Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive336

A topic ban got imposed on User:Kevin McE (Let's start with a weird topic ban: Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you. Drmies) followed by a 60-hour block shortly thereafter. We wanted to leave the discussion open to see what happens when the block expires but it got archived. Well, the block has expired and Kevin McE is at it again. So it seems we need to continue with this discussion. Schwede66 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

And I might as well voice my opinion on the matter. The diff shows a clear breach of the topic ban and the appropriate response is an indef block. Given that, I see no need to also analyse the various accusations and poor conduct contained in that post. Schwede66 21:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet whether the TBan was enacted properly - I could easily have missed something, and have asked Drmies about it, but if it wasn't properly enacted then any breach isn't actionable. That's a bit of a side issue however, because the main issue is Kevin McE's uncollaborative battleground approach, which he seems unwilling to accept is an issue even after a block. I would support an indefinite block for threatening to repeat behaviour that is hostile, corrosive to the community, and ultimately

disruptive. An alternative might be a TBan from main page related content, since that seems (at least in this instance) to be what he has got so angry about. Girth Summit _(blether)

21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Paperwork or not, Girth Summit, this repetitive anger is too much. BTW, the paperwork isn't all that simple. There was broad agreement on the topic ban that I suggested (OK, imposed), but ANI threads tend to get archived, not closed. Anyway, "actionable" or not, the hits keep on coming. BTW, for anyone who hasn't looked at all the details, Kevin McE got blocked for a simple harassing edit, this one. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, don't get me wrong - I think your block was necessary, and that another one probably is since he intends to keep right on doing the same stuff. I'm just saying that we should act on the underlying problem, not a breach of a ban that hasn't been logged. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I know, GS, I got you--I just wish we weren't dealing with an editor who makes it necessary to jump through all these hoops. I mean, apparently STOP IT isn't enough. Personally, I think the ongoing battleground problems and incivilities are enough for in indef block. Oh, Mackensen agreed with that, on my talk page, so we're at four now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block - he still doesn't get it. We need to consider our vast and varied editing base. We have school children editing Wikipedia. We have university students who are taking it as a course - and not always getting everything perfect. Our encyclopedia is open to everybody in every part of the world, every age group, every learning step on how to do this, every demographic. On the talk page of Drmies, KevinE wrote, "I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, and when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project, I will not pussyfoot around telling them so: encouraging poor editors by kindness is not going to make Wikipedia better than it is, and taking fools lightly only make Wikipedia appear foolish." Based on Talk:Kalākaua coinage, I guess he means me and Wehwalt. And both of us admins, who went through a public assessment and vote by way of the required Request for Adminship. And may I say that nobody - absolutely nobody - has produced as many Featured articles as Wehwalt. That makes Wehwalt pick of the litter. Yet, KevinMcE couldn't even "tolerate" him. Kevin McE has been on Wikipedia 15 years. If he hasn't learned tolerance of other editors in that time, when will he? — Maile (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pending - the editor in question edits later in the UTC day, but I would like them to provide their views on both the TBAN and why they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for recurring negative behaviour. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see that they're still throwing accusations at me and trying to discredit my edits on the page they're topic banned from. And mislabelling the sources there to do so (the source [1] says she was selected for the relay, and is listed in the "FRAUEN"= women section, so clearly not saying she was ever in the mixed relay team), so the article was originally correct). I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence doesn't sound like someone who wants to work collaboratively on here, making accusations about editors who've had hundreds of articles on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy for people (including native German speakers) to review
  not here to contribute positively. Joseph2302 (talk
  ) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope that comments here will not be taken as comprising a breach of topic ban: I am at a loss as to how I am considered to be given a chance to explain myself if I cannot refer to the things that might need explaining. And yet it seems that Drmies responded to my comments intended to be specifically to him not by responding to me, or making the correction I requested in article space, but by inviting a bunch of people to consider themselves offended by me.

I would have thought that trying to get articles to accurately represent the truth is precisely what all of us are here to do for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and that seeking accuracy in article space should not be described as "grinding an axe". The Google translation of the article does not specify whether Schmidt was being considered for the women's relay or the mixed event, and unless you (Joseph) are confident that your ability to translate German is better than that of that software, then both your initial presumption that it was the women's 4x400 that she was selected for, and your reversion of my edit to the article, were, to your knowledge at least, unsourced. The source referred to by Joseph in this discussion is about selection for the European indoor championships that took place in Poland in March, and so is a total red herring as far as this discussion is concerned (Maybe Joseph will be willing to apologise for accusing me of mislabelling sources in that regard, and will apologise for introducing erroneous argument to this discussion).

I do not believe that I will ever consider it reasonable behaviour to make an accusation against someone without being willing to either defend that accusation or to retract it. I would hope that Wikipedia would want to hold its contributors to at least that standard of behaviour.

I would be intrigued to read how anyone considers Wikipedia to be improved by editors acting in areas that are beyond their competence, which seems to be defended here. I have certainly tried to ensure that I am informed as best I can be (in limited time) before I make any change to article space: I would hope and trust that all those involved in this discussion would want to say the same of themselves. Kevin McE (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you (Joseph) are confident that your ability to translate German is better than that of that software Considering I was given the source by a German speaker, I trust it more than you or I using a translation tool. editors acting in areas that are beyond their competence this is the second time you've said this, with no evidence. This won't help your case. I'm happy for a native German speaker to review this source and tell me if I'm actually wrong, but I don't believe I am. And I'm certainly not "editing above my competency", whatever that means. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that you are aware that you referred to selection for the European Indoors as evidence of her selection for the Olympics, you may wish to reconsider that last statement. Kevin McE (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't. They're two different competitions with two different sources, I never equated the two together- just because the 2 things were in the same paragraph, that doesn't mean they that one implies the other, this is the permlink that proves this. Your insistence on throwing shade on people rather than actually doing anything useful for the encyclopedia is tiresome. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I really cannot follow the reasoning of your last comment. As to your request that a competent German speaker review the source, I have asked @Gerda Arendt:, a Main Page stalwart who I presume is known to you, to look at the source in question.

In the meantime, do you have any evidence that at the time of your accusation (diff provided above) I had accused you of anything? Kevin McE (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Although Gerda has not yet replied, Jo-Jo Eumerus, who self identifies as a native German speaker, is active on MP discussions and is a sysop with nearly 80,000 edits has done so:"I don't see a clear indication on that page on whether it was mixed 4x400m or women's 4x400m. It says she qualified for the sprint, nothing about whether she would participate or not." Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I was the user who originally found that RBB24 source for Joseph2302. It says "the 400m runner Alica Schmidt qualified for the relay". The next sentence confirms that it was planned that she should run, because it says about someone else "she only participates as a substitute". There is no explicit clarification of which relay, other than that it is one involving 400m, but the standard assumption a German reader would make is that this is the 4x400m women's relay. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why a German reader would assume that it refers to being in the women's relay rather than one of the two women (plus a substitute) in the mixed relay? Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It says "the relay", which defaults to the known relay event, not the new mixed one. Nothing specifically German about that, I admit. —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have to consider that to be supposition rather than sourced. The contention that there is a source that says that she was due to compete in the women's relay seems unproven. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite see why this matters so much. —Kusma (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alica Schmidt should explain it. Does German lack a distinction between selection and qualification, because in the context of relay teams in Olympic athletics, nations qualify, and the national federation selects the runners. The idea that an athlete qualifies for a relay makes no sense, and (unless the language lacks the distinction) points to at best a lack of precision in that source. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Hook that was reasonably correct was approved, got changed through the DYK process into something that was wrong. Happens all the time. Worst that happened to one of my hooks was that

WP:ERRORS. Then the matter can be closed. —Kusma (talk

) 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the reply feature quietly edit-conflicted. "Nope" was my answer to "Talk:Alica Schmidt should explain it". As to the rest of your comment, I think "she qualified for the relay" can mean "she made the cut for the national selection". In German and in English. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Kevin McE, you hoped that "comments here will not be taken as comprising a breach of topic ban". No, you are absolutely safe on that front. You are being discussed here and you need the ability to comment, respond, and put your case forward.
2. This ANI case is not about whether homepage content was wrong or whose responsibility it should have been to prevent this. The discussion on German sources and what it says in them is off-topic.
3. This ANI case is firstly about whether there was a topic and interaction ban in place (and from the brief discussion in the thread above, there appears to be consensus that this was not the case).
4. This ANI case is secondly about how Kevin McE's interacts with fellow editors.

I hope this will focus the discussion on the topics that are of relevance. Schwede66 18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, but Joseph said that he would engage with me here about his accusation against me, and so far, despite specific invitation to do so, he has not. I believe that somebody who has been accused should have the right to demand that the accuser presents themselves as accountable for that.

Also, I had raised the matter of Drmies bringing others into the conversation rather than making the requested change to the Schmidt article, and not being permitted to discuss the necessary correction to that article anywhere else, I believe I have proved that the alterations are necessary for accuracy in the only place open to me to do so.

But with the proviso that somebody corrects the erroneous article and that Joseph either retracts or justifies his accusation, I am happy to move on. Kevin McE (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that's the point. Accusing another editor of incompetence is a big deal. We've all met editors that fail

WP:CIR, but they're usually newbies, people with language issues or persistent POV-warriors. Not experienced Wikipedians with thousands of positive contributions. Yet you did it originally in the lead up to your block (amongst other things), you then did it again on Drmies' talkpage, and you've done it again in this very thread. What on earth are you thinking? Black Kite (talk)

19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing an article on selection for the European Indoor Championships as proof that an athlete was selected for a particular event in the Olympics 4 months later does not indicate... what shall I call it then? Adequate understanding of the subject matter? Does somebody disagree with that, or that that is what happened in this thread? Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Maybe you don't appreciate the gravity of the situation, Kevin McE. You may as well move on from your content dispute. What we are all waiting for is some response on the underlying behavioural pattern variously described as "harassment", "intolerant", "recurring negative behaviour", "attacking", "abusive tone", "galling ... behavior", "hounding". In case this hasn't quite got through to you yet – there is an expectation by your fellow editors that your conduct is such that you could not possibly be described by those phrases. So you better give some clear commitment that you will change your behaviour for the better or failing that, I predict that "moving on from here" will happen in the form of an indef block. Schwede66 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So I will repeat what I have already said:

That I consider those who have positioned themselves to edit the Main Page, the most visible portal of the project that is directly linked from every page, should be help responsible for the highest standards, concomitant with the mutual congratulations which they lavish upon each other;

That unresearched changes from an agreed main page text (a hook in this case) is not responsible use of the authority given to somebody operating at that stage of such a high profile project;

That edits made without an understanding of the subject matter (or of the English language, or of encyclopaedic form and tone) are not helpful and that there is little to be gained from acting as though they are;

That when an editorial sub-community closes ranks, they can become very aggressive, even if unintentionally so, to somebody challenging them to see the style of their processes from the point of view of an outsider;

That people who lack the humility to acknowledge an error has been made are not helpful for as long as they persist in that attitude.

And in relation to that last,yes, I was intemperate in my language, and regret that, but I had been frustrated several times in the preceding few days, in several issues, and in seeking to find out what had happened in this case, over the Main Page, which I occasionally visit and am frequently very disappointed at the content of. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing an article on selection for the European Indoor Championships as proof that an athlete was selected for a particular event in the Olympics 4 months later does not indicate For the second time in this thread (and I think the fourth time in all discussions): I didn't use the European Indoor Championships source to assume anything. I used one source for that Championship, and one source for the Olympics. Cut the crap creating lies about me. Even if you were correct about the one thing you've spent hours arguing (the issue seems inconclusive on that though), the harassment of multiple users on their talkpages and multiple other threads is not acceptable. And using this AN thread to re-argue with me over one line of text, instead of actually reflecting on your own aggressive attitude just proves to me that you're not here to collaborate. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE's lengthy comment here only strengthens me in my opinion. They filled up paragraphs and paragraphs about some translation matter (and unfortunately got Joseph2302 to respond, and got others dragged in as well), but none of that matters here. In fact, I hope some uninvolved admin will come along and hat all those comments. What's key here is this: "And yet it seems that Drmies responded to my comments intended to be specifically to him not by responding to me, or making the correction I requested in article space, but by inviting a bunch of people to consider themselves offended by me." The first part is, in a way, correct; I was not interested in Kevin McE responding to my request for others to weigh in, also because (and this thread proves it) they have a tendency to dig deeper when they're in a hole. But it was never about some "correction" someone requested, and saying that I invited others "to consider themselves offended" by him is just a ruse: I pinged a few admins who, perhaps in varying degrees, saw serious problems with McE's behavior. And it seems that they haven't changed their minds. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So if I am aware of an error in an article, and I am not permitted to edit that article, is it not the responsible thing to use the page I can edit to seek improvement of Wikipedia? It is not my fault if others appear more determined to defend what is there than to concede the fats of the matter. And Joseph had specifically identified this page as the one where he would engage with me, so why should I not take him up on that invitation? (even if he has not taken me up on mine). Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the person who assumes the right to call judgement on an issue is "not interested" in the person being judged having any say over the matter. If I were accused of murder I would be more clearly invited to respond.

Looking again, I see that the "inviting others to consider themselves offended" was inappropriate, but I cannot believe that the inclusion of Schwede in that set of pings was a search for a disinterested party for an objective opinion. I should not have extended that to the rest of the pings, and for that I apologise. I do believe though that responding to me would be the appropriate response to my post to your page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, I haven't looked at any of the sourcing, and I don't speak German, but I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming that you are 100% correct in everything you have said about the content and sourcing, and that everyone else was 100% wrong. Based on that assumption, it is nevertheless my view that your actions were completely out of line: you were condescending and arrogant, and accused your colleagues of either incompetence or a disregard for the quality of our content. That is unacceptable. Being collegiate =/= pussyfooting around. Being polite =/= suffering fools gladly.

This project is in dire need of good editors, but you seem to think either that insulting people will make them better editors, or that if you drive them away from a particular part of the project, they will be replaced by a ready supply of better editors. They won't: it will just leave fewer people working in that space, who will probably make more mistakes because of the increased workload. If you care about the quality of our content, you need to nurture people; give them constructive feedback in a positive way. That doesn't mean ignore their mistakes, it means bring problems to their attention, talk to them politely about how they could have acted differently, and encourage a positive environment that people might actually want to work in.

At this point, if you were to acknowledge some shortcomings in your conduct and convincingly commit to do better, I could see myself opposing sanctions: I respect the body of work you've done here, and I wouldn't throw that away lightly. However, if you're not able to see that there is a problem in the way that you approach people who you think have made a mistake, I genuinely think that a collaborative project like this is the wrong fit for you. Please reflect on that. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If the user accepts actually following the topic and interaction ban, I would be willing to accept something less than an indef block for them. And that is despite their repeated

personal attacks both previously and through lying about me multiple times on this thread. Joseph2302 (talk

) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Although considering that for the last week, all this editor has done is argue about this one sentence of text, I don't see how they're

here to positively contribute to the encylopedia. In that time, despite my alleged inability to edit anything, I've managed to create 3 articles, despite this harassment. Really says something about which of us is a useful editor, and which of us is just grinding an axe..... Joseph2302 (talk

) 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for crossing out what would have been another false accusation about me. As to my "lying about you several times", I will withdraw myself from Wikipedia and request a permablock if you can provide proof of my doing so, if, and only if, at the same time you can provide evidence of where, prior to your accusing me of doing so, I blamed you for the MP error. But if you cannot, I would consider this another false accusation against me, and I would ask you, as I have before, to retract it and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Girth Summit has it absolutely right. Kevin's been told he was bloody rude, and his response has essentially been "well, I was correct on the substance of the issue" which is a complete non-sequitur. A very large part of content work is reviewing stuff someone else has written; and most of us manage to provide such feedback on a regular basis without offending half a dozen people. If he's not willing to undertake to be more collegial, a block and/or a main-page TBAN might be indicated. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope I had made clear above, I accept that I responded intemperately, and I have recognised and apologised for my response to Drmies' pings (although I don't think he will persuade me that his response was the best one). I do believe that there is a problem with scrutiny of MP content: not that there are not several structures, but that there is a small group of editors there who are too willing to take each other's work on trust and permit changes outside of the system of checks and balances that does exist; I also believe that there is a culture there of piling on to anyone who is somewhat outside that trusted group suggesting that there is a problem there.

I do not accept that it is acceptable to make accusations and then refuse to back up said accusation.

And yes, I need to dial it back and not get affronted by errors in Wikipedia, however they were introduced, and so I need to moderate my form of addressing those who introduce errors. I just think that this project could be so much better than it is, and suspect that that would be the case if

WP:Anyone can edit. Kevin McE (talk

) 09:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that goes some way to addressing my concerns. I do not think I can support a block at this point. That said, I strongly suggest you stop making any reference to

WP:Anyone can edit philosophy might fairly be blamed for our neverending school-IP vandalism problem; it has nothing to do with who curates main-page content. Vanamonde (Talk

) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

But

WP:Anyone can edit"--doesn't that suggest that Kevin McE's counterpart in that discussion was incompetent? It still spells "I was right". Drmies (talk

) 16:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have expressed an opinion about the overall operation of Wikipedia. I did not have any individual in mind in that comment. It is possible to attribute ill-will to almost any opinion that anyone ever expresses: I hope that such projection is not going to be a principle on which conclusions are to be reached here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, It does indeed, but that was sort of the point of my post; Kevin needs to stop referring to competence altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• @
  Wikipedia:Arbcom exists as a necessity because abusive editors who are technically correct on one thing or another, were overlooked on behavior until ... well, about where this is right now. Editors who mistreat others, who can't get through a discussion without laying aside civility, should not be excused. Eventually, that editor ends up at Arbcom, several times often. Once it starts to be Arbcom level, the offending editors are often ones who have been around long enough to have a sort of fan club of other editors who make excuses for that behavior. Once you start making excuses for behavior - because, after all, they were technically correct - where does it end? Nobody likes to be a doormat. And if this mistreatment of others is not resolved here, I can see this making it up to ARBCOM in one form or another, where it will drag on and on. Nip this behavior now, please.— Maile (talk
  ) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Eventually, that editor ends up at Arbcom, several times often. Once it starts to be Arbcom level, the offending editors are often ones who have been around long enough to have a sort of fan club of other editors who make excuses for that behavior." That is not the case with me. I hope that whatever conclusions are drawn here are to be drawn on the basis of what I have said and done, not some unspecified precedent that someone thinks I am following. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly the case with you. Are you still missing the point, that this whole long discussion of you is about how you treat other editors? Snippy posts, and treating other editors as if they were your subordinates in knowledge and skill. You come across as having no tolerance for others, and are very combative. Many, if not most, of the cases at Arbcom are about an editor's conduct towards other editors. This whole long thread here, is about how you treat other editors. That, and the fact that you're absolutely sure you're right, when you're not. This is about your treatment of other editors. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The opening comment says the editor had a topic ban imposed on them, followed by a 60 hour block (presumably for violating that ban). However, they don't appear to be subject to any bans at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and the ANI discussion didn't have any closure, it seems? Is the editor actually subject to a TBAN or was that Drmies' advice/proposal because they seem to have issues in the area discussed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was still mostly at part 1 and Drmies' talk. I see Girth raised this above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Several of the comments are condescending and belittling towards other editors. It doesn't really matter whether you're right or wrong on the underlying content issue. And TBH, when you attack another editor's competence you generally put them on the defensive, which makes it harder to get anything done. For all the time sinking and animosity generated, if Kevin just pinged a German speaking editor in the first place to get clarification (even if he was certain), or just came across a bit less presumptuous perhaps (probably?) the events would've went differently. Similar for the other issues. It's plainly obvious here too, for example. You don't have to attack someone else's (editing) ability to get content changed, or to get them to agree to your proposal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the interaction ban was valid, they also violated it in Special:Diff/1038487517 (by editing the same part of an article that I'd edited, which isn't allowed in a 1-way interaction ban). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I had no knowledge that you had edited there. As can clearly be seen in my contributions history, cycling is one of my main interests, and Podmore has been a huge recent story in the cycling community. Am I to check the edit history of every page I look at? Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block – I've mulled this over for a while and have come to the conclusion that removal of edit privileges is the only sensible way forward. Several editors have tried to get Kevin McE to see that his interactions with other editors need to fundamentally change. I see no evidence that he has taken that on board. To the contrary, this very thread contains inappropriate conduct from two days ago: I just think that this project could be so much better than it is, and suspect that that would be the case if
  WP:Anyone can edit. Maile66 has summed it up well and I agree that the issue will not go away. Our choices are to let it linger (for ANI or ARBCOM having to resolve it later) or to deal with it now. Yes, the editor has a longstanding history with this project and has produced good content. But their conduct pushes other editors out. Overall, that's a net negative and we should put a stop to this. The poor behaviour is not topic-specific; it's often triggered by MP content but extends into other areas. Therefore, a TBAN can't deal with it and a block is the way to resolve this. Schwede66
  01:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reiterating what I have said to Kevin McE above, if he doesn't change his pattern of interaction with other actors, this is a sure path to Arbcom. His response was, "That is not the case with me. I hope that whatever conclusions are drawn here are to be drawn on the basis of what I have said and done ... " What he's said and done is precisely the issue. — Maile (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like ArbCom material to me, or even on that trajectory. The community is entirely able to handle this problem, and could, but it doesn't seem like a bygone that Kevin can remedy his own approach. All the incidents also seem related so a well-defined topic ban is also possible, if that fails. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

He's been with Wikipedia for 15 years, and has been the same type of editor for 15 years. This is not something that just came up, and is not isolated to one topic. Everybody else is stupid and incompetent but him. Do we wait for his 20-year anniversary before we act? — Maile (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is largely entirely limited to some recent events (i.e. this month). If you have evidence this has went on for 15 years, now would be a good time to present. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This thread has bounced around, from ANI to the talk page of here, to being moved to an individual talk page, to here. But the above is how this started. And if you want other evidence, run it down yourself by looking at his editing history. He treats everybody with disrespect. He didn't just wake up one morning and change his approach. — Maile (talk)

You're asking for an indef here, and the suggestion of ArbCom suggests you're not happy with the action/response being taken. If, as you claim, this is a problem that has occurred for 15 years, it's really on you to gather the evidence and make the complaint. It's not really reasonable to expect others to trawl through the history of an editor with 41,000 edits. ArbCom, too, says isn't in the investigation business. As for his talk page archives, they are shallow so I did look into them, but it's not too helpful that several comments don't link to the preceding incident and/or diffs. The warnings do indicate the problem may be a long-time one, but what you're asking be done is tantamount to railroading IMO. A proper discussion needs to be had to implement appropriate conduct remedies, and that starts with the proper presentation of evidence that supports the claims made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We could start by going through Kevin McE's contributions to

WP:ERRORS, which include personal attacks [2], [3] edit warring [4], [5], [6], preposterous nitpicking [7][[8], and insults over apostrophes [9].-- Pawnkingthree (talk

) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This was the original complaint before a bot archived it while the case was still open. Original post Let's see if this archived link works. After this got archived, we took it over to the talk page of Drmies who moved it to this page (I think). It isn't that I didn't provide the evidence. It's just it kept being moved all over the place, possibly losing part of it (or not). It's getting a little hard to keep track of the evidence, but it's there. If this link opens as it should, there is at least one of the listed incidents that goes back to 2006, not just something that came up recently. Please take note of a quote where he has accused an editor of "the height of irresponsibility, inconsistency and cowardice" ProcrastinatingReader if the harrassment of Schwede66 were a one-time incident, it would never have made it to ANI, or much of anyplace else. A first-time offense usually gets a warning, maybe a temporary block slap on the wrist. Look at all the posts above. People are not commenting here without a background history on this pattern. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CBAN (ie, via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute), you should provide the background history of an apparent 15 year pattern. If you just want an uninvolved admin already familiar with the issues to indef, then I dunno what we're doing here? An admin can/should just indef per their own research and, if they deem it appropriate, notify AN? But that's now largely moot, as I think Pawnkingthree's provided evidence shows a pattern. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 00:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block Continued
  MOS:DATED statement about a future event, which ultimately didn't happen. Kevin McE blames Joseph2302 for not following the DYK hook cradle to grave. Kevin McE hunts anyone in that DYK's chain for not catching what Kevin McE reported at the eleventh hour.)—Bagumba (talk
  ) 04:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated my recommendation below.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I am really at a loss as to how I can explain myself, and defend myself if I am then going to be accused of refusal to drop an issue. If you have specific questions to ask me or commitments to ask of me, then I shall answer them, but otherwise I shall be an observer. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can't explain yourself. You could stop pretending you're an observer when you keep commenting here, trying to turn a thread about your behavior into some content discussion about something. What you could do is accept from other editors that they have serious problems with your editing style and your personal attacks. You could accept, for instance, that the comments that have been highlighted here are personal attacks (because they are). Or that community members don't appreciate your promise to continue treating editors you think did something wrong will be denigrated and attacked. You could, you know, apologize to Joseph 2302, whom you seemed to have pushed into despair. But you just keep on keeping on, believing that you are right. So again, that's enough for me to say, again, indef. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I again ask Joseph, or you on his behalf, to explain what I need to apologise to him for, with diffs, because I can only find false accusations from him against me, which he has failed to substantiate. If he has genuine grounds for a grievance against me, I would of course. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place Drmies, but it's probably a good idea to mention that the short block you imposed was the second one he'd received. He was blocked April 14, 2013, by (now retired) John for BLP violations, and unblocked a few hours later by Orlady with the edit summary "On expectation that Kevin McE and John will discuss their differences on article talk page, rather than warring." Block Log, so we know this issue has been going on since 2013, documented in his block log. So, he's been at this edit warring for at least eight years. Even more reason for an Indef. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well ... competence: noun "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently." Not understanding what is acceptable in a situation, and what is not demonstrates a lack of competence. Kevin has time and again demonstrated that he's inefficient at editing, and unsuccessful at collaborating with others. My conclusion would be that a

WP:CIR indef block would be the best path forward for our project. If and when Kevin's situational awareness expands to the point where they understand how they failed at proper behavior, and is then willing to commit to improving said behavior in the future, then an unblock could be arranged. — Ched (talk

) 01:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• We're a collaborative project, and this is someone we're struggling to collaborate with. When brought to AN, the right reaction for him would have been to reassure the community about why and how he's easy to work with. Quibbling is the wrong reaction: it shows someone who puts a low value on social skills and who doesn't see any problem with their approach or any reason to change. Some people you can't work with.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think we've reached consensus, but many of us are
  WP:INVOLVED. Would a colleague who is not INVOLVED please bring this to a close? Schwede66
  03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, with the number of times that I have been misrepresented and misquoted in all this, the refusal of all participants here to answer my questions or to explain what lies and accusations I have made against Joseph, the blind eye that has been turned to my apology and undertakings herein, and the near impossibility of responding to much of what has been said without such a response being taken as evidence of quibbling, I am not optimistic, but I would hope that whoever calls judgement would be willing to consider what I have said in its own merits, and not be swayed by the bullying piling-on of the responses to it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you have made some comments above about how you were 'intemperate', but you have written a lot more words about how you were right on the content matter, and how you just feel that this project could be so much better, and how you think there is a cabal of editors who control the main page content and back each other up inappropriately (which is, frankly, inappropriate aspersion-casting). The thing you don't appear to have addressed properly is the fact that you were, as Vanamonde93 aptly puts it, bloody rude to Joseph2302 on the article talk page, and you were bloody rude to Schwede66 on his talk page. Those weren't just 'intemperate' comments, they were outright hostile and appear intended to belittle the recipients. I'd been hoping that you would make a statement to the effect that you understand that the way in which you went into those discussions was way out of line, and that you would undertake never to approach people with such hostility again if you think they have made a mistake. If you can't do that, I don't see how anyone could argue against an indef block (which does appear to have consensus at this point). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see where you've apologised to Joseph2302 for calling him a "irresponsible, insincere coward" or made any sort of commitment to improve your interactions with fellow editors, even if you feel they have made a mistake. Since you refuse to do so, I also support an indef.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I see a disconnect here. He accepts no responsibility for his own harassment of other editors. The "it's not me, it's them" attitude. Or that unidentified "cabal of editors who control the main page content and back each other up." We have provided links/diffs on the behavior, which are the evidence. Again, I say indef block. Take care of this now, so it doesn't recur, or this situation will likely progress to

WP:ARB. — Maile (talk

) 16:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Kevin McE: If everything discussed above could be undone and started again, would you do anything differently? Please give a brief explanation. I see claims above about problems regarding collaboration. Do you think there might be any reasonable basis for those claims? If so, how would that be avoided in the future? Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, Kevin McE posted at my talk to say they were unable to respond to my question at the moment but should reply tomorrow. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also request that they comment on the concern of
    WP:FORUMSHOPPING that was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_180#Alica_Schmidt_appearance_at_DYK.—Bagumba (talk
    ) 10:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't close this thread yet please, as we're awaiting replies to the above questions. On the issue itself, I'm really in two minds. Clearly there's no doubt that Kevin McE's tone to this point has been unacceptable, and needs to be improved. He
  WP:ROPE, but with the proviso that if any issues like those above occur again, it's straight to indef.  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  While he's not currently blocked, I'm waiting for a

  WP:NOTTHEM explanation.—Bagumba (talk

  ) 10:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Bagumba, that is what I expect, too. When an item was first opened about this editor 14 days ago, I stated in my first post: What I learn from that is that Kevin McE lacks an insight into the abusive tone of their communication. There have been a number of attempts by several editors since to get the user to focus on their own behaviour. None of these attempts have succeeded. I have concluded that there is no insight and without it, we cannot expect any conduct improvement. Hence my view that indef is the only way forward. Schwede66 20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. So I could throw myself prostrate before you, crying mea culpa, mea culpa; I think that would probably stretch the credibility of some here, and my dignity. More is needed. So some opinions underlying what I did. We all have opinions, and judgement should be based on actions and undertakings, not opinions: of course the opinion of others, maybe of most, will differ.

• If there is to be an active Main Page, it should be held to the highest standards. Although there are many hard working volunteers there, there is I believe a resistance to those outside that sub-community providing close scrutiny, and an acceptance within that group of what is 'good enough' rather than the very highest standard, often to keep those involved content.
• That practices such as changing a hook after it has been approved are neither conducive to MP accuracy nor respectful of the procedure of approving material.
• That the awarding of kudos and congratulatory notes can lead to a tacit "mutual aid" among those who value these, that is not always conducive to the highest standards (and therefore what should be a recognition of, and encouragement towards, the highest standards can lead to a lapse from those standards).
• When an editor believe that an unjustified accusation has been made against him/her, it is reasonable to ask that person making the accusation to either justify that accusation or to apologise and withdraw it, and that it is not responsible behaviour for the accuser to refuse to do either.
• While admirable as a goal, "anyone can edit" causes enormous problems for Wikipedia. Vandalism, failing to understand proper encyclopaedic tone, POVpushing, fanboyism, very poor English, failure to update temporary notes, ignorance of subject matter are all visible throughout Wikipedia and are all largely the result of, or exacerbated by, the freedom of anyone to edit.

So, while being true to those opinions, how do I respond to Johnuniq's question above: "If everything discussed above could be undone and started again, would you do anything differently?"

• Would I have raised the MP error on the talk page of the Schmidt article? Yes, because although Talk Pages are about the article, there should, I believe, be something to address the note that is in the talk page header.
• Would I have still taken Joseph to account for his template drop on my talk page and his accusation that I was 'blaming' him? Yes, because the template was not appropriate (and misrepresents WP:BLP), and I only asked him about his later involvement in it after he had said that I should have raised the matter 'days earlier'(I raised it within minutes of becoming aware of the existence of Alica Schmidt).
• Would I still have raised it at WT:DYK? Yes, because although I had raised it at ERRORS it was timed out of that page very shortly after, and I believe it brought to light important procedural matters that had led to such a mistake.
• Would I still have raised it at Amakuru and Schwede's talk pages? I find that hard to say, not because I support forumshopping (and I do not believe that that is what I was trying to do), but partly because Joseph told me to go to the talk pages of those who had changed the hook, partly because I suspect that MP contributors don't routinely look at the talk pages of articles that have been on MP in the days after their appearance, partly because I would prefer to point out an error quietly on someone's talkpage rather than on a more public forum, and partly because I had not at that point realised the procedural faults (faults in my perception at least, one of the opinions above) that gave rise to it merited discussion with the DYK crowd more centrally.

BUT

• Would I in future drop the challenge to Joseph more quickly, and refrain from telling him what I think of that refusal? Yes, although if I am very honest more because I doubt I will get satisfaction than because I think it is right that somebody refuse to justify or retract.
• Would I respond in the same accusatory (or "bloody rude") tone? No: I let annoyance get the better of me, and that was unfair to volunteers. I need to allow myself to be calmer before I type, to remember that we are all volunteers, that errors don't mean contempt for the encyclopaedia. The level of reprimand I have received here won't easily be forgotten.
• Would I apologise for my tone and choice of words? I do not like the side of myself that I showed in those messages, and am sorry that I showed it, and in trying to emphasise the importance (as I saw it) of the matter, I expressed anger at what procedures allow as though they were the fault of the individuals: for those things, I apologise.
• How would I deal with " people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, ... when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project"? Editors need to be told what is to be expected, and deliberately unconstructive editors what is not expected, but with reference to policies and principles, and distinguishing between the edit and the editor.

So

• I would point out that I have been here for many years, and I would be happy to defend any edit I have ever made in article space as having been genuinely intended (even if overturned by a consensus against me) to improve the encyclopaedia.
• I was given, and abided by, a block in regard to this issue, indeed, I voluntarily extended it by several days.
• I acknowledge that MP has been something of a trigger point for me: I have often gone months at a time without even looking at it, and it won't bother me if I do so again, under a topicblock if people think that just. I'll hope that someone equally pedantic holds it to the standard that I think it ought to have, but if I don't look, I won't know.
• I appreciate that, if I am reprieved at this point, it will probably be under some kind of final warning.

If there is anything else I should clarify or that you wish to challenge me to undertake, please ask. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is a decent response to the concerns. I also think Kevin's final bullet point should be the case. Allow him to continue but on a "no more chances" basis, for a period of no less than six months or a year. I can sympathise with Kevin's issues with the main page (I routinely raise around three or four issues per day with it) and can empathise with his emotional response to some of the above. When all's said and done, if we can't give someone a last chance, what's the point of even debating it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been vaguely following this discussion, and have known Kevin for a number of years from

WT:FOOTBALL. If the issue is his reaction to the main page, then issue a final warning and topic ban from the main page. If that works, great, we gave retained a useful editor. If not, and the problems persist, then we indef. GiantSnowman

20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Would I respond in the same accusatory (or "bloody rude") tone? No: I let annoyance get the better of me, and that was unfair to volunteers." Setting aside the fact that "irresponsible, insincere coward" isn't "accusatory", it's simply an awful insult, it took us eight days to get to this non-apology apology. I am not impressed. But it seems that though we have plenty of seasoned editors saying "indef block" no one is going to pull the trigger on that, and so that old "civility parole" is the best we can get. Kevin McE, you could have just simply recognized that you were guilty of a personal attack and apologized, personally, to Joseph2302 for it. Instead we get these long paragraphs and lists of bullet points, with a half-hearted apology. It is what it is, I guess. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• A Main Page ban (not just topic ban) would possibly be helpful to many of those who were the object of this editor's attacks. However, as I noted, my first experience with this attack mode was not because of the Main Page. It showed up on a talk page of an article being reviewed at FAC. This editor's attack had nothing to do with FAC, however. Original post We don't know who else may have been impacted similarly and not know about this complaint. Again, we need to take into consideration the wide spectrum of "anybody can edit". I hold out for a full Indef block. As one of the editors who has been through it, I share Drmies view. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block at this time, and issue a last final warning, with an automatic indef to follow if there's a consensus that Kevin has been rude to editors again. Unlike my respected colleagues Drmies and Maile, I think the above response by Kevin is a good, thoughtful and measured one. Yes, it would have been nice if we'd had it earlier, and it stops short of an outright apology for insulting Joseph and others. But it seems to offer some hope that, having come within a whisker of a lengthy ban, Kevin will use a more measured and friendly tone with us in the future. Maybe he'll be true to his word, maybe he won't, but we know what we have to do if it's the latter. And despite his tone, Kevin does contribute usefully to the main page process. As someone who works there a lot, I'll admit I make mistakes sometimes, and having people looking out for those mistakes is a good thing. I do believe that the main page should be "held to the highest standards". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Main page topic ban and final warning Accept Kevin McE's suggestion for an MP topic ban, indefinite and widely construed, appealable after one year. Issue final warning, appealable after one year, for failure to
  WP:LASTCHANCE.—Bagumba (talk
  ) 07:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm still in the indef block camp. There's nothing in that text about direct insults and put-downs: no commitment to stop doing it, no acknowledgement that he's ever done it in the past, no recognition that it's wrong, nothing. Nothing he's said even touches on the most problematic behaviour he's shown. A weak response from us here shows contempt and disregard for his targets.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this looks like it's stalling. Of course, the only recourse if this doesn't conclude here is a case at Arbcom. Do you all want that, or can there be some kind of compromise that the community can arrive at? Or even just a decision? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Schwede66, Joseph2302, and Drmies: and others. This does indeed look like ArbCom should handle this. I'd rather not. I'd really rather this all got resolved here. The statement of Kevin McE above is rationally worded. But none of it is a resolution to this. I would feel a lot more confident if we opened an Arbcom case, provided the diff evidence, and let them handle this as uninvolved editors. One thing that seems to stall it here, is some of us were the targets of this behavior, or have had to resolve same. We are not uninvolved parties, and this behavior pattern should have come to this page long ago. I suggest that we open an ArbCom case. Any volunteers to open the case there? — Maile (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) I'm also still in the indef block camp, as this is a lame attempt at an apology in amongst a wall of words. If the consensus is for main page topic ban and final warning, I would not lose any sleep over that. Schwede66 22:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• If someone wants to send it to Arbcom, then feel free. But I don't feel I have anything more to contribute to this, and was hoping a board full of admins could resolve this without going to the nuisance of Arbcom. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is not my normal stomping grounds, so I don't know the process for closing. I see Closure requests, but quite frankly, I think the evidence has been presented. The issue is whether or not we are ready to close. Other than a well thought-out response from Kevin McE, I really don't think his words address the issues. He promises to do better in the future. OK. And then what? Historically speaking, many who end up on these boards for their behavior, and get by on promises not to do it again, revert to their basic problem behavior. My personal perspective is an indef block from Wikipedia. Not everybody wants that, or has a consensus on what they do want. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I just don't think this is an ArbCom issue, although I can sympathise with how the editors on the receiving end feel. I do think at least some editors here are not open to any resolution other than an indef. Maile's continuous push for either an indef (she's boldwords voted indef four times) or an ArbCom case (4/5 times), combined with a refusal to link to evidence to support some of her claims, makes me feel uneasy about how this discussion is going, although it's appreciable she was on the receiving end of some of these comments. This isn't an endorsement of Kevin's behaviour, which I opined on above. On the substantive issue, I'm not one to support letting incivility run rampant, but personally I think Kevin's response shows adequate reflection and may well show a change in future approach. He doesn't come across as someone who would say something he doesn't mean just to get out of an indef (more like someone who would rather die on this hill than apologise for something he doesn't feel sorry for). Has he made false promises before? I'd probably say proceed with a topic ban from anything MP-related and a final warning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my actions, although I probably could have originally answered you more politely. Inbetween your request for diffs, and my seeing your posts, Pawnkingthree posted a sample of diffs of the period I was talking about. His diffs were right below your request. And in fact you posted to me "I think Pawnkingthree's provided evidence shows a pattern." Duh! I bolded my "Indef". Well, yeah - if you want your "Indef" or even "Neutral" to show, you bold it. A lot of others bolded theirs more than once. There is a ton of text for readers to weave through. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I was under the impression that you were preparing to close this. If not, did you have a !vote to offer? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with much of what ProcrastinatingReader wrote in the comment just above yours at 23:26, 21 August 2021. I looked for some diffs to justify an indef but couldn't find them after a few minutes. There was one over-the-top diff but Kevin McE was blocked for that. KM's reply to my question is obvious bloviation but not bad enough to warrant an indef particularly since some contributors responded favorably towards it. I don't think this needs a firm resolution because I am one of a few admins who would issue escalating blocks (or an indef) if the confrontational and corrosive attitude is aired again. If others agree that is sufficient, perhaps this could be closed with that implied warning and any further issues might be brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If it is to be a final warning it should be accompanied by a topic ban from the Main Page, which I also see consensus for (and agreement from Kevin McE as well). Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Some action is needed. Days after the last block expired, they continued a
      WP:5P4, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility, especially in the face of editing errors.—Bagumba (talk
      )
      • I'm not convinced that was BATTLEGROUND. At the previous ANI Kevin wasn't even able to comment, as he was blocked shortly after the discussion started. (The block was fair of course, as it was a consequence of Kevin writing this comment, but a side effect is that it may mean the issue isn't put to rest.) The section Kevin started on Drmies' talk was obviously tone deaf, but not BATTLEGROUND. Generally we give editors space to add their comments in community discussions re. conduct issues, explaining the events from their POV, and it's understandable an editor may have the urge to air their POV somewhere afterwards, if they can't do it at the time. Now, really, it shouldn't need to be explained to an editor with 15 years' tenure how/why you can't go around belittling other editors, but regardless I think the community has now sent that message very unambiguously. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Blocked users have access to their own talk page, and are given procedures to request an unblock, if needed. Editors are expected to
          WP:LISTEN to other's concerns.—Bagumba (talk
          ) 01:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Maile66, I have some experience with ArbCom, and if I were still on it and this were presented to us, I'd vote to not accept. I'd say that the community is capable of handling it, it just disagrees on what to do. Personally, I disagree with some of the exculpatory claims made here, but I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. Personally, I don't understand how the editor in question can look at this and not go, "well, I must have been really wrong". And as much as I disagree with much of the content of the comment made just now by Procrastinating Reader, I do agree with the last sentence. I think, Maile (and Joseph, and Schwede, and other numbered or unnumbered editors), that this is all we are going to get, and it's very disappointing, and it is what it is. What I hope for is two things: a. the editor will quietly say to themselves that they may have been fucking up and that it might be wise to act differently, and b. the admins in this thread will not walk away from what in a moral way kind of has become their responsibility: if the editor continues with the same kind of personal attacks and battleground mentality, they will place that block. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies I'm somewhat relieved that you don't think ArbCom would take this case, as it stands now. I leave it up to others for the Closure request. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's as maybe, but there's no consensus either way here. This should (and will) be closed as no action because no definitive action has any kind of consensus at all. The community has summarily failed to agree on what should happen here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• So although nearly everyone commenting here has called for some sort of action - either an outright indef, a Main Page topic ban or a final warning, including yourself who said Allow him to continue but on a "no more chances" basis, for a period of no less than six months or a year, because we haven't all agreed on one thing it should be closed as "no action"? That seems bizarre to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies and Pawnkingthree: I don't recall that I've ever posted on this notice board before. However, would it be appropriate to do one of those sub-heading options of selections like: (1) Indef block (2) Topic Ban on the Main Page (3) No action should be taken? I supposed we could make it more clear before it's closed. What is the proper procedure here? — Maile (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think
  vote count, it never hurts to bold your intentions and even backup options. In my case, I tried to make clear that I want some action (TBAN or INDEF) as opposed to none. Personally, I would assume those asking for indef block would implicitly be ok with a TBAN e.g. akin to an AfD with, say, 2 deletes and 2 redir !votes being closed as "redir" as opposed to "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk
  ) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• That kind of structure can help make the consensus clearer, but at this late stage I think we are where we are. I agree the closer should take it as obvious that those supporting the indef would also support the TBAN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Note This has been listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just to make the Topic Ban issue a little more clear for any admin who deals with this Closure Request. The original Kevin McE Topic Ban was specifically for "anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors". Now that the article is off the Main Page, that specific article is not the Topic Ban we are asking for. What has been discussed above, is that most of the attacks and other issues from Kevin McE are related to content on Wikipedia's Main Page. The Topic Ban requested here is for any issues dealing with the Main Page, since the MP content is what has triggered his disruptive editing/attacks. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Kevin McE referred to it at 20:21, 20 August 2021: I acknowledge that MP has been something of a trigger point for me: I have often gone months at a time without even looking at it, and it won't bother me if I do so again, under a topicblock if people think that just.—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, a Topic Ban might go a long ways towards soothing ruffled feathers of those who prefer an indef block. It would put the brakes on the pattern, while giving Kevin McE a chance to rerdeem himself.— Maile (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concise is nice. Is Kevin a capable writer? Yes, good even. Still, with all those words above he offered a low quality apology with the lowest possible admission of fault. While it may be a case of WP:OtherSituationsExist, other editors have been indeffed for far less. In order to fulfill the question/request above: Tban of MP as 2nd choice. — Ched (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Well - this is looking more and more like it's destined drift off into the archives like the previous thread. Hopefully Kevin will still take away the fact that he's on a very, VERY short leash at this point. — Ched (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's only one request above this at Wikipedia:Closure requests, so maybe soon. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)