Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Appealing my topic ban

 – ​— Newslinger talk 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing for my topic ban while reporting PatCheng/PCPP/STSC/LucasGeorge being socket puppet, and Bloodofox/HorseEyeJack being POV editing

A. The AE report against me was launched by PatCheng who seems to be socket puppet accounts of User PCPP and User STSC circumventing topic bans

1. PatCheng was active before summer 2006, turned less active in summer 2006 and stopped editing in Sep 2006. But in Jun 2019 PatCheng suddenly showing up reporting me in an ANI case and an AE case after failing in the ANI case, while PCPP created the account in Jun 2006, made first edit in Nov 2006 and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Feb 2011. The editing interests of PatCheng in 2006 and PCPP in 2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (these 2 articles are in both editors' top 5 editing pages). Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China.

2. PatCheng and PCPP edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment: PatCheng's:4 April 2006, 4 Apr 2006, and 23 Mar 2006‎ and PCPP's edits:4 Aug 2007‎‎, 22 Mar 2007, and 14 Mar 2007

3. PCPP edited

Template:Command & Conquer: 2006-03-21, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-15, 2006-03-14

4. on 28 Jun 2009, Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article, AND PCPP's message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and on 16 Jan 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited. Before PCPP’s ban in 2011, he worked with user Simonm223 on FLG topic.

PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET. PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2 As there isn't any record that PatCheng communicated with Simonm223 before, suppose PatCheng is unrelated to PCPP (who had worked with Simonm223 before), how could PatCheng inform Simonm223 in editing FLG topic after PatCheng’s return in 2019 just re-starting his editing on Epoch Times?

5 STSC created his account in Jul 2006 and was inactive - edited 125 times before 2011. PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011. In 2011 STSC turned to be quite active - edited 1535 times in 2011 alone and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Apr 2016 The account LucasGeorge was in Jan 2012 after PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011, turned to be active in June 2016 - 2 months after STSC was topic banned. Recently LucasGeorge removed reliable sources related to CBC reports from ET article in the same way PatCheng did before he was topic banned using undue weight as the rationale.

Two of PCPP’s top 10 edited pages are Kilgour–Matas report and Criticism of Confucius Institutes while among LucasGeorge’s 10 edited articles, there are two very related ones to PCPP’s two: Organ transplantation in China, and Confucius Institute.

6. PCPP was topic banned in 2011 from Falun Gong and so was STSC in 2016. Both violated the ban multiple times. 3 examples for PCPP: User_talk:PCPP#January_2012, User_talk:PCPP#Are_you_deliberately_courting_another_ban? and User_talk:PCPP#July_2016. 2 examples for STSC: STSC was warned for violating the topic ban in June 2016, and STSC was warned again in July 2016 since at that time on PCPP's talk page, STSC attempted to help PCPP get unblocked by framing an admin as being involved. BTW, as PatCheng and PCPP worked as Simonm223 (mentioned in point 4), STSC also had communication with Simonm223. STSC left a message to Simonm223.

B. Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox were conducting POV editing in Falun Gong article

I was trying to address the issue Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox brought the article before being reported by PatCheng. Please allow me to go over the context of all related edits this year, as it was not explored by the admins reviewing the complaints from PatCheng.

1. In mid-May 2020, Bloodofox did a major change without prior discussion to the lead section of the Falun Gong article, which had been stable for over 1 year and has been under Discretionary Sanctions for many years. Multiple users（excluding me）complained the edit on the talk page. By the beginning of June, I notice that Bloodofox's edits were problematic. One main issue was that Bloodofox had misrepresented his sources. The following lines were added into the lead section of the article. a) “The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad...” b) "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun…" but these lines were not supported by any of the 6 sources provided. C). Also, the NYT source and NBC source were further misrepresented by Bloodofox. [1].

2. From June 3 to 5, I tried to address the issue by discussing and editing in good faith: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section, Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right". In my edits, I cited the following reliable sources that addressed Bloodofox's misrepresentation issue a) and b), and then expanded the content.

a. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Behind-the-blitz-Falun-Gong-practitioners-spend-14966684.php "Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong"

b. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CULTURE-AND-RELIGION-Dissident-media-linked-to-2587555.php

c. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690

d. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

My edits did not touch contents supported by Bloodofox's sources, but modified their unsourced lines into a line like “Falun Gong practitioners formed performing arts company Shen Yun and Epoch Times”, based on the new sources. I said to

User:Horse Eye Jack on the talk page that he is welcome to add any RS supported contents. Please note WP:NOR should be followed. But User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting without reasonable grounds and multiple reliable sources in my edits were deleted. Here are Horse Eye Jack’s reverts from June 3 to 5: [2] [3] [4] and Bloodofox's revert on June 5: [5]

3. On June 10, I did two edits:

a. [6] As per the discussion Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right", at the same time, I fixed the issue that NBC was used twice for the same line.

b. [7] with a summary stated that ”It was not reasonable to put the info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the "Origins" section. I am moving it to the section called "Falun Gong outside China".

For the edit b, my concern was that the re-organization was undue, as it places the fringe aspect of overseas Falun Gong organizations in the very beginning, obscuring the introduction of the group. (My concern was later addressed, as Bloodofox's problematic reorganization was substantially undone by another user, without disagreements from the community). Despite my reasonable objection, my edit was still reverted by Bloodofox [8] without giving any explanation, which I felt was ungrounded and disruptive.

After Bloodofox reverted my edit b, Horse Eye Jack then reverted my edit a: [9] ignoring the consensus on the talk page 5 days ago, which had agreed to specify that it was the NYT and NBC that had reported the Epoch Times of associating with right-wing politics.

Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack’s reverts were unjustified. At that point, feeling that there were bully users who wouldn't allow any constructive edits that addressed the disruptive WP:OR issue, I restored the article to the state prior to Bloodofox’s major edit in May in the following day: [10] with a summary stating "the page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relatively stable article in May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been not stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May. "

C. One very possible reason that I was reported by POV editor PatCheng three times

I have never met PatCheng in Wikipedia editing, nor had any conflict with PatCheng, yet I was reported by PatCheng three times (one ANI case and two AE cases). Esp. last year PatCheng showed up first reporting me after 13 years’ retirement was very surprising. I notice POV editor STSC (Falun Gong topic banned in Apr 2016) seemed to be the connection between PatCheng and me. PatCheng's reports against me seem to be revenge in response to my 3RR report against STSC.

WP:ARBFLG

:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
• Neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
• Point of view editing: Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site.

I respect human rights and paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article

WP:ARBFLG

. Thus, aside from my interest in refrigeration engineering related articles, FLG became my one focus.

In 2015/2016, I tried to prevent STSC's POV editing in FLG topic. STSC warned me six times and reported me for 3RR violation but he was the one violated 3RR, not me. So I reported STSC for 3RR as well. While in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse to PatCheng’s AE report, I had refuted PatCheng’s fake accusations one by one, one of PatCheng’s accusation in his 3 reports against me saying “launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him” looks esp. unusual. Reporting STSC’s 3RR violation is not an offence by any mean. An unrelated user to STSC is unlikely to mention this in AE reports. Aside the evidence in section A, This also indicates that PatCheng and STSC seem to be related.

D. PatCheng's POV edits spread in Wikipedia Falun Gong topic

After to the Epoch Times article on Aug 20, 2019, when it was just released, a lot of other RS supported contents in the ET article that were not in line with the view from PatCheng and the like-minded POV users were censored and removed - one example: a previous edit from one reviewer on PatCheng's AE report against me. PatCheng even removed content from a CBC report by falsely claiming the quoted as Original Research. Some users or even admins could have been misled by the POV article.

It was Bloodofox who promoted the NBC report that PatCheng first introduced to Wikipedia in August 2019 to Falun Gong related articles in May 2020 and June 2010. In the process, WP:OR contents without the support of NBC or any sources were added. It is evident that RS-supported views sympathetic to the victims of the persecution were censored, but info accusing FLG were stated as facts rather than NPOV descriptions that include who the accusers were. Although on articles under Discretionary Sanctions Bloodofox conducted major edits that violated WP:V and WP:NOR many times, there was one involved user often showed up for reverting and warning other users who tried to address Bloodofox's damages to the articles. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 1. The reverting of my 7th edit and the subsequent warning against me were in the same pattern.

I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. All my this year's 7 edits in the Falun Gong article reflected WP:NPOV spirit. POV editors PatCheng/STSC, Horse Eye Jack, and Bloodofox seem to reject any RS supported views that were different from their POV. Thus I became a barrier for anti-FLG POV editors. It seems to be because of PatCheng's pro-CCP POV and my effort to address POV edits, that he kept attempting to get me banned since last year.

In his AE report, PatCheng distorted my words for framing me being personal attack. The evidence presented against me did not show evidence of policy violations, aspersion-casting, or disruptive editing, as claimed. Please review my evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse, since the admins reviewing the complaint did not appear to carefully review my evidence before deciding to ban me.

In summary, it was Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack who were engaged in disruptive POV editing, and I only tried to correct those questionable WP:OR content. It was an involved user's erroneous revert & warning seems to be made use of by the Falun Gong topic banned PCPP/STSC’s sock puppet user. As such, PatCheng's AE report against me should be considered as being invalid and the topic ban enforeced on me should be canceled.

For any valid criticism, I will improve. I note that English is not my native language, which sometimes might have made my discussion hard to understand. I will try to improve in this area. I will continue consult with other editors first before making significant content change. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2020

Response to the users who have commented

Thanks Newslinger for notifying those users who were reported and for moving the appealing/reporting from ANI to AN. This is my first time for launching a case here. Sorry for being not familiar with some rules for posting on ANI/AN.

Thanks so much to Pudeo for reading most part of the section A and launching the WP:SI case to investigate PatCheng/PCPP. I appreciate you spent time investigating and finding a lot new evidence that shows PatCheng and PCPP are sock puppet.

Many users commented that the post was too long to read. I acknowledge, yes, it is too long. It seems even Pudeo did not finish reading the first section. In the end part of section A more evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge were provided, and the end part of section C addressed the connection between STSC and PatCheng as well. If it is possible, i hope you can also include this part in the SI case.

My point in appealing was clear:

1. I was wrongfully reported in an AE case by a user who seems to be sock puppet of a topic banned user PCPP.

2. All my 7 edits on the Falun Gong articles before being reported were explained in detail one by one in section B. Many users commented that i did not explain my own edits. This is simply not true. It seems that nobody even finished reading the first section, let alone about section B and other sections.

3. All the accusations from PatCheng and others were refuted one by one with detailed evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse. Again, this was too long, nobody would care to read it through.

I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plot to report and get me banned ran deep in many years involving multiple possible sock puppets.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by Bloodofox. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so i intend to appeal in the hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct mistakes. I worked for a few weeks in order to prepare the detailed appealing post that includes numerous evidence.

In reality, as nobody wants to read a long post, CaptainEek's advice to withdraw makes sense to me. I will consider to withdraw the appeal. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek:: can you teach me how to withdraw the appeal? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just say here that you want to withdraw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

!voting unban of Marvin 2009

Link to Arbitration Enforcement Request, which was June 30th

Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than an appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing in other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Opposeper Newslinger --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am gravely concerned that this appeal looks like a massive casting of aspersions, which was a problem for which user was TBANned. The criticisms in the DS discussion continue to hold true in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This appeal does not adequately address any of the issues (
  disruptive editing in the Falun Gong topic area) that led to Marvin 2009 being topic banned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Marvin 2009. Appeals need to focus on the appellant's own behavior, not that of other editors. — Newslinger talk
  05:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've notified LucasGeorge, Bloodofox, and Horse Eye Jack using {{AN-notice}}, as required by the noticeboard instructions. The other editors are either inactive or topic banned. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. When someone writes a 7000-word appeal about how everyone else was the problem, the author was usually the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• OP: I highly suggest you withdraw this request, and write a far more concise version that deals with your editing, not that of other people. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  This is good advice for the next appeal, but I highly recommend waiting at least six months before appealing again, and using the time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I second Newslinger, you should probably wait six months, this appeal has left the community with a bad taste in its mouth. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. This mind-numbing TLDR opus fails to explain why this editor should have their topic ban lifted and instead goes back 14 years to argue that six other editors are bad actors. I believe that this is the worst appeal I have ever read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone above (and possibly below). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It was pointed out in the AE thread that led to the topic ban that PatCheng returned from a 13 year hiatus to file a report on Marvin on ANI, and this was acknowledged in the uninvolved admin comments. As a result, PatCheng was also topic-banned. However, Marvin's own conduct was also independently found to be problematic, so focusing on that only is unlikely to make the appeal successful. I don't think there's much evidence for connecting any other accounts than PatCheng and PCPP (Editor Interaction Tool). Both accounts have a relatively low edit count (~3,000), but besides a lot of Chinese politics related articles they have also intersection in videogames like PC PowerPlay, Template:Handheld game consoles, Xbox 360 technical problems, MapleStory, Unreal (1998 video game), Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, which is highly suspicious. So it is possible that there is one editor who has FLG topic bans on multiple accounts, and PatCheng edited in violation of one. But again, unclean hands from him is probably not enough to exonerate Marvin 2009, although if he really is PCPP, he made 1 ANI and 2 AE reports in violation of his topic ban. --Pudeo (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I opened a SPI for the connection between PatCheng and PCPP which is the right place to process it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the request needs to be made more concise and it needs to focus on your behaviour, not other people's. Whether other people were acting appropriately has little or nothing to do with whether you were. Hut 8.5 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I strongly stand by my assertion that this account has COI issues and they were in fact a SPA even if they later tried to diversify their editing pattern in an attempt to shake the label. There are also a half dozen major inaccuracies and at least a dozen minor inaccuracies in their description of whats been happening on FG related pages but I think thats besides the point, this is a diatribe against those this FG account feels has wronged them not a legitimate request to lift a topic ban. We regularly see this sort of thing from the little pinks so its not super surprising to see it from the other side.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk
  ) 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is possibly the worst unblock request I've ever seen, at least in the category >500 words. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose.
  WP:TLDR and what everybody else wrote above in the !vote section. De728631 (talk
  ) 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a textbook example of how to NOT get your appeal approved. Everyone else is not the issue, you need to review your own behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A screed against others, not a legitimate appeal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from the implementing administrator I was never notified of this thread which seems odd. Further, the community should keep in mind that I have had to implement additional editing restriction on Falun Gong to try to stop the continual edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I overlooked notifying you, because you weren't mentioned in the appeal at all. Apologies. — Newslinger talk 19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, due to
  WP:NOTTHEM violation. Guy (help!
  ) 21:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Marvin 2009 keeps abusing the sectioning/subsectioning feature by placing every post he makes in a separate subsection. This clutters the TOC and gives his posts - especially the section titles -- undue prominence. I have corrected this twice, once at ANI and once here. Could an admin please ask him to stop this behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN on 20 July. By seven days later, it had attracted substantial discussion, including 20 additional bolded !votes. The raw count of the bolded votes was 12 delete, 4 Keep and blank, 3 Keep, and 1 Neutral. To my eye, that's a clear consensus to delete. And yet, despite this, an editor relisted it "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

I feel that the re-listing was improper, as a clear consensus had already been generated, and there was no need for additional comments in order for a consensus to be found. Since the re-listing was done by a non-administrator -- an editor who has only been here for 5 months [11] -- I would like an administrator to take a look and decide if the relisting was justified or not, and close the discussion if a consensus is found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In notifying the re-listing editor, I came across these discussion on their talk page: [12] and "Please stop relisting". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: On their talk page, under your notice, I have advised them to stay out of administrative areas. I also suggest mentorship for them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see a clear consensus. The discussion is indeed leaning delete and likely will be closed as delete, but I would not say relisting is a policy violation. It a possible outcome of the first phase of discussion. Note also please that of many pages in the nomination only the first one has been tagged for MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I agree that this not a NAC business.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerning only the first page: that is indeed the case. I could not find instructions for bundling nominations for MfD. As I said in the discussion, anyone who knows how to do it is free to tag the other files, or tell me how to do it, but I think it's clear that all participants understand that all the files listed are under discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the policy is not so much for the participants of the discussion, but for those who has pages on the watchlist, to make them aware that they are nominated. In this case, the chances are very small that someone follows just one or a few pages, but still non-zero, and if I were a closing admin I would not know what to do with these nominations. People use scripts to mass-nominate the articles, but for this number it is probably easier to copy the same template to every page manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried that, the problem being that the rendered template then references a non-existence MfD page, and i can't see anywhere in the template doc where the correct page can be inserted. Nevertheless, I guess it's better than nothing so I put the {{mfd|help=off}} template on each page, except for the one tht it was agreed to keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor needs their history to be reviewed. I'm seeing they have only been here since February and is already mistakenly labeling a questioner in the current RFA as someone who has made no edits elsewhere. Changing the title of someone else's thread in the same RFA. The relisting issues mentioned above. This seems like an editor trying to act like a admin. Valeince (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• • @Valeince: Having watched @Chicdat: since they joined, I do feel like some of their contributions are a bit odd and confusing. Especially when you consider that the user is a very young editor (Year 2 - 4 on the UK Education System) who needs to get more life experience and doesnt like 6-year-olds editing the encyclopedia. However, I do wonder if @Bbb23: was on to something here, especially when you consider that they disappeared for about a User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_2#Uh,_Chicdat? week afterwards.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry to correct you, Jason Rees, but it's not conceivably possible that Bbb23, with his years of experience, could have been right about a thing like that, since ArbCom has definitively ruled that as a CU he was a potent danger to the community and needed to be shorn of his powers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I reverted the MfD close re-listing before I saw this discussion, but it looks like most of the other editors here agree with undoing it. In any case, if an admin thinks that I was mistaken and wants to relist it, I'll certainly respect that, although I think that would be a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)--Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind, I changed your "close" above to "re-listing". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an RfC about whether there should be a grace period/grandfathering of administrators based on the last changes at the last resysop RfC. Interested editors are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Earler today I received this message in Hindi [17] and just now I received one in Ukranian [18]. The Ukrainian one has a user page [19] with a message "I edit WP. Creating this page so my name does not appear in red here.". This is certainly not me, I have never signed into those versions of WP. I find this rather worrying, has somebody had access to my password? What if anything should I do about it, I don't want to be responsible for activities under my name which have nothing to do with me.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Change your password at once. Something strong and unique. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

meta:Special:Contributions/Smeat75 I see you created your meta user page in February. Any wiki where you have not created a user page will transclude your meta page. Such I see on Ukrainian Wiki --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You can check your contribs globally here. FWIW, I get welcomes from all over the world, but only edit here and on meta. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I get these every now and then, in different languages from Wikipedias I've never gone near - that's even with a strong password and 2FA, and definitely no security breach. I think it's related to the unified password thing, and there are weird ways you can appear to have connected up with other projects. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Smeat75 for all the projects your account has been connected to, and anyone on any of those could choose to welcome you. Check the projects you've had welcomes from and check if your account has done anything there, and if not I wouldn't worry about it. But definitely have a strong and unique password anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did sign into meta in Feb, maybe that explains it, though it seems odd that that was in Feb and I get welcome messages from other language wikis fr the first time in July. Anyway, I changed my password. Thanks for your help.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

When I get these, it's not related to any recent log in to meta. I've no idea what triggers it, but if you look at my global account you'll see something has attached it to a huge number of projects - and I've probably had around 20 or 30 welcomes from various ones so far! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Although this Wikipedia objects perennially to the idea of a bot welcoming users, others have implemented it, and I imagine that's responsible for many a ghost welcome. ——Serial 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I used a script to sign in to all Wikimedia sites. This got most of the welcomes out of the way. As SN points out there were some delayed welcomes when that particular wiki ran a welcoming bot later on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for the advice and help. Smeat75 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC at

No evidence (at least in the closing diff) that this was an RFC. Closing editor was not even asked about the close before this was posted. Closing editor was not notified by OP that this discussion was happening. François Robere, this post is step #4 and you've skipped steps 1-3. I'm half-tempted to close this just because it's so far out-of-process. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted Chrisdevelop's close as it was clearly out of process. Let's not let AN bureaucracy get in the way. Fences&Windows 22:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Fences and windows, genuinely out of curiosity, what's out-of-process about that close? It wasn't an AN, and 11 days is plenty of time for a merge discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MERGECLOSE. Fences&Windows

22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see it was an involved close. That should have been mentioned, not all the other non-existent reasons for re-opening. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to send Maria Ogedengbe to AfD, but the discussion page may not be vcreated beaise of a regex block.

Please will a frinedly admin create the discussion on my behalf?

The AfD rational is at Talk:Maria Ogedengbe#Intended AfD nomination rationale and is sufficent in my view to complete the nominaton Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timtrent: There's an active PROD on that page - do you intend to object to the PROD as controversial? If not, why not just let the PROD expire? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, I have also endorsed the PROD, but I think I would prefer AfD on the basis that it prevents broadly similar re-creations. I'm easy either way, but PRODS have a habit of vanishing Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that AfD is the way to go here; for the sake of 168 hours, it puts recreation firmly within the CSD criteria. I find this often saves time in the long run. This is also a BLP; we should be looking at reasons for keeping it, rather deleting it. (Incidentally, I see the article's been here over 9 years—so its deletion is unlikely to be completely uncontroversial.) ——Serial 14:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I Agree with you. I just need some help, please, to achieve it technically Fiddle Faddle 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Timtrent, I misunderstood you, my fault. But, anyway, I've created the AfD and added your rationale from the article talk which you can edit as you like, of course. All the best! ——Serial 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Thank you for your help. It is much appreciated. I was simply technically prevented from doing this myself. Fiddle Faddle 14:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help, anytime. ——Serial 14:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have found this custom infobox on

• There was a big discussion about this particular userbox some time ago, and I forget the outcome of it. However given the edit-summary, I have removed and revision-deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If any admin feels that this is worth a sanction, please feel free, though I'd point out it was added three years ago. And Archon 2488, this was not a great idea, even in response to something so offensive. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your very prompt response to this, but I would also respectfully suggest you don't get to tell gay people how they are allowed to respond to the hateful attitudes that are directed against them. I can absolutely promise you, we know more about it than you do. If the hateful content is gone and the editor doesn't persist in their bigotry I am happy to drop it. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well a few things. Firstly that is not actually a policy. Secondly having a userbox giving your political/cultural/social/religious beliefs/views on your userpage is not forbidden - if it was then there are probably hundreds that need to be got rid of (which I think should be done anyway). The edit summary is offensive and should probably be hidden. Your best bet for the userbox is to nominate it at

WP:TFD (I forget which) and see if there is any appetite for removing it. The simple fact is its probably been there so long because no one has seen it, and those who have are loath to start policing personal views. As everyone is offended by something. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not "policing personal views". The issue is that seeing anti-LGBT hate speech is likely to have the sole effect of making LGBT people less willing to participate, because they have been intimidated by a bigoted attitude, compounded by the fact that it has not been censured in three years. Homophobia is not "a personal view"; it is the oppression of a group of people. Comparing views such as this to, say, your personal view on the best flavour of ice cream, is dangerously misunderstanding the social dynamics at play here. People like this will test the waters of bigotry to see what they can get away with; people like me have had to deal with them for our entire lives. We know very well what they are. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That is one viewpoint yes. But if you want to start calling people who believe marriage is between men and women only 'homophobes' then you are likely to end up on the reciept of a warning for making personal attacks. In short, if you dont like a userbox, nominate it for deletion, see if the community agrees with you. If it does, it gets deleted and problem ends. If it doesnt, then its something you will need to learn to live with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling out bigotry is not a personal attack. People who hold homophobic views such as you describe are objectively and correctly described as homophobes. Gay people have already learned to live with it, thanks, and we're kinda past it. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, my mates. The infobox in question says that I consider marriage to be able to be performed exclusively between one man and one woman. Is that considered hate speech? Lmao! (I'm an atheist, btw.)--Adûnâi (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, the legal systems of the vast majority of developed countries now disagree with you. As does the WP non-discrimination policy. It's not relevant that you're an atheist; it's relevant that you posted hateful content on WP and are unrepentant about it. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, that is a proposed draft. It is not a policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You're making the case for turning this into a policy ASAP. Actually, does WP have a robust policy on this already? If not, it should have. Fortunately, this has been my first need to invoke it. Regardless of whether there is a formal policy document, there are basic standards of decency you can appeal to; nobody should really need a detailed document to tell them that hate-speech edit summaries are unacceptable. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that Adûnâi is being misleading. The hate speech was in the edit summary, not the userbox. El_C 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: I realise that; I was merely pointing out that it is not necessary to stoop to their level. @Only in death: It wasn't a template user box; the code was manually inserted, possibly because the original userbox was deleted, although I can't remember what it was called and therefore can't check. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I very rarely use unparliamentary language of any sort on WP. When I do, it is warranted. In this context, a member of an oppressed group angrily protesting someone using slurs against them (whatever the context, and however long ago, since it was not removed, one has to assume they still endorse it), is not stooping to the level of the person using hate speech. Yes, I got irrationally enraged seeing that rank hate speech in a project that I participate in. If you encountered slurs describing the kind of human being you are in a similar context, I expect you might have a similar reaction; and you would be entitled to. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was having a look. There are a couple of similar userbox's in the noticeboard archives, with pretty much every discussion ending non-commitedly. I am more annoyed at the complete lack of any real interaction with the editor here and kneejerk straight to indef block. No attempt to explain why etc. Just the 'indef block now bow down and say you are sorry' attitude that is prevalent amongst the worst admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you have such a distorted view of

WP:GAB. El_C

14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And perhaps as an admin you should read

WP:NOPUNISH: "Blocks should not be used: to retaliate, to disparage, to punish or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. This has all the marks of a retaliatory punishing block, where is no current conduct issue. Unless of course you did some homework and found the user has been behaving problematically in the last few months? Only in death does duty end (talk

) 14:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I deem this to be so beyond the pale and intolerable to warrant that action, regardless of your interpretation of

WP:BLOCK as it pertains to this matter. If there is an admin who wishes to unblock, they can discuss the matter with me further. El_C

14:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Beyond the pale. El_C 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block preemptively. I had a look and wasn't going to bother since they put that box up three years ago and editors are free to have opinions here even if those opinions are objectively disgusting, but coming back to this discussion defending their homophobia in a way clearly meant to cause offense is a free express pass to the exit. I would have myself but El C beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So now an editor has been blocked who has been here for 6 years for a single edit 3 years ago. So what exactly would they need to do to get that block lifted? Or can we all start trawling people's edit histories to find offensive summaries? Did they have a history of making offensive edits? Did anyone check? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter: hate speech that explicit needs to be disavowed in the strongest possible terms. As for an unblock, I have noted to the user what they need to do on that front. El_C 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes you demanded they retract a 3 year old edit which had already been revision deleted and so unable to be seen. "You cannot remain an editor in good standing on this project with that "A sodomite bait added" statement on your record, unless you categorically retract it — I don't care what else you do around here". Its not enough that it is no longer on the record, they also have to kowtow and abase themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. El_C 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that this section is titled "Hate speech on editor's page" not "Hate speech in editors contribution history". It is not an unreasonable jump for them to conclude that it was the userbox that is being hate speech, rather than the edit summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So...? That has been clarified. And I said they were misleading, not intentionally misleading. El_C 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: I considered the infobox itself to be hate speech, because it is an explicit statement that members of a minority group do not deserve access to fundamental human rights. It is an explicit endorsement of oppression, and its sole effect on WP is to create a hostile climate for LGBT editors. It is unacceptable for that reason alone. The edit summary merely clarified the bigoted intent of the editor, as if that was ever in reasonable doubt. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: I am afraid you are not the arbiter of "wiki respectability", and nor do you decide what the effect of something is (sole or otherwise) in a community-based project. What you do get to do is file at WP:MFD for the community to judge. All the best! ——Serial 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not use the term respectability. I said that the language was objectively oppressive, not that it was not "respectable". As an LGBT person, I can tell you that such language does have that effect on me, and I am sure it would have a similar effect on other LGBT people. I don't know what else "decide" could mean here. Hate speech exists for that sole purpose, and it is never acceptable in civil society; making this a "debate" serves only to empower people who promote it. And I submit to you that that is not compatible with WP's fundamental aims, or the aims of any community project. And, in this case, I have filed a request for arbitration, so I do not understand your objection. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think implying that we're supporting/empowering homophobes is a bit of a stretch Ed6767 talk! 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• FYI The following similar userboxes exist; User:Junglecat/marriage (153 userpages) User:UBX/onemanonewoman (107 userpages) User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes/LGBT0 (5 user pages). There are others, but as far as I can see they only exist on the userpages of their creators. User:UBX is an "official" Wikipedia userbox account, and all three are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues/02. There's a few others on that page that I'm looking askance at, as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be important to distinguish however that just because somebody expresses these opinions, it does not necessarily mean they are homophobic, nor are these statements inherently homophobic or hate speech. Ed6767 talk! 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is in no way important to say that homophobes are not really homophobic, or to try to save them from the censure that their oppressive, dehumanising, and evil views deserve in civil society. Anyone who has an infobox saying that gay people do not deserve marriage, women are less intelligent, black people are less valid as human beings, endorsing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, etc. deserves swift censure. I cannot believe I am having to type this in 2020. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I am 100% in support of LGBT rights and am taken back by that text box, in the context of larger society, one speaking that gays don't have the right to marry cannot be taken as hate speech, given that this remains a fundamental part of the Christian belief system at the core (though many denominations have come to their senses on this). We can't censor that because it may be unpopular and not reflect the more common public opinion but it can't be defined as hate speech. (The edit summary with the user box, on the other hand, showed a clear hate speech attempt, and so its removal was 100% appropriate). As noted above, if we took this userbox as something that had to be removed, there would be hundreds of similar boxes expressing religious and political stances that would similarly have to be removed. We have to recognize that hate speech and the line is defined by where the larger public perception is, not where editors think it might be. --Masem (t) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And this is pretty much where I knew it would end up. Moral and ethical policing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Archon 2488, it does not say "gay people do not deserve marriage", it says that they believe marriage should be held between a man and a woman. These opinions are opinions, and any assumption of explicit homophobia brought from such opinions is essentially through implication, which clearly varies from person to person. If a user has not expressed explicitly homophobic views, I see no reason why these userboxes would be problematic. A one that would be however would be a userbox that explicitly states "gay people do not deserve marriage". Ed6767 talk! 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the substantive difference between those two wordings of the same homophobic belief? They are both clear and unambiguous statements that people who belong to a certain group are unworthy of exercising a fundamental human right. That is not the sort of "view" that is worthy of respect in a democratic society, and failing to condemn it can only bring WP into disrepute. There is nothing to be gained by defending it, except telling gay people you care more about bigots who despise them than you do about them. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Advocating to suppress the views of your opponents, rather than countering their arguments, isn't a good stance to take. It is perfectly reasonable for people to have their own beliefs about what is and what is not. Remember, tolerance is a funny thing - trying to enforce tolerance of one viewpoint is by necessity enforcing intolerance of another. Meet in the middle - if someone don't want a gay marriage, they don't have to get one. A userbox stating their opinion (which for better or for worse is held by significant parts of the world population still) is IMHO fine, and I disagree with the revdel of the userpage content in that regard. That being said, I strongly agree with the revdel of the edit summary, and I'm not opposed to the block, though I probably wouldn't have placed it myself based only on that edit. stwalkerster (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting I agree with stwalkerster. While this view might not be your own morality, it’s still a view that’s held by significant parts of both Western and non-Western societies, and is an active topic of political debate in many countries. I’ve
  written an essay on blocking people for hate speech, and I strongly support continuing to do so. I just there’s a difference between a userbox that promotes a view of morality that is different than the norm in liberal societies, and a userbox that calls for violence or active harassment against gay people. TonyBallioni (talk
  ) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I have been an outspoken fan of gay marriage since the early 80s, was an advocate for transgender rights in the mid 90s, and continue to hold those opinions strongly. But yeah, views like "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", while in my opinion are ignorant and wrong-headed are not something we should be blocking people for. That said, while I see the advantages of having such things on one's homepage (can see biases etc.), I do wonder if any things like this (supporting or disavowing different views) really belongs here. It's something like a workplace that way. (That said, I do have a sign on my office that expresses support of the LGTB movement, so maybe not a great argument...) Hobit (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

White savior complex

Caveat lector: I can't read what was revdelled, but if all it was was "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman", then thanks for the intention, and please unblock the user. I don't agree with it (who wants your

The reason for the block was the edit summary which read: A sodomite bait added. El_C 16:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Give him a proper hearing and have him apologize. By the time the hearing has ended he's been blocked for a week, and have had some time to ponder his life (/marital) choices. François Robere (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The hearing can commence via

WP:GAB. El_C

16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

For a 3 year old edit summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. El_C 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So what current conduct issue did you block for again per the requirements at

WP:BLOCK? Only in death does duty end (talk

) 16:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the prospective unblocking admin wishes to go ahead with an unblock, they are free to discuss the matter further with me. Otherwise, this is too beyond the pale so as to warrant immediate sanction, regardless of the timeline. El_C 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, I require an answer per

WP:BLOCK. What ongoing behaviour did this block prevent? If you refuse to answer, I shall assume you blocked per what your own words here imply, for their edit summary from 3 years ago, rather than any ongoing behavioural issues. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C, could you please explain the "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" principle to me? For some reason I am having trouble understanding how to apply it today. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not willing to take a chance with hate speech of that potency, I'm sorry. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a very good point. These views were expressed 3 years ago, the user has showed no signs of homophobic behaviour past this edit afaik - so how is a block meant to do anything past state "homophobia bad and we won't stand for it!" - surely that's just against

WP:NOPUNISH? A revdel and a warning would've been perfectly acceptable IMO for content that old for an otherwise constructive and good faith editor. Ed6767 talk!

16:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not punitive. It is highly disruptive and, preventatively, I am unwilling to take the chance of it repeating, even if that happens years from now. I suggest the user employ Template:Unblock if they wish to see the block lifted. El_C 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So in order to prevent some hypothetical future offense (despite they dont appear to have done anything in the intervening 3 years) rather than any ongoing issues, you indefinately blocked them? Glad we got that sorted out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It isn't hypothetical to me. El_C 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but since you appear to be ignoring the blocking policy and think instead of "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;"

WP:BLOCKP means "an editor may do something in the future I dont like" I feel your judgement on this lacks anything based in policy. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No. No to this user engaging in hate speech, even if it happens every few years. El_C 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A 3 year old edit summary is not 'engaging' in hate speech by any definition of engaging. And you have just said you blocked for what they might do in the future rather than any actual evidence they were being disruptive on an ongoing basis. You havnt even got two instances to indicate there was something resembling a pattern of behaviour that means future disruption was likely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a pattern is necessary. This is so beyond the pale, it is, again, best resolved through

WP:GAB, an evaluation which another admin will be tasked to determine. El_C

16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC)You dont think when blocking to prevent future behaviour, you need to have some evidence that future behaviour is likely to occur? Thats an interesting defense for a block I will admit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this user "does this every few years" rather than "did this once"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered that question, which at this point seems rhetorical. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Why wasn't this guy blocked? Is "sodomite" worse than "neo-Nazi"? François Robere (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A user who has been subject to intense on and off-wiki harassment is given some leeway. So, a final warning was issued, instead. El_C 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Francois! If you’re going to drag my name into some unrelated drama with some of your nonsense please at least have the courtesy to ping me. I don’t appreciate you agitating against me and talking behind my back like this. Oh, and stop the

WP:BATTLEGROUND please. Volunteer Marek

17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this user has also subjected me to some harassment, and no one until ArbCom did anything (and even they were pretty timid [21]). He's still hounding me on account of my opinions and my supposed associations (I have the diffs, thanks for asking), and I care much more about that than some future hypothetical whatever from a user whose worst tendencies manifest in infoboxes. François Robere (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to submit a well-documented report that stands in its own right. El_C 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't work out for me at all - surely, seeing as this is only a single case, committed three years ago, shouldn't there just have been a warning for this user too? There is no real evidence that this user would be homophobic on-wiki again, especially considering that they're a Wikignome, so, I'm still completely unsure what this block was meant to achieve past disparaging other users and punishing such behaviour - again, "homophobia bad and we won't stand for it!" Ed6767 talk! 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, for hate speech of such potency, I am unwilling to chance it. El_C 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which will be buried in the depths of AE after that user and his friends storm me like a medieval castle? No thanks. I'd rather just post a one-liner to ANI claiming some form of bias that's more in vogue, maybe that'll get me some attention. François Robere (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help about this perennial dispute by virtue of a one-liner here seems unlikely, in my view, but you do as you see fit, François Robere. El_C 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Like El_C says FR, file a report and we’ll see how it shakes out and who’s harassing who. If you’re unwilling to do that stop trying to link me to some completely unrelated drama. In fact that by itself should be sanctionable

WP:BOOMERANG as it very much looks like you’re trying to associate my name with this user box guy (whoever that is) in an underhanded way. Volunteer Marek

17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, this user should stay blocked. Here's an edit where they ridiculously bemoan "widespread anti-racist bias" on Adolf Hitler. What about this insane edit where he says "Is she a Jew? She looks like one.[...] We can't have too many Jewish scientists.", and then spurts out the clearly baiting "How can my comment about her being a Jew be considered inflammatory or a libel? Are we in Nazi Germany? I'm confused." For those who are less active on social media sites, the term "sodemite" is often used to refer to Homosexuals by Groypers and Tradcaths, proud self admitted fascists who refer almost exclusively refer to Africans as "Monkeys" and "Niggers", and actively endorse the mass killing of minorities and those who disagree with them. Just a few months ago, we had an incident where a respected long term editor- and a good friend of mine- was doxxed by a fascist, nationalist news organization and forced off wikipedia. These people should not be defended, they only want to rip down those who advocate for basic human dignity and kindness and destroy their lives. They stand against everything that makes Wikipedia good. Sorry for getting all passionate, but this is important to me. Fascists are bad people who want to destroy everything that is good with a selfish vendetta, and should be shown the door with prejudice. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, thank you for these diffs. My views expressed above regarding this block being purely based on one incident 3 years ago, but upon seeing this consistent behaviour, I agree completely. Ed6767 talk! 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's ok, you didn't know. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, There is a difference between a madman and a Mad man. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

But that's not why the guy was blocked, is it? And passion is important. I'm angry at how easy it was to get that guy blocked - on an infobox and edit summary - when there's so much worse going on that isn't even touched. If anything, your diffs are proof of that. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the user was not blocked for the userbox. El_C 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, he was blocked for the edit summary! Yes, we know. Thank you. What would we have done etc. François Robere (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't take that tone with me, François Robere. El_C 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)