I'm baffled why you are so intent on keeping pages with no possibility of being incorporated into articles. The pages are genarlly created by drive by or long inactive accounts. What possible point are you making except to waste other editor's time and effort to clean up useless material and unearth and promote useful material? Sorry but you can't procedurally close thread after thread because you read half a policy. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I read the entire WP:STALE policy, thank you very much, and more than once. I have also read the discussions it references. That is why I suggest blanking rather than deleting the userspace entries, which is what the policy calls for in the cases you are referencing.

I am not "wasting other editors' time" unless those editors are insisting on violating WP:CONSENSUS such as, for example, nominating for deletion userspace entries that have been up for less than 48 hours - or for a couple of years - that are not in violation of WP:WEBHOST or WP:NOT. Editors who think they are "cleaning up useless material" by nominating pages incorrectly for MfC deletion, rather than blanking them according to policy, should stop doing it and then they will not be wasting their time.

Also, I haven't procedurally closed anything. :) I am a bit curious why you see voting in a public process as "interference" - that is what public processes are for. Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Copy Vio detector before removing these tags as you did at Draft:Isik Abla ~ 70% of the article is a copy vio which means it needs to be speedily deleted. Please review the CSD Policy and Copyright Violation policy before removing such tags in the future. Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this for the results. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't correctly a speedy deletion case. Per Copyright Violation "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." Which I encourage you to do, Cameron₁₁₅₉₈.

Indeed it is, there isn't really any salvageable content. when 72% of the content is a copy right violation. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly 28% of it is salvageable lol. Also, the inexperienced writer is likely in the process of re-writing to paraphrase content, as the article was a recent AfC submission. Correct process is to flag it so the writer has an opportunity to re-do, not to Speedy Delete. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to respond to every comment at an XFD; it gets to the point of falling afoul of WP:BLUDGEON. There was recently a case of this at the admin noticeboard, might be worth reading through (at least, the parts about replying to every person who comments on an XFD). Primefac (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I'm not comfortable restoring them; in both cases, the pages were heavy with links affiliated with the subject in some way, and they both struck me as examples of WP:LINKSPAM. Being full of promotional language is a sufficient condition for speedy deletion as spam, but it's not a necessary condition. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Nyttend, isn't the appropriate course to break the links, rather than to speedy delete? I didn't think admin were supposed to speedy delete userspace articles when the deletion was contested, without good reason. If you restore them, I promise to break the links while they can be properly discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The whole point of these pages is to promote their subjects, and breaking links doesn't prevent that. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read both pages, Nyttend, and neither read as promotional to me. One was a stub, for example, but a rather WP:NPOV stub. Can't you reverse the deletes so that we can have a civilized discussion? Note that they were both nominated by Legacypac, who has a terrible record with Speedy Delete nominations. Newimpartial (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time, no. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand the standards that you claim to be enforcing; if you keep it up, you will be ignored unless it gets to the point of outright disruption. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see WP:ANI#Newimpartial, where I have requested a block for you. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put my record of clearing perhaps over 10,000 spam userspace pages against any nonsense accusations you want to level against me. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed a CSD tag from User:Qcpu/Quezon City Polytechnic University. Perhaps you didn't fully read WP:G11/UAA before doing so. We normally expect users to have significant experience before tagging or untagging pages for deletion. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen Kudpung's or Roy's comment when I gave my advice about where to effectively work. But the agreement is not coincidental--after a while, people here tend to have a similar view of what happens here, even if they do not necessarily like it.

But I had not seen the ANI at all, and were it still open, I would have made a much more understanding comment than some of what was said there. It's normal to start in an area the way you did, by following the written rules, and then gradually learn what actually works. The advice I give about the way to learn it is to first watch carefully, and then try a single action or comment, and see how it is taken. You can then judge whether you want to proceed. When I joined, this is exactly what happened to be about several areas such as categories; I fortunately knew to start gently, but I found my way of thinking very different from the prevailing consensus, so I've pretty much avoided the area, and if I have to add or remove categories, I just do what seems to be expected. Don't be discouraged. If after a while you want to start on deletion process again, the safest way is to comment on an occasional afd, or place an occasional prod. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As required, I am notifying you of an ANi thread concerning your activity. [1] Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can just put them inside single brackets [ ] like this [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NewImpartial. I see that you are a long Wikipedian, since 2008/2012, but you have has an explosion in Wikipedia editing in the last few weeks. Has something happened in real life? I see you are getting into some fights. What exactly is getting to you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking SmokeyJoe. No, nothing IRL related; I think fundamentally it's just a misjudgement I made, thinking that I had lurked enough at MfD before starting to vote there, and then "escalating" too quickly to participate in CSD issues (which, to be fair, are not transparent), without listening adequately to the "mood of the room". A conviction that my reading of policy was "right" didn't help me in this matter (or others :) ). WP:CVUA was an excellent suggestion made to me more than once, and I will do that when I expect to have some time; meanwhile I am going back to working on articles. Even in this small drubbing, I have learned some important things about interpretations and motivations that are not evident in WP "policy", so I do have a better idea what arguments work better (or worse) in an XfD discussion. The "fight" to apply draftspace and userspace deletion criteria the way I thought was "right" has gone out of me, now, and I will pick my "battles" more carefully in future (there were a couple of AfD discussions, for example, which I think even upon reflection were tending to misread the relationship between GNGs for BLPs versus specific criteria such as CREATIVE, but again, I'm not going to be picking any fights in the rest of 2017, even ones I think are winnable lol). Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a comment, the goal is not to be winning fights. The goal is to be writing an encyclopedia. If you ever come away from an interaction feeling that you've won a battle, the odds are you probably didn't do anything to advance the bigger goal. This is a huge collaborative effort, and it's a certainty that you will interact with other editors who disagree with your point of view. Make an effort to understand where other people are coming from. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But, you don't need to be fighting with them either. There's plenty of room for honest differences of opinion. I've carved out a small area where I do most of my work; participating in deletion reviews, and (to a lesser extent these days), closing articles for deletion discussions. I often find myself disagreeing with some of the other people who have chosen to concentrate in those areas. For a humorous summary of why we disagree, see m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. The important thing is that we are all working toward a common goal, make an effort to listen to what other people are saying, and respect each other despite our differences of opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Roy. I totally agree that the important thing is the common goal, and that respect for all contributors is key. I do have a character weakness for feeling that I am right, based on insufficient evidence, but I recognize that this has played into my situation on the weekend and will therefore stay away from deletion discussions until I have a better reading of the room and can avoid fights. I have been caught off-guard by how much "unwritten rule" is at play here, but am being much more careful now that this has been brought to my attention. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given your continued interest in deletion process, you may find this tool useful. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xfd-stats/ You can checking your views against those of editors generally. You can also check any other editor's stats, which is a good idea before saying they are outside consensus. Set the edit count really high like 5000 to get better results because it searches edits across Wikipedia space not just XfD. The % boxes shows roughly the amount of time an editors vote matches consensus. Be sure and look at the page by page results further down to understand better because a Keep and Withdraw or Speedy Delete and Delete are different votes/results in the report but same effective result. I hope this helps you. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Legacypac. Whenever I resume participating in XfD discussions (probably after I do CVUA training), I'm sure it really will come in handy as a reality check. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the auto archive on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut, and can you revert it back. — JJBers 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARCHIVE, unresolved discussions are not to be archived, and there appeared to be unresolved issues in at least the first of the sections archived. Therefore I reverted the auto-archive; there isn't anything magical about 30 days. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no particular feelings about the archival (or reversal) itself, I do ask that if you reverse an automated archival that you also reverse the addition of said content to the archive. This ensures that archived topics are not being duplicated. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; for that reminder; having been reminded already by JJBers post on my talk page, I was doing so as you wrote your comment. :) Newimpartial (talk)

Awesome. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was looking to talk to someone knowledgeable. I am in bit of a bind here, my page first got nominated for deletion then I guess during the discussion I ruffled some feathers & then the S(Sockpuppet) bomb was dropped on me. So apparently I am a pariah right now. I'm so happy though now that they have launched an SPI, because I frankly had no idea how to refute those claims and I felt so helpless at one time because let's just say there were many "like-minded people in that discussion, so I was kinda outnumbered.

I am literally unable to comprehend that the discussion was about the merits of notability & reliable sources of that article. Now it's completely derailed and I am literally baited into unnecessary arguments which I am sure any objective administrator upon seeing will be able to tell. I want you to please kindly help me understand a few things...

1. The derailment of discussion on this ^[1] page, Is it only my wishful thinking or the reviewing admin will take into consideration the blatant obstruction of an informed academic exchange re reliability and notability.

2. How long does it take for the SPI to complete? ^[2]

3. what is the best course of action for me in light of the current situation? Because frankly the whole sock puppet accusation has riled me up emotionally & has been a cause of great stress, I am a qualified accomplished professional, I have been very fair & dignified in my dealings my entire life. I wanted to try something new by becoming a contributor at wiki & didn't realize it will end up in humiliation & slander.

Thank you very much in advance for your time, looking forward to hearing back from you.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thecapital15, this isn't really the best place to ask this question, since Newimpartial is not an administrator. My suggestion would be to let the SPI play out, and if you're not doing anything improper then there will be no repercussions. SPIs can take anywhere up to a couple of weeks, depending on how strong the evidence is and how quickly the admins look at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Yeah; I have absolutely nothing to add here; I'll delete this exchange when it gets stale. Thanks, Primefac. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you i have read it and you can delete it right away. once again thank you for your time.Thecapital15 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued slandering of me and opining on my conduct regarding stale drafts, spam, page moves and all related issues on various talk pages and ANi is not appreciated. Your conduct is disruptive. You are obviously inexperienced enough and with enough misunderstanding of policy on this topic you should stop posting your opinions. You have been repeatedly told by various editors to stop. This is your final warning. I suggest you go remove the posts you made today at ANi and If you post anywhere any more comments about my activity I will put together a list of diffs that will ensure you never have the chance to opine again. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts at AN/I today were not inappropriate or disruptive. They may have been damaging to Legacypac, but they were not false, hence they are not slander. You have as much right to participate in community discussions as any other user, and I hope you do not let others scare you away from doing so because they disagree with you. You seem to get at least the basic gist of important policies, and we all have room to learn, participating at an/i facilitates that. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs‎, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Restoring out of policy closes at MfD is not permitted. Godsy expressed an opinion on that topic by placing a CSD tag on the article. He has no business closing the discussion. Your ability to assess deletion policy has been shown to be deficient and you have been warned to stay out of MfD. I'm disappointed to see you reinserting yourself in this area. You are on the verge of edit warring over this. I suggest stopping now. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Godsy not quote the policy accurately at ANI? Because that policy seems completely clear that anyone, including someone who participated in the speedy deletion, can close an XfD discussion for an article that has already been speedily deleted. Newimpartial (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to keep reading and not blindly accept a partial quote. One does not close discussions where one has voiced an opinion. That is a critical element of EVERY close by Admins or Non-Admins sitewide. Godsy applied the CSD tag that lead to the deletion, which is definately expessing an opinion. I quoted the policy at ANi as well. Close more than a couple discussions where you are involved and face a ban on closing discussions. I've seen it happen. Your close violated Point 1 and his close violated point 4 at WP:NACD. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read WP:NACD in its entirety. It is short and clear. Your assessment of the situation is correct, and the warning that was left here is inaccurate. WP:NACD "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review.", none of the italic comment above (i.e. Restoring out of...) are quotes from policies or guidelines. Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate or not (it was appropriate), reverting the closure was unambiguously inappropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACINV and WP:BADNAC. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can only claim my close was inappropriate (though it clearly was appropriate), because your reversion is indefensible per my comments above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at WP:ANI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down and take a look at the content before reverting lengthy IP-user screeds back into ANI — simply clicking on the IP what posted that nonsense would tell you that the IP has been blocked for evasion and is part of a long-term abuse case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I did read it, and that IP is not subject to a block. What did I miss? Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the fact that there are a lot of regular banned/blocked editors (notably IB Wright and Vote(X) for Change) who regularly try to disrupt, especially by posting at ANI, and there are a lot of seasoned editors who can spot and revert them straight away. When editors like MrX or NBSB are doing it, it's probably time to think "OK, they know what they're doing". They are, however, not admins, so can't block. Another admin has since blocked the IP. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click the IP in the signature of the post — Special:Contributions/85.255.232.148. As you can see, it's blocked. A *different* (surely evading) IP reposted it, but the original content is from a blocked user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is blocked now, but it was not blocked at the time I reverted the delete.

I also looked at the evidence the "screed" pointed to, so if it was an attempt at disruption, it is hella more sophisticated a one than "W I K I P E D I A S U C K S". Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They often are. However, they're usually "commenting" (i.e. making nonsense up) about the same issues, users, or admins, so they're fairly easy to spot after a short while. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the wrong IP, sorry. The signature for the post that you reverted back in is Special:Contributions/85.255.235.208. It's been blocked since 15 June by Bbb23. A good rule of thumb: Always check the contributions history of any IP post to ANI, especially if they're making wild accusations about an established user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Id.

Do you mean A7? Because I don't think that applies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm trying to read your mind :), G4 doesn't apply either. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4]

No, you and your buddy do not get to call me vile insults like transphobe and bigot and deliberately use a term for me that I repeatedly asked you to stop using as I do not identify with it and find it personally offensive, and then delete my response as "not civil" if I call you bigots back while leaving up all the insults to me.

You can delete the offensive attacks on me as well, delete the entire section, or leave it all up. Your choice. But you don't get to decide that only insulting and bullying women is allowed but women aren't allowed to talk back. No.. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before archiving this section, Lilipo, I want you to understand some basic Witiquette. In this comment alone, you accuse me of calling you "vile insults like transphobe and bigot" and of "using a term for [you] that [you] asked [me] to stop using". I didn't do any of these things. On Wikipedia, editors regardless of gender identification are not allowed to make spurious claims about each other; any actual concern about another editor's conduct is to be presented with accompanying diffs, as in this edit called me a "bigot" and a "bully", in violation of NPA and without a shred of supporting evidence. If you want to participate in contentious issues on WP, you are going to have to learn basic CIVILity and stop the personal attacks. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you NOT delete Sam's personal attack calling me "bigot" and "transphobe" when you deleted my reply, you chuckled along with and encouraged similar responses through several exchanges from Sam. If it's not civil for me to say "bigot" and "misogynist" in reply, why isn't it wrong for Sam to call me "bigot" and "transphobe" first?

I have been writing articles and editing contentious articles for some time, but I have never been ganged up on and bullied by two people like you and Sam before. If you can't edit fairly and delete Sam's repeated attacks on me, leave it all up. Alternatively, delete everything from Sam entering the conversation onward, as nothing from that point forward changes the article; it's just a lot of bullying, calling me names and telling me I have no right to talk back or decide what I may be called or how I can identify. You can leave up our debate about the article. But you can't simply leave up Sam's personal attacks on me and lecture me that I can't respond in kind. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you say that I have been "bullying" you and "chuckling along with" Sam, again without evidence. Also, you say that Sam has been "telling [you] that [you] have no right to talk back or decide what you may be called or how [you] can identify" - I don't see any sense in which that is true, having read the entire exchange more than once. You seem to object for some unspecified reason to the term "cis", which has become the standard (relatively uncontoversial) term for non-trans people among those who employ binary terminology. I haven't, myself, heard any reasoned or recent objection to "cis" except for those who object to gender binaries on principle. But whatever "cis" is, it is not a label like "bully" or "bigot" that represents a clear violation of civility, and your refusal to recognize Sam's gender here is a damned sight more serious a civility violation than anything they have done in this discussion. I have seen people permanently blocked from Wikipedia when they did not back down from a line in the sand (on Trans inclusion) very similar to the one you were drawing there, so I would urge you to learn WP's expectations about Civility rather than pretending you already know everything required and that anyone pointing out policy or norms to you is "bullying" or "lecturing" you. We need more feminists on Wikipedia, not fewer, but that is not an excuse for editors to read carelessly, cast aspersions, and fail to internalize basic Wikiquette. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to recognize Sam's gender? I assume Sam is a trans man due to a combination of the male name and the fact that Sam announced "I am transgender". Nonetheless, I have carefully avoided pronouns bc I don't know for certain what Sam uses. Neither of you showed me the same 'civility'. It is not up to you to decide that I should be okay with being called cis. I specifically told both of you repeatedly that I do not identify that way and do not want to be called that. You know nothing more about me, but made a point of calling me that over and over, when there was no need at all to do so, and telling me too bad, you like the word so I don't get to decide how I identify. It is my choice to identify as I wish and not yours to determine that I do not get that choice. I don't even need to give you a "reasoned objection" because it's my identity and not yours. That was bullying and nothing less.

You say to me here that a "label like 'bigot' is a clear violation of civility' and yet you REPEATEDLY refused to remove Sam's comments calling ME that first, while deleting my reply saying it back and calling that a violation of civility. And you think that you are not bullying me? You leave up the very attack on me that you claim violates Wikipedia rules but won't allow me to respond.

The reason there are so few women editors on Wikipedia, and fewer all the time, is exactly this. Articles are heavily biased against women, and when women try to make them even slightly less so, we are immediately ganged up on and called bigots and reverted and deleted and mocked and dismissed until we give up. The people doing the bullying refuse to acknowledge that they did anything wrong, slap hands and congratulate themselves on getting rid of another troublesome female viewpoint. Every woman I know who has ever edited on Wikipedia tells other women not to even try because it's a boy's club that hates women. And they're right. It just wears you down, even trying.

You're going to put Sam's attack on me back up and delete my reply again and again. And you'll never even admit that it's unfair. Every woman I know was right. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you say is true, Lilipo. I am not "going to put Sam's attack on you back up and delete your reply again" (!?), you did not "try to make" the Vancouver Rape Crisis article "less biased against women" (you reinserted an offensive term in Wikivoice), you assert that by not doing something you could do for yourself (deleting Sam's comment, which you found uncivil) I am "ganging up" on you (since you assume that I am "male", imagine if I had done that on your behalf? Quel horreur misogyniste!). You have assumed Sam's gender and pronouns for reasons I cannot fathom, and AFAICT got them wrong. I did not "congratulate myself on getting rid of you" - in fact, even though your viewpoint differs from my (feminist) one, I have actively encouraged you to stay and given you tools that will help you survive here, if you choose to use them. And, most fundamentally, I never once called you "cis". If you continue to fail basic reading comprehension, and insist on jumping up and down on the corpse of the fundamental policy WP:AGF, then you will have an unnecessarily hard time on WP and will continue to blame others for your own mistakes of judgement. I hope that, once you have calmed down a bit, you will be able to perceive situations here more accurately and stop jumping to conclusions without evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Upgraded to 2-way IBAN, February 2021[5]

Hi Newimpartial. I've brought this here from Awoma's talk because I thought that they must be getting an unreasonable number of notifications (and potentially e-mails) about a discussion they currently can't take part in. I thank you for your earlier clarification, but there were a couple of points outstanding that I feel I should address. I'm not demanding any response from you, so feel free to revert or just ignore this if you're not interested in further discussion.

• I'm still not entirely happy with your saying that we were tag teaming, even by the Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia definition. 'Two or more editors acting alternately to accomplish some task' could be construed in lots of different ways. The entire admin corps could probably be encompassed in that definition, in that we act together to accomplish the task of preventing disruption of this process. I don't think that's the meaning that you intended though, and it's the 'to accomplish some task' bit that I have difficulty with - you must think that we have been acting improperly, or you wouldn't have raised it, but you haven't explained what task you think it is that we are trying to accomplish. You go on to say that you are talking about actions and consequences, rather than intentions, and so perhaps you didn't mean to imply anything by quoting the second part of that definition. I want to be clear that I have no intention of doing anything other than preventing disruption and encouraging civil discourse in all my involvement in that topic area. If you're happy to accept that there is no other motivation, I'm happy to accept that you think we have made honest mistakes.
• I don't understand why you think I would be INVOLVED in that topic area. I don't consider myself so. In my mind, the closest I've come to doing anything that would render me involved is in the attempts I made last year to mediate the interactions between yourself and Lilipo about the Fred Sergeant page. However, I made my best effort to remain neutral in those discussions, and I believe that they would all have been covered by the exception Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved from WP:INVOLVED. You made mention of my redactions and choices not to redact - you use the plural there, but the only one I can bring to mind is the on I linked to earlier, where I removed on comment from Awoma which I felt crossed a line because it applied a label to other editors. As I explained at the time, I wasn't exactly happy with the comment which preceded it, but I don't go around redacting everything and anything that doesn't conform with WP:TPG, or which could be read as an WP:ASPERSION. One has to draw a line somewhere. I don't accept that my choice not to redact one, then partially redact the other, and allow a modified version of it to remain in place, was improper. If there are other choices about redaction that you'd like to draw my attention to, I'd be willing to consider them.

I've re-read through all of the discussions that I, and that Awoma, posted at AN, and I've reflected on them. I don't believe there's anywhere that I have displayed bias. WP:ADMINACCT only covers administrative actions, which as I've said I cannot remember ever taking in that topic area; nevertheless, in the spirit of that policy, I'll be happy to consider anything you think I've said or done which you deem to be unfair, or that would make me involved from an administrative perspective. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it's occurred to me on retrospect that I may have just invited you to breach your Iban, which would be unfair of me, both to you and to them. That was imprudent of me, and I regret doing it - my apologies. If there's anything you want to say to me that does not pertain to the other party, I would be open to listening to it. If not, perhaps we should just leave this where it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Girth Summit. Don't worry; I have no intention of breaching my IBAN here. Please let me know if you think I do, and I will revert. I understand that you feel that there was no task that you and El C were jointly accomplishing, but from this end of the stick it simply looks differently, and the diff I provided previously (which was from your Talk page originally) where El C tried to "pass the baton" about my IBAN seems key in this respect. If El C takes it upon himself to "finish" other disciplinary discussions that you had "started" then that is the "alternation" that I was talking about - and as I say, it concerned actions, not intentions. But I understand that you see it differently, and in any case no collusion is implied.

As far as fairness is concerned, you have previously chosen to remove comments based on Awoma's application of a label and not to remove other equivalent comments by others (I used the plural based on the multiple opportunities, not multiple actions). El C has now enacted a one-week ban on Awoma based on allusions to sexism placed against him, but when I posted much more direct examples of namecalling directed against me to El C's Talk page he did nothing, and three months later enacted a 1-way IBAN against me. (I trust that this statement, which points at no-one except El C, is not a BANEX violation but as I say, I will remove this reply if you think it is.)

I have recently looked at Talk page comments you made on Graham Linehan and other gender and sexuality-related Talk pages, and what I see is you trying painfully to be evenhanded and failing to do so. That is of course also how I read our Talk page discussion about the boundaries of my IBAN. I do not dispute that you have to draw a line somewhere, but where you and El C each actually have drawn the line (separately, and not in exactly the same place, but in mutually-reinforcing ways) has had the impact of substantially shutting down "one side" over a series of Talk page discussions - and this includes your rather meticulous instructions about where I am not allowed to participate. You said as you did so that you were trying to be symmetrical, and I said then that the impact of your decisions was not. Of course Awoma and I are not really on the "same side" since our individual perspectives are quite different (as I have pointed out before), but where both El C's and your interventions have landed has been asymmetrical in its impact, while other editors beyond we two have pointed out to you that the behaviours you have been attempting to police have been spread much more generously among all "sides". Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, thanks for that response, and for recognising that I have been trying to be even-handed. Whether I have succeeded is, I suppose, a matter of perspective, and I am sure there have been times when other fair-minded people could have disagreed with conclusions I have come to. All I can say is that I will continue trying my best to be fair, and I remain open to being told in a civil manner (as you have done) when people disagree with me. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]