Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304

Just had two identical messages on my talkpage from "MediaWiki message delivery", both with incorrect timestamps. There is no indication of who to contact about problems with the message. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination#Duplicated_distribution. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Category:Requests for unblock mass unblock requests posted, has to be a bot. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done @FlightTime Public: several of us cleaned this up, let us know if it persists. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See also, Existing ANI discussion. Courcelles (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Xaosflux and Courcelles: I should've checked ANI before posting here :P - FlightTime Public (open channel) 17:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I joined the thread purely to stop the G13 happening, my "admin hat" comment would be...

WP:MFD is thataway. Primefac (talk

) 15:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE plus repeated IP socking. Since the editor still has access to their talk page, they could post an unblock request at User talk:SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• regretful oppose The reason for not renaming is the block. not visa versa. This is to prevent problems from cropping up. Any unblock can accompany a renaming at that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Dlohcierekim: Can you outline what problems you believe may crop up? As I've said above, it seems to me any possible problems can be resolved by ensuring that they mention any previous username in an unblock request and perhaps keep a message on their user page or talk page or both clearly mention the rename, at least until they've been unblocked. if it's felt that admins may still miss it, or that the editor may remove the stuff and not mention it on their unblock request, their block log can always be annotated although yes that would require someone here to take action which is unfortunate but IMO so minor that it's not worth worrying about. We can notify on relevant article talk pages if there's concerns over IPs trying to push images they've created onto articles. Heck I can do that myself if people feel it's necessary. I'm fine with opposing a rename if there is some real problem/disruptive it would cause, but I just can't see how it would do so here so IMO even though unintentionally we're actually punishing them by refusing a rename rather than preventing disruption. Again if there's some possibility I've missed, I'd be happy to hear it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment Just to let people know, if this rename is implemented and people want me to do anything like inform editors on relevant article talk pages, please let me know on my talk page as I won't be following this discussion further, for personal reasons. (I excluded the explanation from here since it's probably not helpful, but if you're wondering I did post it here [3] although regretfully on my talk page. I don't think it has that many watchers but I've removed it to reduce canvassing concerns as far as possible.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• There’s no local or global policy on this, and it’s handled mainly by convention. The norm is that we don’t rename blocked users unless it’s a new account and there are compelling privacy reasons. I don’t see a reason to deviate from that here. I’d also suggest closing this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Sure, why not. Don't unblock but allow a rename. It's good karma to do a favor for someone who doesn't really deserve one. And God knows AN needs all the karma it can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If the user's in good standing at another wiki, why get in the way of its processes? Maybe we need to revisit our renaming-while-blocked standard, if they have the effect of impeding editing at other projects. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Just noting they have already withdrawn the rename request on meta ([4]). Also note that while it's not noted in the log, they are blocked by a checkuser for IP socking, have had their unblock declined by a different checkuser for ongoing IP socking, and have two more checkusers in this thread suggesting they not be unblocked given the circumstances. For what it's worth. If they can be renamed in a way that does not involve their being unblocked here, I am not opposed but neither do I support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Ritchie333 has a genuine concern with Praxidicae's conduct (and I'm not saying that Praxidicae is blameless, though I haven't seen anything close to these examples), they should know where

I don't think Praxidicae's conduct rises to the level of ANI; I just want them to be more reflective and recognise that other people have different views and opinions on notability and procedures, that AfC has caused problems in the real world by people doing things in good faith, and that they have an overly aggressive attitude. Part of the problem with diffs (such as this) is that they were made on an old account and I didn't want to fall foul of

WP:OUTING, and the problem is not so much the incidents themselves (which were only a handful) but the overly aggressive and defensive attitude towards them. If that means I come across like Gordon Ramsay berating a chef in a loss-making restaurant, well that's just the sort of person I am I guess and I do apologise as I'm not here to upset people, though in my view "Your attitude is harmful and drives people away, please stop" is not a personal attack. I have tried to be conciliatory towards them in the past, but was ignored. I know they had a huge bunfight with The Rambling Man on my talk page, but I stayed out of that as it was unproductive, and they don't work on any articles I do so I find it easy to switch off and do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did say that I am sympathetic to your situation at the moment Bradv, as you're being gently roasted on a spit by the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation for making one simple mistake months and months ago, and that people should go easy on you for it. But it is key to my central point, which is that

Wikipedia is in the real world, and even though we can do things to chapter and verse and adhering to our policies and guidelines with absolute impeccability, we can still get bad press. The Independent

is factually wrong to say "Someone had created a Wikipedia page for Strickland, which was subsequently flagged for deletion and removed from the encyclopaedia. The entry was determined not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, and all three of these criteria are biased in favour of men". However, it's also one of the most respected British newspapers and one of my "go-to" news sources that I would trust enough to generally use on BLPs. So it seems reasonable to me that if we want to change this perception, we need to go easy on people who are trying to help and not bash them over the head with policies. And if I see somebody declining AfCs and being (in my view) unreasonably defensive about it even though they may be right when examined against policy, then I think it's a reasonable concern to suggest they may want to think about how the outside world views them. Otherwise we will continue to gather bad press and those of us working on the administrative side of things will probably start to feel like it's a siege.

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

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

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

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

Okay, I did say that this was my opinion and that I might not be right and everyone else was allowed to disagree (or maybe I didn't make that clear enough :-/), and my viewpoint was primarily geared towards whether we could get a decent article produced above everything else. I'm happy to apologise over misreading Praxidicae's intent in this specific circumstance, and I am sure they do everything in good faith; however I can't change my views over their attitude because I've got no evidence. Supposing that instead of running to my talk page and screaming "You're either being fed lies by someone or outright bullshitting." (as I said elsewhere, that basically has the same effect as "Fuck you!"), they wrote something like "I understand Wikipedia's problematic reputation with the press, but we can't just lower standards to assuage hurt feelings. Happy to chat more about this." (which is kind of chapter and verse in

WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility, and basically the last line of what you've written above) then I am certain the discussion would have taken a more productive route. I think also part of the problem is I seem to be the only one here that thinks Praxidicae has a civility problem and is prepared to call them out on it - if more people shared that view, I probably won't feel as motivated to do something about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

16:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

@

demonstrate good faith towards Praxidicae in an effort to heal this rift between you. You have an opportunity here to make steps toward resolving your long-standing disputes, and for the good of the project I hope you take it. Bradv

17:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

drop it. Praxidicae (talk

) 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I am proposing this IBAN between Ritchie333 and Praxidicae -

💖

19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Ah, thank you
  💖
  19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

While I realise administrators should take it on the chin and deal with stuff, and

WP:CIVIL is a busted flush, I have to say I found this message quite mean-spirited and was upset by it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One-way IBAN proposal

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

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

• @
  💖
  19:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to take a de facto interaction ban - by that I mean I will not consciously go and look for trouble or criticise them; however, if I accidentally see an article at

CAT:CSD that they happen to have tagged as CSD G11 that I agree with and delete (without noticing who tagged it, as often I just evaluate things on their own merits), I don't think that should be block worthy (and that is the stuff that interaction bans trips up on). In return, I ask that they stay off my talk page. I am pretty comfortable with all of that, and hopefully you are too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to think any administrator here wouldn't "consciously go and look for trouble". I'm not comfortable with anything less than a formal IBAN, be it a one-way or two-way. We can wait for a consensus either way -

💖

19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose being growed-ups

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

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

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

For the profit of any other newcomer

All these events occurred in relation with a now deleted article centered on a person who is none of the 45 people listed at the

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

The day someone enforces

💖

18:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks for those thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

This probably belongs at

wt:NPA

. But I'm so thrilled to get any interest.

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

One person's...... Exactly. So the bar needs to be set high if we're to retain editors. And it is set very high. But that is being ignored, and you can't blame people for continuing to ignore it if personal attacks pass without negative comment. That doesn't mean ban anyone who steps over the line. It means, take the trouble to say to them, maybe you meant it well but that was offensive to the other party and we have a policy that says that's unacceptable. And yes, some editors will say, if I can't tell other editors off whenever I like I'm taking my bat and ball and going home.

And that is OK. This is a collaboration, we work by consensus, and not everyone is cool about that. And they simply don't belong here. Andrewa (talk

) 01:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

(

Iridescent

23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)