User talk:Clicriffhard

Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the guidelines is

You've cut off the end of that quote. I won't bother speculating why, but the full quote is very clear that deletion is NOT appropriate for comments about the article's treatment of its subject. Nor is the comment inherently disruptive; if it did devolve into disruption then it would be perfectly reasonable to take steps, but not on the basis that it might at some point, or that you think it looks like comments that have preceded others that you've considered disruptive. I find your behaviour disruptive - should I delete your comments too? Clicriffhard (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk: Graham Linehan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disgraceful comment. I am not the one deleting other users' comments on a talk page - I am only reverting that deletion and I notice that you've posted no edit-warring warning on the page of the person who has made repeated attempts to delete the same comment even when reverted. I'm in the process of posting on an administrators' board to get outside opinions, so in the meantime, please stop trying to dominate the space and wait for that outside comment. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were "right" - and I don't think there's any likelihood that you were - that wouldn't justify your going over the 3RR bright line. I look forward to your noticeboard posting however. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is the idea to side-step accusations of edit-warring yourselves by splitting your repeated deletions of another user's talk page comment between the two of you, so that I artificially appear to have made more reversions than either of you individually? I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit three reversions first if you hadn't worked in tandem. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. I was asking you for clarification on what "accusations" you disagreed with when you blocked me. Please could you explain why anything I said was inaccurate or inappropriate? Specifically, could you please explain how I can express that I think other editors are being manipulative and dishonest without you considering it a personal attack and grounds for blocking me? Or perhaps we're pretending that that doesn't ever happen, or that it doesn't even matter if it does? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - apparently I should have pinged you. @Acroterion: Clicriffhard (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say something negative about an editor, you should back it up with evidence to support that:

• Your claim is true, and
• It is a violation of a Wikipedia policy or guideline

If it is not supported by evidence, you may be

casting aspersions. If it is not a violation of a Wikipedia policy or guideline, then why are you saying it at all? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem with that is that most people aren't so monomaniacal that they can reel off the appropriate Wikipedia policy/guideline for every piece of behaviour that is clearly destructive to the interests of the site. That doesn't mean that those behaviours don't need to be addressed, but taking your approach would mean that all but the most obsessive would be prevented from effectively drawing attention to them.

I think I was pretty plain about the behaviours I had an issue with:

-Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is. Nevertheless, I was accused of edit-warring by people who wouldn't stop fiddling with it - and if my reverts were very similar then that can only be because their repeated edits were very similar.

-When I mentioned that I was in the process of posting on an administrators' noticeboard to get outside comment, they promptly raced to get the accusation of edit-warring in first, and then pretended that they were not edit-warring themselves because they had split their attempts to revert the IP editor's comment between the two of them, making it artificially appear that I had reverting more than they had and trying to turn the conversation into a mindless numbers game. You can plainly see that if you just look.

-The same group of editors has had that article locked down for months and I am fed up with their relentless and coordinated efforts to turn it into an overblown pamphlet for their personal views. If you want me to dig out a bunch of links to their comments and write long screeds illustrating the obvious then I can't see the point when you could simply look through the talk page archive yourself - that is, if they haven't deleted the parts of that that they dislike as well. But if you care more about linear process than you do about the interests of the encyclopedia then I doubt you'll want to do that because I haven't linked to any flipping policies or guidelines.

Oh well - I'm sure I'll get banned sooner rather than later for "incivility", as if respect is about nothing but tone, so I suppose I'll leave you all to your asinine fussing. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to engage here, but re:

Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is.

Multiple, uninvolved, experienced administrators responded on

WP:AN and disagreed with your interpretarion of the situation; has it occurred to you that perhaps you have been interpreting that situation incorrectly, in relation to WP policy and practice? Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, why are you commenting here? I wasn't talking to you. Do you need to insert yourself into every conversation I have about this now? Clicriffhard (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two corrections are necessary here.

First, multiple editors other than Newimpartial and myself, including another admin (Cullen328) have all stated that removal of those comments was entirely appropriate in the circumstances. While I can somewhat understand not wanting to take either my or Newimpartial's explanations as to why the IP editor's comments were off-topic and suitable for removal, please reflect on the words of multiple other well regarded editors within the community on this matter.

Secondly, as soon as you had made the fourth revert I went to file the AN3 report. The time difference between your message about posting on an admin's noticeboard and my report at AN3 was less than a minute. I quite simply had not seen that message while I was filling out that report. And while you had it seems mentioned it in this edit summary, I was focused on the more immediate 3RR violation that I had not read the summary in full. And I will add that no pending report to AN or ANI is a valid excuse for breaching the brightline

3 revert rule. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Your opinions are "corrections" now, are they? You think they're just objectively correct?

Nobody has yet pointed me to a coherent explanation for why the deletion of another user's comment was correct or remotely necessary, and the docs that have been linked to clearly suggest that it wasn't. Feel free to point out the policy justification if you can - not that it would justify the action in reality, but it would at least suggest that the problem was a culture of slavish obeisance to ill-considered rules rather than dishonesty or poor reading comprehension. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing a response to you but your TPA was removed before I was able to finish it. If you'd like I can finish and post it, but I don't think it's necessary. I read your recent post below, it's improved compared to some of what you were writing when this all initially came up. I hope what's left of this situation works itself out without Wikipedia losing any positive contributors. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be plain with you? I have no faith that it'll work itself out now any more than it has done at any other point in the last few years, largely because people in positions of any power (hello) are more concerned about me mildly losing my temper than they are about years of transparent dissembling and manipulation. I'd love to spend hours providing precise sources every time I say anything, but apart from being an irregular contributor these days who can't honestly remember how to link individual comments (or how to do a whole bunch of other things), it's very hard to provide sources when the basis in reality is the whole of the last 7 talkpage archives of an article. If people look at what's been going on and genuinely, sincerely think that I'm merely casting aspersions then I cannot help them. If they don't even bother to look at what's been going on before deciding that I'm casting aspersions... well, please don't ask me to take responsibility for that. The issues have been signposted clearly enough, and not only by me.

Still, I am willing to point out what I believe is technically referred to as "the bleedin' obvious" if I must, but there has to be some indication that administrators care enough to engage with it, and there just isn't. So I'm sorry to say that it won't "work itself out". That would require the intervention of someone who wasn't thinking in passive verb tenses, and those who do would ban them in an instant for pointing out the problem with a normal amount of human emotion, because apparently that is the main problem here. Ok lads, whatever you say. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Acroterion (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After being blocked for personal attacks, they’ve been reiterated and amplified here. Other editors, please leave Clicriffhard be for a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: You were blocked for personal attacks. Reiterating those personal attacks against other editors and demanding that they be deconstructed to your satisfaction isn't a constructive response, or one which requires lengthy explanation, and it was clear that the good-faith responses provided by other editors that described the obvious problem with your conduct was just providing a forum for you to filibuster, and to continue and amplify the behavior that got you blocked. It was just making things worse for you, and I did not want you to talk yourself into a longer or indefinite block. I and others had already given you ways to de-escalate which you ignored. This is aside from the talkpage disruption that other editors were concerned about, which I saw as a symptom of the attitude you were expressing toward others, with the personal attacks as the core issue. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, and other editors aren't opponents to be vanquished. If this recurs, further sanctions, including discretionary topic sanctions or longer blocks may be employed. I purposely set a short duration in the hope that the next day you'd be able to reflect and to return productively. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion:... With the best will in the world, I'm not sure you've really looked at the root of this argument yet. I am a distraction - frankly I'm just someone who's got fed up with how easy it is for people to manipulate Wikipedia by learning a few guidelines and misusing them with the support of other editors who share their factional grievances - but there is a genuine problem here with people gaming the system to make Wikipedia (which, we shouldn't forget, is one of the most powerful disseminators of information that has ever existed) serve to promote their personal opinions.

If you want examples of the behaviour I was/am criticising, please start by reading the first discussion in this archive section, in which:

-Newimpartial repeatedly claims that the sources support calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and that's why he simply has to keep reverting anyone's attempts to change it to something neutral but, when pressed, can only produce about one and a half citations from sources somewhere between semi-reliable and dross. Meanwhile, the very numerous citations produced from highly reliable sources that use genuinely neutral language in stark contrast to the Wikipedia wording are skirted over as meaningless or biased ("conservative"!), or just plain ignored.

-People claim, as they keep doing, that "no consensus" in the last RfD means that the language in question HAS TO stay in the article based on some pre-existing consensus, but refusing any opportunity to evidence a previous consensus. This keeps happening - go further back into the archive and you'll see it happen time and time again with the same few editors. The people who keep making this claim, being told that nobody can find any evidence for it, and failing to produce any evidence for it themselves must realise by now that their claim is unlikely to be true. And yet... they keep making the claim. What do we call false statements that the speakers knows to be false? Well, not on here, where the worst thing you can ever do is to say what you mean, but what do people call them in the real world? Ok, so that's part of why I said that there's a lack of integrity and honesty to how these editors are conducting themselves, and it is very flagrant, and it ought to be possible in any sane world to actually say so.

-People constantly make statements which are far more obviously contrary to

WP:NOTFORUM

than the one Newimpartial kept deleting - see any number of comments by Black Kite which are purely about Black Kite's view of Linehan. And guess what? Nobody tried to delete a single one. Nobody tried to hide them. If I had deleted one as "off-topic" and somebody had reverted saying "actually I disagree", do you know what I'd have done? LEFT IT ALONE, as the policies and guidelines clearly suggest that you're supposed to when there's a disagreement about relevance. Is it too much to expect that to be applied consistently?

-People (e.g. Bilorv and BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!) claim that "anti-transgender" (meaning, as it does, "opposed to transgender people") is a neutral and impartial descriptor of Linehan, while fully acknowledging that "transphobic" is not and has no place in the article. For an illustration of how absurd this is, please type "anti-transgender" into the Wikipedia search bar and

see what happens

. Nobody with 3+ brain cells could sincerely hold this position, and nobody with fewer could understand the concept of "keyboard", so even discounting everything else, it makes it extremely difficult to assume "good faith" without looking and feeling like a very useful idiot indeed.

-People (e.g. Sceptre) claim that "anti-transgender" is a justified descriptor because Linehan IS transphobic but we can't say so, and therefore that saying so without using the word is an acceptable compromise. No claim that it's neutral - just that it's a different way to phrase the correct opinion to hold, and that's good enough.

-People (e.g. DeputyBeagle) say that "saying you're against trans activism but not transphobic is absurd" IN SUPPORT of including "anti-transgender activist" in the article, even though everyone seems to accept that "transphobic" couldn't be added to the article.

-People (e.g. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!) claim that the problem with evidencing "anti-transgender" as a descriptor is that reliable sources shy away from using the term... again, IN SUPPORT of including it in the article.

And so on and so on and so on. That is one discussion, and if you look back through previous discussions, you'll find the same and similar things happening again and again over a period of YEARS. And you'll find other editors expressing the exact same frustration that I have about the article being filled with opinions and factional grievances - see, for instance, Lilipo25's remarkably lucid comment which says:

"Making the Linehan article read like an encyclopaedia article is supposed to read is the Gordian Knot of Wikipedia. It simply cannot be done under the Wikipedia editing system that is currently in place. Linehan is deeply hated by a group of editors who will revert any and all attempts to remove inappropriate material or headings. RFCs have failed. ANIs have been taken out. Bitter fights have been waged across multiple boards. Sanctions have been imposed."

The mad thing about all this is that I don't even like Linehan, never mind support every position he takes - I can't speak for any other editor expressing frustration with the situation around this article, but I've had any number of trans and non-binary housemates and friends over the last few years and currently live with someone on the cusp of non-binary and trans who gets randomly harassed in chicken shops, while Linehan previously went out of his way to publicly insult my girlfriend at the time in the press (yes, really), so I have at least as many reasons to hold a grievance with him as anyone else here. Nor do I agree with the IP comment saying that he's "pro-women" - as far as I can see, he's driven largely by ego and is essentially "pro-Graham", which is probably why he's now managing to alienate a number of prominent gender-critical figures too. The key difference is that I actually do care about the encyclopedia remaining neutral, and wouldn't see it as a win to force my opinions into articles or shut dissenters out of talkpages because I find their opinions on the contents of an article (quoting Newimpartial again) "tedious". I don't play stupid games; I just get banned for being too vocal about the people who do.

But, you know... if you can go through all of that and still think that I'm the problem then I'm sorry to tell you that you are enabling the real problem, and no amount of banning or condescension is going to change that. So ban away - I'm past caring and I despair. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newimpartial repeatedly claims that the sources support calling Linehan "anti-transgender" and that's why he simply has to keep reverting anyone's attempts to change it to something neutral but, when pressed, can only produce about one and a half citations from sources somewhere between semi-reliable and dross - please stop misgendering me; I use they/them pronouns, as any long-time watcher of Talk:Graham Linehan ought to remember.

Also, since your comment addresses my contributions in particular; I feel compelled to correct you on a point of fact: in the discussion you just linked, Equivamp and I produced at least four citations from reliable sources that characterized Linehan's anti-transgender campaigns. In the prior RfC, at least six sources were presented that documented his anti-trans (or "transphobic") positions. And the sourcing on this has improved over time, in documenting his "gender critical" or "anti-trans" activity.

Re: Meanwhile, the very numerous citations produced from highly reliable sources that use genuinely neutral language in stark contrast to the Wikipedia wording are skirted over as meaningless or biased ("conservative"!), or just plain ignored - if you are talking about the characterization of these debates by The Times and The Telegraph, their particular

WP:POV on transgender issues has been documented in reliable sources.[1]

Also, citing the remarkably lucid comment of an editor who was eventually blocked from English Wikipedia after a series of transphobic screeds[2] might not really be the best choice of authorities (Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't - which was presumably aimed at me directly - would probably be hate speech in the laws of the country where I live). If you take Lilipo's evaluation of Graham Linehan as being somehow neutral and objective - rather than deeply partisan - then I am afraid you simply haven't read the situation correctly.

Finally, please don't accuse me of playing stupid games for wanting an article on Graham Linehan, and any other BLP for that matter, that accurately reflects the balance of what the recent, reliable sources actually say about them. If you don't think that is the current status of the text of the Graham Linehan article, then the correct approach is to bring sources to a discussion of the article text, not to edit war over the inclusion of a semi-literate diatribe by an IP on the Talk page. If you look at the FAR process for J. K. Rowling, (e.g., [3] [4]) you will see that editors (including Crossroads and myself) are able to work within a source-based framework to arrive at sourced and balanced article content and, yes, even NPOV headings. Accusing editors of whom you've formed a negative impression in the past of manipulation and gaming doesn't contribute to achieving such outcomes.

And please stop misgendering me. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously didn't know your pronouns, but perfectly happy to use "they"/"them" now that I do, and in fact I should probably just go with "they"/"them" for everyone since I don't know theirs either. I'm not going to respond to you repeatedly on my own talk page because it's not a good use of time, but happy to address your "corrections" for now.

"in the discussion you just linked, Equivamp and I produced at least four citations from reliable sources that characterized Linehan's anti-transgender campaigns."

You produced one article from GCN and one from Gay Times.

I responded: I guess my question on both articles would be: what makes these reliable sources? And particularly, what makes them more reliable than e.g. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, who've generally referred to Linehan in a much less tendentious way?

(That was a reference to my previous comment, In which I had said: I've just searched for "Linehan" with "transgender" or "trans" in The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, CNN and so on, and couldn't find a single example of the publication itself calling Linehan an "anti-transgender activist" or even "anti-transgender". If those sources exist to the extent that they're "remarkably consistent", could you please show me where, or at least point me to a comment that's collected them together previously?)

Anyway, that was the point at which you stopped replying. If you have an answer, I'm still interested.

Equivamp produced citations in The Daily Beast (along with an acknowledgement that it was a source to be treated with caution) and Star Observer. Same questions apply.

In the prior RfC, at least six sources were presented that documented his anti-trans (or "transphobic") positions.

Well this is very odd, isn't it? You now say anti-trans (or "transphobic"), and of course you're right - they mean much the same thing. And yet here you are in that RfC:

Could you point me to some discussion (outside of this page) where the phrase "anti-transgender activism" has been found to be "value-laden" in the sense of WP:LABEL? I am aware that "transphobic" has been discussed and should not be used without attribution except where it appears very widely with respect to the subject. However, "anti-transgender activism" seems much more neutral to me.

Why did you argue on that basis if you don't believe it? And why are you now claiming that the RfC was about whether Linehan had been proven to be transphobic, when your own comment within it makes it clear that it was crucially not about that? If this is supposed to demonstrate that I'm wrong about the dishonesty and game-playing then I don't see how it possibly can.

Can't be bothered with the rest, except to say that (a) I don't need to agree with Lilipo25 about everything to think that they hit the nail on the head in the comment I quoted, but (b) I can't see the comment you're quoting in the link you provided anyway, and it wouldn't be fair for me to make a judgement out of context. All I can see is Lilipo25 saying that they were repeatedly threatened by an editor who disliked them and that they retired from editing Wikipedia as a consequence. I can believe it. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the diff - I have now fixed it above, but the correct one is this. I would also point out that this was almost a year after the first time Lilipo lost patience with me and started hurling abuse, to which I never replied in kind.

Now I get that you feel that I should have replied to your question about mainstream vs LGBT news sources. If you didn't seem allergic to links to WIKI policy documents, I would point you to

WP:SATISFY. I suppose I will just have to point out that Linehan has essentially become a byword

for his specific views.

As far as the passage you quoted from me above, I haven't ever said that the two are equivalent, even though they are applied in overlapping ways. What I said in the passage you quoted is that "transphobic" is agreed on WP to be value-laden and "anti-trans" is not. That doesn't mean that the two describe entirely distinct phenomena; they represent two different ways of describing related phenomena, just as "alt-right", "racist" and "NAZI" may all be different ways of describing what are clearly overlapping phenomena (it is difficult for me to imagine an expression of transphobia that is not anti-trans, just as it is hard to imagine a NAZI who is not racist - but each term says something different, and some are more value-laden than others). If you can't see that Why did you argue on that basis if you don't believe it? is failure of AGF and of understanding my actual position, then you may not be equipped to participate in discussions of controversial topics on Wikipedia without leaning into disruptive rhetorical strategies - which is pretty much where this current discussion started, I'm afraid. Your belief that it was fine to revert four edits by two editors - even though my last edit preserved all the information you accused me of removing, and even though many, uninvolved editors and administrators told you that they would have removed the material in question themselves and that your edit war was unjustified - well, I hope you have learned better by now, but I am restraining my optimism. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on here but now you've linked a quote from Lilipo25 about Disorders of Sexual Development? Think you may have the wrong diff again - the line you quoted isn't visible there either.

As well as Wikipedia having a redirect from "anti-transgender" to "transphobia" and your own comment, Wiktionary also lists them as synonyms. And I will always presume good faith, but pretending to believe in it after years of evidence to the contrary is, again, a stupid game that I don't wish to play.

WP:AGF

does specify that accusations of bad faith should be backed up by citing the evidence that you're basing it on - well, I have, and it's extensive.

To be fair, this is true:

"my last edit preserved all the information you accused me of removing"

That was a mistake on my part; the three previous edits had deleted all or part of the IP comment, and your edit summary for the fourth was written as if you were just re-doing the same thing that I'd objected to, so I didn't realise that you'd actually only collapsed the comment without deleting any of it at the fourth time of asking. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having really serious thumbs problems, it seems. I have corrected the diff both times above, and for reference, this is the correct one (I clicked through in preview]. Newimpartial (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't agree with all of that but it doesn't change my opinion of the comment I quoted. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point about Lilipo's comment is that you were citing her as offering an unbiased and accurate assessment of Graham Linehan, but the history of her involvement on WP showed a consistent pattern of bias and unreliable judgement.

Also, I wanted to point out from your previous comment that your statement that you will always presume good faith is contradicted when you allow your own interpretation of an RfC and Talk discussion from years ago to prompt an interpretation of my recent actions on Talk that is invalidated by (1) interpretations of the same situation by uninvolved administrators, (2) my actions on other Talk pages (which I have linked above) and (3) my actions within the same Talk page interaction, which you didn't realize even though I explained them to you repeatedly before you were blocked - perhaps you read my edit summary and not my actual edit? In any case, the standard of AGF, and of

WP:CIVIL behaviour generally, seems to represent a higher standard on Wikipedia than you seem prepared to accept wt present. The unsubstantiated assertion that you have years of evidence and that therefore AGF is therefore a stupid game does not represent an approach that is suited to a collaborative project, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

My point about Lilipo's comment is that you were citing her as offering an unbiased and accurate assessment of Graham Linehan

Obviously untrue. I said that her comment on the state of the article was lucid. It was - she was spot-on.

It is also pretty remarkable that you keep dragging this conversation off-topic with links that show Lilipo25 talking about being threatened repeatedly by editors who disliked her, then talking about being abused and harassed and bullied by editors who slung insults without any consequences, and then finally reaching the end of her tether and stating her opinion about non-binary identity - an opinion which she never once tried to insert into a Wikipedia article, so you'll have to forgive me if I struggle to see her as the villain of the piece. Meanwhile, you've presented nothing that could possibly have any bearing on my opinion of the comment I quoted. Can we stop on topic please?

Your second paragraph is quite hard to make any sense of. I don't know when you think you "explained" anything, but I've already told you why I missed that you'd stopped deleting parts of the comment you kept deleting parts of. I'd also point out that it's not easy to keep up with a numbers of editors suddenly flooding you with messages that they demand you respond to at length, to the point where I didn't even get to look at the ANI I told you both I was going to set up to get outside input shortly before the accusation of edit-warring was chucked in. I didn't even know that people were directing traffic from over there until after I was banned.

Incidentally, "presuming" means that you take a position unless and until it's contradicted - not that you wipe your memory clean like an etch-a-sketch between exchanges, which would presumably be called "having amnesia". I have to assume that the Wikipedia guidelines were not intended to enable bad-faith editors to get away with it, right? So they're not asking us to feign stupidity - just to back up our claims. I have, at length.

I also really wish you'd stop posting on my talkpage, but what can I do? You won't leave me alone. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want me to comment on your Talk page, you need only ask me to stop (I would be happy to revert this reply and place it on my own Talk page, for example).

But if you insist on seeing an editor who was eventually permanently blocked for *her* behaviour as not being the villain of the piece - that is, on adopting her point of view against those of the many editors and administrators who found her statements misleading and her conduct consistently disruptive - then you are unlikely to be able to learn from her example and avoid further disruption yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and abusive and disruptive behaviour is (eventually) not tolerated. If you have difficulty seeing and internalizing that, then you will have difficulty editing contentious topics on Wikipedia. And if you don't see the relationship between Lilipo's edits against consensus on

Sorry, I should have responded to this as it's the most important part:

Now I get that you feel that I should have replied to your question about mainstream vs LGBT news sources. If you didn't seem allergic to links to WIKI policy documents, I would point you to WP:SATISFY. I suppose I will just have to point out that Linehan has essentially become a byword for his specific views.

People have asked you time and time again why you have decided that minor sources that are not noted as reliable should trump major sources that are. It's a fair question, I think, and the fact you have AGAIN decided not to answer only reinforces the sense that you have no basis for your repeated assertions that the current wording represents the views of reliable sources. As you know, I've looked through the archives and done my own independent Googling to no avail - I haven't found any reason to think that the evidence you keep declining to provide actually exists. Fine, you don't have to "satisfy" me, but are you really telling me that you've been keeping this slam-dunk evidence a secret for years when you could have just linked it? Why not just link it and end the discussion, rather than passing off sources like GCN and Gay Times as RS instead? It doesn't make any sense. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GCN and Gay Times are reliable sources. PinkNews has a "green" rating at

WP:RSP after extensive discussion, and the reservations noted only concern instances when they have "outed" public figures prematurely- which certainly is a scenario where PinkNews should not be used, but that is irrelevant to Graham Linehan. (I did not cite PinkNews in the discussion you remember on Talk:Graham Linehan

, because at that time PinkNews had lost its green checkmark because of an abbreviated discussion prompted by an editor disagreeing with its coverage of Anne Frank - the later, better participated discussion established the current rating).

You seem to believe that there is consensus on WP that English broadsheets are more accurate and more neutral on LGBT issues than the specialist LGBT press, but there simply is no such consensus. The Telegraph, in particular, regularly campaigns against LGBT causes and organizations (Stonewall (charity) in particular) and has been noted by scholarly as well as other reliable sources for its stance against transgender rights. I intend to start an RfC on this at some point, to get a caveat included in The Telegraph's RSP entry, but it is a fact of which those well read in this area are well-aware, regardless of their own POV on the topic. While I am confident that this explanation will not satisfy you, it is the elephant in the room that may not have been brought clearly to your attention. Newimpartial (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't actually cite the Telegraph - someone else did - so it's probably best that we leave that to one side.

GCN and Gay Times are reliable in your opinion but the community has made no comment on whether or not they actually are. To me, it seems pretty plain that they routinely blur the lines between "opinion" and "news", which is not necessarily a bad thing but is a compelling reason not to quote them and call it NPOV. And, as I mentioned, the article from GCN didn't even make sense, saying that Linehan was "against trans issues". How can you rely on something that doesn't make sense?

The BBC, The Guardian, The Times, CNN - the sources I mentioned, all confirmed as RS - notably steer clear of terms like "anti-transgender" in non-opinion pieces about Linehan. Why do you think that is? Because it's an opinion. Doesn't mean it's an unreasonable opinion, but you and I and every other idiot on this site all know full well that it's an opinion nevertheless. And yet... some of you will deny it until you're blue in the face, with the result that a pseudo-factual article now states your opinion repeatedly as objective fact, and has done for years. The longer that goes on, and the more contortions you put yourself through to avoid addressing it head-on, the less possible it is to see that as accidental. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to insert yourself into conversations on here at 04:41 on 9 July 2022. I've told you I don't want to spend time on this conversation. Other editors have asked you to leave me alone. I clearly indicated that I wanted you to leave me alone just now. Why would it make any difference if I asked you again? I'd be happy for you to edit out all of your comments on this page - they're rarely even truthful about the nature of my arguments or your own and I don't want to waste any more time on you. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that your own talkpage has references to other editors feeling harassed or hounded by you. Is that just what you do? Can you even stop? Clicriffhard (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that terms that are used by multiple, reliable sources to designate a person or organization are necessarily an opinion, just because you believe it to be so. WP leaves what is a fact and what is an opinion to be determined by the sources themselves and if, for example, you had read the FAR discussion about J.K.Rowling that I linked above, you would would have seen just how diligent I am willing to be in sifting sources, looking for when they give factual statements and when they signal opinions, and in attributing DUE balance. But the idea that the Graham Linehan article cites my opinion repeatedly as objective fact, when I neither originated most of the text in question nor did I clash with the majority view in discussing it on Talk - and when the article text doesn't even reflect my preference (as I have repeatedly stated, I would have preferred "anti-transgender campaigner") - well, your depiction of the article is so consistently inaccurate I scarcely know where to begin.

You haven't responded in any way to my comments about PinkNews, which you can easily verify at

Finally, the idea that a source not using a term is equivalent to the same source denying that the term applies is simply not grounded either in the real world of language use or in Wikipedia policy. I run into this all the time with terms like "alt-right", "far right" and "white nationalist", and it isn't any more true in this case than it is in those. If sources like the BBC or The Guardian depicted Linehan's actions in a way that suggested that he is not pursuing an anti-trans agenda then we would have to reflect that alternate view for BALANCE (as we do, for example, at

"I do not agree that terms that are used by multiple, reliable sources to designate a person or organization are necessarily an opinion, just because you believe it to be so."

Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. You know full well what they are by now. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open up a new RFC at the Graham Linehan page, as it's been going on two years, since the last one. BTW - I don't care what pronoun you use to describe me. But if it matters? I'm a male & I'm heterosexual & quite proud of it :) GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't be bothered - happy to comment if you or anyone else want to open an RfC, but I've lost all confidence in Wikipedia's processes and think that other people are much better at playing the game than me.

On pronouns: I don't love the idea of trying to tell other people how they should talk about me (not even to me), but if anyone asks, I also prefer masculine pronouns. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope things are doing better for you. Be careful & don't make the apparent mistakes that I've made, in the GenSex topic area. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm doing well - fortunately I have enough good stuff going on in the rest of my life to dilute any frustrations here. Sorry to see that our mutual "friends" are now targeting you for special attention, but I hope it's some consolation to know that you're not the only one who sees it for what it is.

I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's meant in, but I should say that I do think your "it" comment read poorly. With respect to pronouns, I'd suggest that it's one thing to object to people trying to force you to describe them in words that conflict with your perception of reality, but quite another to reduce a human being to a thing. A comment rather than heavy criticism though, as I'm fully aware of how aggravating it can be to have some priggish twerp stalking you all over the site and making a point of letting you know that they're doing it... We all act out sometimes. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr:, this is a very odd accusation - I'm not being uncivil. I can happily acknowledge that the first comment you've referred to was written with an exasperated tone, but let's please look at what preceded it:

• [13] I made a comment about where I thought Female should point to now and in the future, suggesting that major mainstream descriptivist dictionaries were, by their nature, a good indicator of what were the most common current meanings/usages of the word "Female" at any given time.
• [14] You responded that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", linking to a policy that basically says that Wikipedia entries should be more than mere dictionary entries, and repeated back to me what you thought was the OED definition for "female" (in fact a definition of "gender" that I'd quoted in a separate conversation about a different point).
• [15] I replied (politely) to point out that you were quoting a definition of "gender" and not "female", and that in any case I hadn't mentioned dictionaries to suggest that any given article should be a mere dictionary entry. I clarified again why I had mentioned them.
• [16] You replied to tell me again that dictionaries don't trump other sources with respect to the text of the article.
• [17] I replied (politely) to tell you that you seemed again to have misunderstood why I'd mentioned dictionaries (which had nothing to do with the text of the article), and asked you to re-read my previous comments and let me know if you wanted me to clarify again.
• [18] You replied to acknowledge that you may have misunderstood, but then instructed me that dictionaries do not appear to help disavow the validity of a standalone article on the topic of female gender.
• [19] I replied (politely) to tell you that that was not the point I'd made, and to clarify, for a fourth time, what I had actually said and why.
• Shortly before my last comment on that chain, you joined another chain where Tewdar had expressed concerns about whether we should be adapting a RS's definition of "gender" to give us the article's definition of "female gender". I had said that I understood but unfortunately most of the neutral sources only provided definitions of "gender" rather than "female gender" specifically.
• [20] You replied that we didn't need to be looking for "The Truth" (apropos of nothing that anyone had said in the chain, as far as I can tell).
• [21] I replied (politely) that I thought we did need to find neutrality for something said in Wikipedia's voice, but that in any case, you had based the definition of "female gender" in the lede on three sources that were actually defining "gender", so you presumably didn't share Tewdar's concerns, which would obviously provide us with broader options.
• [22] You assured me that you did share Tewdar's concerns, but appeared not to know what they were, talking again about "The Truth" (apropos of nothing that had been said by anyone other than you), and that the sources have changed since I have worked on it, so I'm not sure what you are referring to at this point.
• [23] I replied (politely) to clarify again which of Tewdar's concerns I was talking about, and provided diffs to show you that you had added the three sources I was talking about, which remained the sources given for that part of the lede, and which had been my basis for saying that you didn't seem to share his concerns.
• [24] You waved this away, saying that you didn't think it was "helpful" to repeat points about "scaffolding", and that I also find it very strange that the cited sources that discuss female gender are characterized as not doing so, and I am done with this discussion, which yet again was not the point being made.
• I will say at this point that I found that very rude, given that I'd only been restating my points because you had misrepresented them again and again and again. It's rude enough to continually respond to someone's comments without making even a passing effort to engage with them so that you're replying to the points that are actually being made. But then to go on the attack when I politely resist being mischaracterised... pretty egregious, Becca. I wouldn't dream of wasting your time in that way, and an apology might have been more appropriate.
• [25] Nevertheless, I replied (politely) to clarify that Tewdar had objected to taking a definition of "gender" that referred to both "male" and "female" and then selecting the bits referring to the "female", which was exactly what you'd done in the lede with the three sources you'd provided, all of which were about gender more generally. I quoted the definition that Tewdar had commented on, and the parts of each source that related to the text of the lede, to illustrate that.
• [26] You replied (and there's really no way to convey how much of a non sequitur this was, nor how rude it was under the circumstances, without quoting the whole thing): Please focus on the content, stop cherrypicking quotes, and please do not engage in mindreading. I am tired of the repeated suggestion that sources obviously supportive of the content of the article, and specifically, its introduction, are somehow wrong? justifying deletion of this article? At this point, I am only interested in collaboration about improving this article, not defending against repetitive efforts to undermine it. Thanks
• And yes, at that point, I lost patience with you for lacking the basic manners to read the comments you were replying to - when it's perfectly clear to me that you're an intelligent woman who could understand what was being said if she could be bothered - and then inexplicably going on the attack rather than apologising for needlessly wasting an ungodly amount of my time. I was a bit impolite in that comment, admittedly, but it was hardly dramatic, and we exchanged a couple of friendly messages afterwards before I logged off. You even apologised.

The next two diffs you've given were a couple of jokes to let off steam at the expense of Judith Butler. We probably shouldn't joke on a talk page (especially when it isn't Judith Butler's article), but it's not exactly out of the ordinary, and nothing uncivil was said about any Wikipedia editors.

The diff after that wasn't uncivil at all - I pointed out that a reply that someone sent seemed to relate to a different chain, and then acknowledged that it "didn't matter" after all. I wasn't rude. Perhaps you were upset that I referred to your "confusion" about why I'd mentioned dictionaries, but what would you call the above if not confusion? It's not an accusation - you can only have been confused because you kept replying to points that nobody had made. It might have been uncivil if I'd suggested that you were doing it on purpose.

And the last diff isn't uncivil either. It isn't uncivil for me to say that you should say what you're referring to if you want to cast aspersions about "ad hominem comments", and it isn't uncivil for me to say that I won't accept criticism from you for digressions that you were driving yourself.

As I've said, I have no interest in fighting with you, but you seem quite determined to go on the attack and then play the victim. Please stop it, and please don't respond to any more of my comments without at least making a polite amount of effort to read and understand the comment first, and I'm sure we'll be absolutely fine. Clicriffhard (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clicriffhard, I have attempted to give you constructive feedback about my perception of your conduct, as you requested, with the hope that you can consider it with the goal of being

WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. Please note that I believe there is no reason to continue personalizing this discussion, e.g. it's perfectly clear to me that you're an intelligent woman who could understand what was being said if she could be bothered, and there appears to be nothing further to discuss at this time now that the AfD has closed and it has been requested by the closing administrators that proponents of the article be given a disruption-free environment to continue working. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Beccaynr: I understand, but I question whether it's constructive to cast unsupported aspersions without a bit of self-examination. I think I was more than polite, given how many times you misrepresented comments of mine that I'd gone far out of my way to clarify, only for you to then go on the attack - and let me remind you again that my brief and fairly mild loss of patience with you came after you'd made personal comments of your own. I will give some thought to your perceptions by all means, but I hope you'll read the above and try to understand mine too. In short: being respectful is not all about being nice about Judith Butler; it's also about respecting other editors' time and mental energy by reading their comments carefully before you reply to them, and not putting people in awkward positions by tying them to opinions that they haven't expressed and don't have any wish or reason to defend.

In any event, I have no reason to comment on the article while it's being worked on in drafts - happy to wait and see what you guys can come up with, and I sincerely hope that it comes together well once you've had a chance to work on it without the AfD hanging over it. Best of luck with that. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Clicriffhard. I'm willing to continue to discuss here if you can briefly explain what's causing you to be less and less clear. Valereee (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thanks, I appreciate it. We seemed to be talking about different scenarios and I'm not sure I can explain them any better or more briefly than I did here, but I'll try. I'm concerned that the AfD request seems likely to discourage the following people from contributing:

• Editors who support the existence of the article but don't share the perspective of the editors who've been most active so far (both by adding their own content and deleting/reverting contributions that they disagreed with).
• Editors who would support a broad-based and balanced article but would not support one that they felt pushed a particular POV.
• Editors who oppose the article and may be concerned about its effects on other articles, but who recognise that it might end up existing nevertheless and who want to make sure that it will at least be broad-based and balanced.

All three groups have good-faith reasons for contributing content in an attempt to improve the article. Given that the editors who've been most active on the article so far all seem to share a perspective, it seems to me like a very bad idea to discourage editors who have disagreements about the content from contributing at all, as that is only going to lead to the POV issues that the groups above are concerned about - and yet, that seems to be how the AfD request has been interpreted by the article's unambiguous proponents (e.g. Newimpartial), its unambiguous opponents (e.g. Crossroads), and by people in-between who I think generally just want the article to avoid POV issues (e.g. Tewdar, me).

That's not much briefer but is it any clearer? I'm not particularly concerned about people who want to add content in an attempt to sink the article, nor about editors who've changed their mind in favour of the article. I'm also not fussing for no reason: at least a couple of the article's unambiguous proponents have openly declared some slightly alarming intentions for the article and I'm concerned about a situation that could be quite harmful. Clicriffhard (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every draft written here starts with the vision of a single person or a small number of people who think the subject is promising and are sincerely doing their best to present it neutrally, including criticisms. The vast majority of drafts (nearly everything that doesn't go through AfC) are moved to article space by that person, and then others also start to work on it, including people who have concerns about the content and presentation. Rest your worries, this is a natural part of the typical process by which the vast majority of articles are created and vetted. Valereee (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My fear is that if it is published there could be status quo stonewalling. Can we establish consensus before it is published? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would require an RfC somewhere. My personal opinion is that it would not pass, and there's a not-zero chance it would be seen as disruptive. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC? Wouldn't any contested page move require discussion? And per NOCON any disputed new content should stay out. It's hard to not be pessimistic after my experience at the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs)

Hm, I guess you could argue disputed page move, but again generally those are argued after the page has been moved. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably rare for a draft to have enough attention to be disputed before moving to mainspace. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I'm glad you're commenting here, as it was the instant reverts to your reasonable amends that finally made me think "ok, they're not even pretending to want a balanced article here". And I think you're 100% right about status quo stonewalling - you can see it coming a mile off. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I take your point, but this is not a typical draft. Most articles were not explicitly created to bypass consensus elsewhere by one of the people dominating its drafting, while the other main drafter wants to use it to disrupt an entire topic area by redirecting general references to female humans from the current Female article to this one (one diff of many there), as I flagged up in advance - because, frankly, it's entirely predictable with this group of editors - and which concerns others as well. And it would be lovely to think that the editors in question will suddenly discover the importance of neutrality and giving due weight to conflicting views, but the signs are not encouraging.

Perhaps you have more faith than I do in Wikipedia's vetting systems, but I've seen other articles get successfully manipulated for years on end by the same group of activist editors, to the detriment of the encyclopedia and to real people's lives, so forgive me for fretting about something that plenty of people can clearly see coming a mile off. To me, it seems dangerously complacent not to.

Incidentally, Scotty's two statements still appear to contradict each other. Appreciate that you can't speak for him but, if the instruction in the AfD is not coming across how you both intended it, I'd suggest that it should be corrected/clarified or it won't have the effect you both intended either, while noting that obviously I can't compel you to do anything or to share my concerns. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have quite a bit of confidence in the system, especially when a subject has received this much ongoing attention. There are 33 watchers on that draft. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you're right! Just please keep half an eye on it if you can. Clicriffhard (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Let's coordinate. I understand your frustration, and I think there is a calm, rational way through that does not require appeasing the trenchant. If you're keen, contact me, either hit me up through my talk page (preferred, for transparency), or [email protected], or through my website https://rendall.dev Awesome! Rendall (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the comedy show calm, rational way through went like this, in case you missed it. Can't wait for the second sketch! 😂  Tewdar  09:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I get that it's a bit slaptick, but not sure I follow the accusation. If the IP was Rendall (and I can certainly understand why you think so), what's he actually done? Attempted to seek guidance anonymously, in the belief that other editors might be tracking his account's every contribution for reasons which I won't speculate about here, and then accidentally edited a comment while logged in? Perhaps that breaks some esoteric rule that I'm not aware of, but I'm not sure there's anything about it that's difficult to understand or justify, and slightly baffled that people aren't more concerned about certain editors immediately finding his logged-in comment en masse, which inevitably makes me wonder if they are in fact all tracking his contributions or coordinating in some way. If I'm missing a more innocent explanation for that then perhaps you can bring me up to speed. Clicriffhard (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community takes a dim view when editors mislead other editors about logged-out editing; it is a touchy subject. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I can understand why in many situations, but I'm not sure I do understand it here. At worst, it may be that Rendall is declining to confirm that he is the IP editor on a point of principle because it's unreasonable to ask him to confirm his private information (namely his IP address). What does pressing the point stand to achieve?

[Faintly useless disclaimer for this and any subsequent comments: it remains a possibility that Rendall is not the IP user, and I have no interest in finding out one way or the other]

Clicriffhard (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which inevitably makes me wonder if they are in fact all tracking his contributions - of course they are. But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce - or coordinating in some way - quite possibly. It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this.  Tewdar  13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But anyone reading the Teahouse page would have spotted this farce

I suppose it doesn't occur to me that anybody reads the Teahouse page quite that assiduously, but ok, perhaps I'm wrong. Personally I would never have been aware of the post - less still what it referred to - if I hadn't been directed to it.

It is unfortunate that almost all gensex articles reek of POV, but I don't think Rendall's IPSOCK approach is the optimal solution to this.

I think IPSOCK is a little bit of an unfair stretch. If Rendall was the IP editor then it probably would have been better for him to decline to comment on that rather than outright denying it, but the worst motive I can find is a desire to shut down an attempt to reveal his personal information (i.e. his IP address), and that's a decent and understandable motive. I did notice that a checkuser immediately declined to reveal Rendall's IP address, and I'd encourage anyone involved in the discussion to question why they think it's reasonable to even ask for that to be revealed. I think it's irresponsible.

[Faintly useless disclaimer for this and any subsequent comments: it remains a possibility that Rendall is not the IP user, and I have no interest in finding out one way or the other] Clicriffhard (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, "editors don't edit other editors comments" is a very deeply held principle on WP with strictly limited exceptions. Anyone seeing the Rendall edit on the Teahouse would see, as I did, that the account was editing an IP comment. In that scenario three possibilities exist: (1) Rendall was editing a comment they made while logged out; (2) Rendall was editing, "with permission", a comment made by the IP; or (3) Rendall was editing the IP comment without permission. Scenario (3) is a serious TPG violation, and anyone seeing the edit would have to decide in their own mind whether it not this scenario is likely - anyone deeming it so would be expected to revert Rendall's edit. But if it is deemed unlikely, then that only leaves (1) or (2), where (2) is a clear violation of

WP:MEAT

and (1) is IPSOCKing without any clear justification in policy.

I would also note that I don't have any firm view about (1) vs. (2) and have never discussed any identifying information about Rendall or tried to get them in trouble. At the same time, I also don't view IPSOCKing in order to sketch out cryptic accusations against other editors to be a policy-backed use of logged-out editing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of undermining my faintly useless disclaimer, I think you probably can identify the more likely of (1) and (2), even without considering the outcome of the socketpuppet investigation.

If we go with (1), I would just reiterate that the only sensible explanation is that Rendall was accidentally logged in. Was it a violation of policy to make the initial post while logged out? I don't think so, and

users can't be required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki

) - but I do think it's at best disproportionate and probably just plain wrong that he's been blocked for "editing while logged out in order to mislead". Seems more like he's been blocked for compounding an honest mistake, without a single person trying to help him figure out the right way to rectify it without being forced to confirm his personal information.

By the way, I don't want to assume that your willingness to entertain option (2) related to me, but given that it very well could in light of some of your recent comments, I will say unambiguously that that is not my IP address and I was not involved in any sense in the Teahouse discussion, nor even aware it was happening until after the fact. I'd rather not give you my actual IP address for obvious reasons, but I don't mind telling you that I live in London. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that some of what I've just said would leave me at risk of a ban if it weren't true, so hopefully that takes care of your "cryptic accusations" in the event that they were directed at me.

I would also note that I [...] have never discussed any identifying information about Rendall or tried to get them in trouble.

Oh come on... What was this supposed to be? Or this comment, wherein you narrowed down the logical possibilities of Rendall's edit to (i) that being Rendall's IP address, which would identify his personal information if shown to be true, or (ii) meat-puppetry, which would get Rendall into a lot of trouble if shown to be true? Just how can you repeatedly tie together and draw attention to the similarities between Rendall's comments and the IP's comments, and then give it all this "I wasn't trying to reveal any personal information or get him into trouble, honest Miss" and expect people to believe it? It's off the scale...

No more comments from you on my talk page for 24 hours, please - that sort of behaviour gets on my last nerve, so I think it's best that we just step back and take a breath. Anyone else, please feel free. In a day or so, Newimpartial, please also feel free. Just give me a minute. Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Wikipedia community does not generally interpret behavioral evidence connecting an account to potential logged-out editing as "personal information". That is all I ever posted, not any of the actual personal information associated with their the account or the IP.

As to my motives in doing so, I was responding to a person who was trying (and failing) to file the serial numbers off of accusations that, had they made them directly, would have been clear

WP:SPA in an area covered by discretionary sanctions). But I didn't do that and I didn't support anyone else who did - all I wanted was to undermine Rendall's and the IP's disingenuous and spurious arguments, not to "get them in trouble". As far as my edits being off the scale, I would suggest that you and I refrain from interacting on user Talk pages until your scale is recalibrated - you are responsible for your own emotional regulation on-wiki just as I am responsible for mine, but there is no reason for anyone to be wandering into fields of triggers which, if activated, might well result in a block or a ban. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]