with both these users quite a bit, I have no doubt in my mind the both of them have nothing but the best interest of the project at heart, and I expect that a community admonishment to kindly fuck off will probably be well enough for both of them to do so. GMG^talk 02:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Please find some way to work out your differences. It would suck to see two people I hold in very high regard screw each other over. It really sucks and is disheartening to see you two fight like this. I don’t usually comment on ani threads but I feel as though that sanctions may §lead to valuable editors like Ritchie and P being lost. So please, find some way to work something out.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 03:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. Hoping for the ideal when there is a clear solution that would make sure neither would have to interact with one another would be a forced deescalation. Kicking the can down the road does no one any good. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this. Interaction ban is most certainly not a "clear solution" in this case, but only to delay us from dealing with underlying issues, being the easy way out for spectators. If there is a pattern of unfounded accusations by Ritchie333, that needs to be resolved. If there is a pattern of problematic AfC patrolling by Praxidicae, that needs to be resolved. If neither is a problem that requires sanction or continued discussion at this point, well then whoever that is pushing it needs to stop. Not tackling underlying issues but simplifying the matter as merely two people that don't get along is not productive. Move along. Alex Shih (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the profit of any other newcomer

All these events occurred in relation with a now deleted article centered on a person who is none of the 45 people listed at the Jovanovic disambiguation page, but another one, whose given name is Pierre. Pldx1 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal Wikipedia

Disclosure: I am heavily involved in the discussions (past and probably future) over the article in question.

The best solution would be to simply warn both editors that wp:NPA is a policy and that further breaches will not be tolerated, not to punish either of them but simply to protect Wikipedia.

The problem being that this can't be an idle threat, and enforcement would be most unfair when nobody else is held to this standard, and that gives M. J more ammunition should he choose to use it. But it might be worth a try even so. See wt:Administrators' noticeboard#NPA. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The day someone enforces WP:NPA against admins is the day I reveal I'm secretly Jimmy - TNT ^💖 18:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is or that it is a policy; the sky is blue. It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider. We do not need civility policing, but we also do not need people not dealing with one another without the basic respect one would expect if it was a real world interaction; and that needs to be mutual. Alex Shih (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those thoughts.

Agree that the key is respect. And discouraging all personal attacks encourages mutual respect, while allowing them encourages escalation of a disagreement to become a conflict. That's the beauty of the policy of NPA.

But that's exactly the question I was asking. Has the environment here changed to the point that this is now seen as important? I'm glad you think that no one here needs a reminder of what NPA is... etc. but not convinced!

But disagree that It has always been about what construes as "personal attacks" when involving experienced editors; the line will always remain debatable as there are always many elements including context to consider... the policy is quite explicit. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. It's about what to do about it when it happens.

Agree that We do not need civility policing. Civility issues are often raised as an excuse for ignoring NPA, but it's generally a red herring. The two policies are related but not the same thing at all. And if by policing you mean blocks, bans and other sanctions, agree again. When we as admins need to resort to those, in a sense we and the policies have both already failed. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly that turns out to be not the case. The policy is anything but explicit, and admins' failure to recognise that is the reason why fine editors like Eric Corbett eventually give up and find something more adult to occupy their time. One person's insulting behaviour is another person's vigorous banter; what one may see as disparaging, someone else will find to be justified criticism; my rudeness could be your bluntness; and so on. While we have a system which allows admins to jump to a conclusion and then become judge, jury and executioner in one, we will continue to lose hugely valued contributors who will no longer volunteer to be treated like that. The last thing we need is hold the sort of threats that are envisaged in this thread over the heads of such valued contributors. When will folks learn that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification? --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This probably belongs at wt:AN#NPA where I tried to start a conversation, or even at wt:NPA. But I'm so thrilled to get any interest.

Agree that the "stick" isn't the key to behaviour modification. But that misses the point in any case. This isn't about behaviour modification. It's about protecting Wikipedia. Yes, if someone can modify their behaviour to avoid making personal attacks, that's a good outcome. But that's irrelevant unless we can at least agree that personal attacks are always a bad idea and we seem to have lost sight even of that.

One person's...... Exactly. So the bar needs to be set high if we're to retain editors. And it is set very high. But that is being ignored, and you can't blame people for continuing to ignore it if personal attacks pass without negative comment. That doesn't mean ban anyone who steps over the line. It means, take the trouble to say to them, maybe you meant it well but that was offensive to the other party and we have a policy that says that's unacceptable. And yes, some editors will say, if I can't tell other editors off whenever I like I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. And that is OK. This is a collaboration, we work by consensus, and not everyone is cool about that. And they simply don't belong here. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming easier. Not sure whether that's good or bad. But it would not be good to use it only against admins. More severely, yes. Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, could an Admin please remove the G13 eligibility template from Wikipedia:InstallAware Software. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: as the protecting admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Just had to add |demo=yes. Will likely revert to the un-substed version just for readability ease. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not thrilled that we're intentionally, permanently, publicly shaming the company in project space; pretending that this is in the service of helping other companies avoid the same problem is a cover story that should be beneath us. Why lower ourselves to their level? Deleting outright would be better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with Floq on this one. I don't mind rewriting it to be fictitious, that might be the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I had the same feeling when reading that page. Spammers are an annoyance but venting your frustration about them by hanging one of their pages on a pillory like that is childish and ineffective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the irony is that the company now has their "article" on Wikipedia. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I joined the thread purely to stop the G13 happening, my "admin hat" comment would be... WP:MFD is thataway. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, thataway: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:InstallAware Software is now live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Can someone remove TPA from Mate Bulic Fakjea For making personal attacks while blocked. My first request was refused by Iridescent I guess they don't want to do Admin stuff. Really their response is quite unbelievable coming from an Admin, or maybe I'm asking too much. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why you reverted their edits. Hopefully that'll take, if they tell me to go jump in a lake then yeah I'll turn access off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Or more accurately, Iridescent explained in detail why I don't consider revoking talk page access—a last resort only to be used to address continued abuse, something explicitly spelled out in the blocking policy—is appropriate to address a single piece of venting by someone who's just been blocked, after you randomly canvassed me for no apparent reason demanding I strip Mate Bulic Fakjea of talk page access purely on your say-so. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent It won't happen again, I assure you. A snigle ping ≠ canvassing - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why retain talk page access? The only significant reason blocked users retain talk page access by default is to facilitate unblock requests, and this is rather far from that. This kind of statement can get a block on sight, without the say-so of the target, and we have less reason to be lenient to someone who's already blocked than to someone who's not been previously. Meanwhile, this was rather obviously not on the say-so of the target: you were pinged to the page where it had occurred, and you had the ability to look for yourself. Furthermore, editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page means that it's generally a bad idea to shut it down, not that it's prohibited (read this, for example), and we have lenience to do that without invoking IAR. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I also oppose the revocation of TPA on just a simple bit of venting. Be bigger, ignore, move on. And, FlightTime Phone, if you don't like personal attacks against you then perhaps you might consider not making attacks on others? Just a thought. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tell FlightTime to use less templates and more personal communication for years, but it doesn't seem to sink in and when I've brought it here, I found there was no community consensus that he's doing anything wrong, so these days I just manage it accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pile on opposition to removing talk page access.--v/r - TP 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose also. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Oppose removing TPA access for now. Nyttend has already removed the said attack. If the user restores or doubles down on personal attack, then I will support TPA revoke as mentioned in the edit summary. WP:NPA is taken seriously, no leniency on such blatant cases.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I was wondering if this edit in the history should be striked, [20], cheers, Govvy (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just standard vandalismpromotionalism, nothing meets our RD criteria. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I found it rather offensive that someone would try to advertise their right wing group, I would prefer it strike deleted. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RD2 is grossly insulting/offensive, and simply being promotional does not fit that bill. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Really, promoting a right wing group on wikipedia isn't a strike offence? I am surprised admins would allow that, sickens me that you haven't striked it and are allowing it to stand in the history of the article. Very sick, Govvy (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read the criteria which govern when material is hidden from articles' histories. While this edit was correctly reverted, it comes nowhere near the threshold for revision deletion. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]